Volume II · Considering Sentient Beings · chapter 9
But Aren't Humans Capable of Suffering to a Greater Degree?
Before you read study layer, not part of the original text
More complex cognition doesn't always mean suffering more: sometimes it increases suffering (anticipation), sometimes it reduces it (understanding that a treatment is for your own good); and lesser cognition usually comes with greater vulnerability.
An adult getting a shot knows the poke is quick and good for them. A kitten taken to the vet doesn't understand anything and can get terrified. Sometimes the one who understands less suffers more.
A passenger who knows turbulence is normal stays calm; another, who knows nothing about planes, panics. Knowing more can either calm you down or scare you.
- P1 The thesis says humans always suffer more because they have more sophisticated cognition.
- P2 In many situations, those who understand less suffer more, because they don't grasp what's happening.
- P3 Moreover, lower cognitive capacity usually increases vulnerability.
- P4 And even if someone suffered less, that wouldn't justify disregarding them.
- C Therefore, a higher degree of cognition doesn't justify the treatment given to animals.
The chapter’s central argument in logical form. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. To disagree, you have to show which premise is false.
They say “Humans suffer more because they understand what's happening to them.”
Answer Sometimes; sometimes it's the other way around. An animal caught to be given medicine may panic, thinking he's going to die. And suffering a little less would never justify suffering for nothing.
More objections and answers in Debunking objections.
Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume II, p. 32 of the PDF edition · English translation
It is sometimes argued that prioritizing humans is consistent with equal consideration. The reason for this would be that, because of their more sophisticated cognitive capacities, humans would suffer more intensely. For example, they are capable of suffering from anticipating and remembering negative events.
It is true that greater cognitive capacity sometimes entails greater suffering. For example, only someone who understands that they will be killed a week from now is capable of suffering in anticipation. Only someone who remembers violence they suffered a few decades ago is capable of suffering through recollection. However, in many other cases it is lesser cognitive capacity that entails greater suffering. For example, nonhuman animals and young children typically suffer more when given an injection or medication precisely because they do not understand that they are being helped by it. Moreover, beings with greater cognitive capacities can also have their present suffering relieved by remembering or anticipating positive events, something impossible for beings who lack this capacity36.
Moreover, lesser cognitive capacity usually comes with greater vulnerability. That is why babies or adults with a cognitive impairment need much more care than normal adults do.
Of course, there may be cases in which someone has greater cognitive capacity and also greater vulnerability. For example, someone with the mental faculties of a normal adult human who is quadriplegic is more vulnerable than a young child. However, if, in addition to being quadriplegic, they also had reduced cognitive capacities, they would be even more vulnerable. In other words, even though a lower degree of cognitive capacity does not by itself determine someone's level of vulnerability, it always contributes to increasing it.
Therefore, greater cognitive capacity does not always entail greater harm. In fact, given the relationship between lesser cognitive capacity and vulnerability, in most cases exactly the opposite is true.
Practice
Study layer. The answers are based on the chapter’s text.
In which situation does more complex cognition reduce suffering?
Why do babies and adults with cognitive impairments need more care?
Food for thought
Have you ever seen an animal very scared of something you knew wasn't dangerous? Was what he felt any smaller because he didn't understand?
Sources cited in this text 1
The full list for the volume is in the Volume II references.
- ROLLIN, B. The unheeded cry: animal consciousness, animal pain and science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
This chapter in Volume XII
How the author sums up this debate in The Essentials of Animal Ethics.
Humans are capable of suffering to a greater degree, owing to their high degree of cognition. Therefore, the standard treatment given to nonhuman animals is justified. (II, ch. 9).
Recommended texts
Keep exploring Considering Sentient Beings.
What Would We Decide Under Conditions of Impartiality?
A decision is fair if it's the one we would choose without knowing which position we'd occupy among those…
Testing Whether an Attitude Is Speciesist
An attitude is speciesist if it's unfair to sentient beings because of their species; we can test it by…
How Much Importance Should We Give to the Situation of Animals?
Faced with “why worry about animals when so many humans need help?”, the chapter shows that, by severity,…