You claim that nature 'requires' x of us, and that we have evolved to do x. But (sorry if I sound like a broken record...) neither of these are particular good guides to how we should behave. If it's geniunely impossible for us to not-x (i.e., that we x is a law of the universe or something), then yes, that's a decent argument that we're…
You claim that nature 'requires' x of us, and that we have evolved to do x. But (sorry if I sound like a broken record...) neither of these are particular good guides to how we should behave. If it's geniunely impossible for us to not-x (i.e., that we x is a law of the universe or something), then yes, that's a decent argument that we're required 'by nature' to x. But it's not a law of nature that we 'must' send chickens to slaughterhouses.
You claim that I am arguing for a paradigm shift. I am. But that does not make what I'm arguing for 'utopian' in the sense of it being unreachable. Maybe what I'm arguing for is unreachable. But you're going to need to offer more argument for it being unreachable than simply that it is a paradigm shift. (If you mean something else by 'utopian', please clarify.)
I don't think I referred to 'preferences' once in the article or the subsequent conversation. I have made a claim about the interests that animals have -- not their expressed preferences. So I reject your claim that I am making 'assertions' about expressed preferences.
And yes, notions of sentience, consciousness, and qualia are contested and complex. I don't think I've denied that, either. These subjects are difficult, but that's not really an argument against my claims. Equally, getting a handle on what 'democracy' is is difficult. That's not a good argument against democracy. There may be good arguments against democracy -- but that isn't one.
And yes, plants (and fungi, and other forms of life) seem, in many cases, to be far more sophisticated than we have traditionally given them credit for. But they're not sentient -- or, at the very least, we have very little reason to believe that they are sentient. I've read plenty of work from those in 'plant studies' and 'plant neurobiology', and these fall far short of showing that plants are conscious or sentient (without twisting the meaning of these words). I'm happy to explore this issue, but I suggest that you don't really believe that plants are sentient. Whether sentience and consciousness are contested ideas or not, I don't think I've ever met anyone who doesn't recognise the difference between stepping on a mouse and stepping on a daffodil.
You are talking about a paradigm shift away from something that has been fundamental to our species for tens of thousands of years. We will have to disagree as to whether that is utopian. And given what a drastic departure it is, I believe the onus is on you to justify it.
Your wrote "A chicken—like a human but unlike a sunflower—has an interest in avoiding things that make their life become worse." Seems to me that preferences are clearly implied--for "avoiding things" that make their life "worse."
One can quibble about the finer points of the definition of democracy and still have one. But you are arguing for a paradigm shift based on something the very existence of is contested. Not comparable at all.
I am not saying that what I'm proposing can be achieved tomorrow. And I am happy to point to ways that what I am talking about might be acheivable (indeed, I have already done this -- I've not offered a complete story, of course). But I suppose I'm not quite clear on what you think is so impossible about what I'm proposing. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you haven't explained this, beyond saying that it's a big jump from where we are now -- which I don't deny. Again, there's nothing fundamental to our nature as human beings that means we have to send chickens to slaughterhouses. We could relate to animals differently, if that's what we collectively chose to do.
No, preferences are not implied by my talk of interests and welfare. We can talk about welfare/interests without talking about preferences -- or, we can on many theories of welfare. Perhaps you're drawn to a preference-satisfaction theory of welfare, according to which welfare and preferences are inherently linked. But that's not the only theory of welfare. I'm not committed to a preference-based account of welfare, though I am open to it.
On democracy: Ok, so we are in agreement that my use of contested concepts doesn't undermine my argument. We agree that we can build political principles (indeed, whole political systems) on ideas that are contested and not fully clear. But now your worry is that I'm arguing for a paradigm shift based on something the very existence of which is contested. That's correct. But that's no different to arguing for a political system based on human rights. After all, lots of people -- including perfectly decent people with coherent, defensible moral and political theories -- reject the idea of human rights.
You claim that nature 'requires' x of us, and that we have evolved to do x. But (sorry if I sound like a broken record...) neither of these are particular good guides to how we should behave. If it's geniunely impossible for us to not-x (i.e., that we x is a law of the universe or something), then yes, that's a decent argument that we're required 'by nature' to x. But it's not a law of nature that we 'must' send chickens to slaughterhouses.
You claim that I am arguing for a paradigm shift. I am. But that does not make what I'm arguing for 'utopian' in the sense of it being unreachable. Maybe what I'm arguing for is unreachable. But you're going to need to offer more argument for it being unreachable than simply that it is a paradigm shift. (If you mean something else by 'utopian', please clarify.)
I don't think I referred to 'preferences' once in the article or the subsequent conversation. I have made a claim about the interests that animals have -- not their expressed preferences. So I reject your claim that I am making 'assertions' about expressed preferences.
And yes, notions of sentience, consciousness, and qualia are contested and complex. I don't think I've denied that, either. These subjects are difficult, but that's not really an argument against my claims. Equally, getting a handle on what 'democracy' is is difficult. That's not a good argument against democracy. There may be good arguments against democracy -- but that isn't one.
And yes, plants (and fungi, and other forms of life) seem, in many cases, to be far more sophisticated than we have traditionally given them credit for. But they're not sentient -- or, at the very least, we have very little reason to believe that they are sentient. I've read plenty of work from those in 'plant studies' and 'plant neurobiology', and these fall far short of showing that plants are conscious or sentient (without twisting the meaning of these words). I'm happy to explore this issue, but I suggest that you don't really believe that plants are sentient. Whether sentience and consciousness are contested ideas or not, I don't think I've ever met anyone who doesn't recognise the difference between stepping on a mouse and stepping on a daffodil.
You are talking about a paradigm shift away from something that has been fundamental to our species for tens of thousands of years. We will have to disagree as to whether that is utopian. And given what a drastic departure it is, I believe the onus is on you to justify it.
Your wrote "A chicken—like a human but unlike a sunflower—has an interest in avoiding things that make their life become worse." Seems to me that preferences are clearly implied--for "avoiding things" that make their life "worse."
One can quibble about the finer points of the definition of democracy and still have one. But you are arguing for a paradigm shift based on something the very existence of is contested. Not comparable at all.
I am not saying that what I'm proposing can be achieved tomorrow. And I am happy to point to ways that what I am talking about might be acheivable (indeed, I have already done this -- I've not offered a complete story, of course). But I suppose I'm not quite clear on what you think is so impossible about what I'm proposing. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you haven't explained this, beyond saying that it's a big jump from where we are now -- which I don't deny. Again, there's nothing fundamental to our nature as human beings that means we have to send chickens to slaughterhouses. We could relate to animals differently, if that's what we collectively chose to do.
No, preferences are not implied by my talk of interests and welfare. We can talk about welfare/interests without talking about preferences -- or, we can on many theories of welfare. Perhaps you're drawn to a preference-satisfaction theory of welfare, according to which welfare and preferences are inherently linked. But that's not the only theory of welfare. I'm not committed to a preference-based account of welfare, though I am open to it.
On democracy: Ok, so we are in agreement that my use of contested concepts doesn't undermine my argument. We agree that we can build political principles (indeed, whole political systems) on ideas that are contested and not fully clear. But now your worry is that I'm arguing for a paradigm shift based on something the very existence of which is contested. That's correct. But that's no different to arguing for a political system based on human rights. After all, lots of people -- including perfectly decent people with coherent, defensible moral and political theories -- reject the idea of human rights.