The objection
"We don't have proof that animals feel. So we don't need to take them into account." The text looks at this idea.
First answer: the evidence
Today there is a lot of scientific evidence that many animals are sentient. That's already the view of most scientists. But the author admits this won't convince a hardcore skeptic.
The skeptic's problem
The skeptic says: "The only sentience I can prove for sure is my own, because only I feel what I feel."
But if that were a reason not to consider animals, it would also be a reason not to consider other humans. You can't feel your friend's pain from the inside either. Nobody accepts ignoring other people because of that.
Also: someone who says a being doesn't feel also has to give reasons. If an animal has a brain and nerves and runs away from pain, why would we think it doesn't feel?
The benefit of the doubt
The text presents the benefit of the doubt principle (also called the precautionary principle). It says: if there's a real chance a being can feel, we should treat it as someone who feels.
Think about the two possible mistakes:
- treating someone as sentient when they don't feel: costs little;
- treating someone who feels as a thing: can cause enormous suffering.
The second mistake is much worse. So it makes sense to err on the side of care.
What if there are degrees of doubt?
Some people say: "The more doubt there is, the less they should count." The author discusses this idea and shows that when the possible harm is big and the cost of caring is small, doubt doesn't justify treating someone badly.
In short
- Today there's a lot of evidence that many animals feel.
- The skeptic's doubt would apply to other humans too.
- When in doubt, we should give consideration: the mistake of not giving it is much worse.