Hacker News Reader

Comment by StavrosK | Hacker News Reader

Humans are animals too, and we empathize with them, so there has to be a line somewhere. You either don't empathize with anyone, or you empathize with everyone.

We currently believe that it's worth sacrificing mice to make people's lives better, but we would do that, we're people. Hopefully, in the future, no living being will have to suffer for any reason.

> Canidae in nature have no problem with killing or inflicting suffering btw.

If you want to be held to the standards of dogs, nobody will stop you. I'd like to think I know better.

View on HN

Morality applies between humans. Dogs, bears, sharks have no problem tearing you into pieces if their instincts tell them they have to. Other hunting animals have no problem eating their pray alive if they don't have to kill them first. Animals don't play by our rules.

Empathy towards animals really is a side-effect of empathy mechanisms between humans, that we probably need in order to live in society. These side effects shouldn't influence too much your attitude toward animals.

I disagree. I believe that beings that are capable of feeling pain shouldn't.

>so there has to be a line somewhere.

And that line is human consciousness.

I empathize with humans and animals too(especially mammalian), of course. But I choose not to be swayed by feelings when I think about policy. Preservation of nature doesn't require empathy, and justice among humans doesn't require it after utilitarian principle is chosen.

Domesticated animals are born and live for our utility. As long as we don't consider animal pet ownership as equal to slavery, I don't see how animal experimentation is problematic.

Human consciousness is entirely arbitrary. There's no definition that will include all humans and only all humans.

"And you my friend, how do you know I am not a fish — you are not I?" ;) It's splitting hairs... Yes of course there is no absolutely precise definition of human consciousness, but it does not mean that the term becomes useless. I can't draw a precise line between a plain and a mountain (where does one start and the other end?), but it does not mean I can never tell about anything that it's not a mountain

The term doesn't become useless, but it becomes non-usable where laws and morality are concerned. Should we experiment on cognitively impaired people because they are less intelligent than a dog or a dolphin? How about month-old babies?

Or in another way. The fact that we do not differentiate (in terms of "life value") between mentally handicapped, or otherwise helpless humans and the rest, is a result of a separate ethical choice that regulates relations between us as human individuals. This choice does not logically require accepting the notion of any animal rights.

Intelligence and consciousness are not synonymous at all. As for the month-old babies (or a boxer knocked unconscious - not as cute, but still ;) ), I think consciousness in this context should be understood as something specific of our species as such, rather than of any individual in particular.

What is "human consciousness"?

These are the so-called "suitcase words". They're neat and compact, but once you open the suitcase, you realize you had no idea what was inside.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com