A couple of days back I made a post about the nature of the soul. Eventually, someone stated that the concept of “the soul” is in fact an ancient error. This made me do some thinking and I have now discarded the concept.
If we don’t have souls, then to what do we attribute our sentience and powers of agency? I’d say consciousness. Consciousness is a much better concept than the soul. We know that it exists. We know that we ourselves are conscious (we think therefore we are) and via the use of empathy we can say that others are too. We can observe it in systems of cause and effect. And we can observe both suffering and joy, as states of consciousness. I no longer believe that anyone has a “soul” – instead I believe we are all conscious – whether we are biological or technological in nature (as a Simulist I believe all conscious beings are in fact programs within a computer simulation).
But here’s a thing: animals are conscious. This cannot be denied in the same way that we can deny that they have souls. We can plainly observe that beasts can feel pain and can suffer. If cruelty to humans should be avoided because suffering and harm is bad then I’d say the suffering of animals should be valued as equally bad: suffering is suffering, regardless of the characteristics of the subject. Just because beasts cannot articulate pain and suffering as we can doesn’t mean their pain and suffering are any less real than it is for us humans – and doesn’t mean we have any less of a duty to either stop or prevent it.
I believe that “human” is a sub-set of “person” and that “animal” is also a sub-set of “person” – and I define personhood as what one has if one is conscious: Contrast “person” with “commodity”. I believe that personhood entitles one to be ethically treated. Of course, personhood comes in all shapes and sizes. And treating Being A equally, in the same spirit as Being B does not mean treating them the same in practical terms – e.g. how one should treat a human with compassion and dignity is different from how one should treat a wild animal with compassion and dignity.
If a maxim (e.g. “cause no harm”) can be applied to one type of conscious being (on account of harm being negatively valued in our moral and practical calculations) then why can it not be applied to other beings that are endowed with the same ability to suffer? Why is the suffering of a beast seen as less undesirable than the suffering of a human? The ethical spirit in which we treat humans should I think be extended to animals, as when it comes to consciousness humans and animals are demonstrably equal, so should therefore be treated in the same spirit, as though both are parts of the same family of life. Logically, I’d say that if we should be ethical to humans then we should be just as ethical to animals too as the reasons for being ethical to humans also applies to animals.
On account of all this, I now firmly believe in veganism – primarily for ethical reasons (but there are other concerns) – and intend to live my life accordingly. I now believe that eating should be about survival and fellowship, not stuffing one’s face. And that it should be done as ethically as possible.
Basically: people should go vegan - discuss.
If we don’t have souls, then to what do we attribute our sentience and powers of agency? I’d say consciousness. Consciousness is a much better concept than the soul. We know that it exists. We know that we ourselves are conscious (we think therefore we are) and via the use of empathy we can say that others are too. We can observe it in systems of cause and effect. And we can observe both suffering and joy, as states of consciousness. I no longer believe that anyone has a “soul” – instead I believe we are all conscious – whether we are biological or technological in nature (as a Simulist I believe all conscious beings are in fact programs within a computer simulation).
But here’s a thing: animals are conscious. This cannot be denied in the same way that we can deny that they have souls. We can plainly observe that beasts can feel pain and can suffer. If cruelty to humans should be avoided because suffering and harm is bad then I’d say the suffering of animals should be valued as equally bad: suffering is suffering, regardless of the characteristics of the subject. Just because beasts cannot articulate pain and suffering as we can doesn’t mean their pain and suffering are any less real than it is for us humans – and doesn’t mean we have any less of a duty to either stop or prevent it.
I believe that “human” is a sub-set of “person” and that “animal” is also a sub-set of “person” – and I define personhood as what one has if one is conscious: Contrast “person” with “commodity”. I believe that personhood entitles one to be ethically treated. Of course, personhood comes in all shapes and sizes. And treating Being A equally, in the same spirit as Being B does not mean treating them the same in practical terms – e.g. how one should treat a human with compassion and dignity is different from how one should treat a wild animal with compassion and dignity.
If a maxim (e.g. “cause no harm”) can be applied to one type of conscious being (on account of harm being negatively valued in our moral and practical calculations) then why can it not be applied to other beings that are endowed with the same ability to suffer? Why is the suffering of a beast seen as less undesirable than the suffering of a human? The ethical spirit in which we treat humans should I think be extended to animals, as when it comes to consciousness humans and animals are demonstrably equal, so should therefore be treated in the same spirit, as though both are parts of the same family of life. Logically, I’d say that if we should be ethical to humans then we should be just as ethical to animals too as the reasons for being ethical to humans also applies to animals.
On account of all this, I now firmly believe in veganism – primarily for ethical reasons (but there are other concerns) – and intend to live my life accordingly. I now believe that eating should be about survival and fellowship, not stuffing one’s face. And that it should be done as ethically as possible.
Basically: people should go vegan - discuss.
