The idea being debated
Some people say: "Intellectual pleasures, like reading a book or playing chess, are worth more than simple pleasures. Since animals don't have intellectual pleasures, they lose little when they die."
Problem 1: are intellectual pleasures worth more?
It's not obvious. Think about two experiences:
- spending an afternoon with someone you really love;
- playing a game of chess.
The first isn't intellectual. The second is. But if both bring the same satisfaction and last the same amount of time, why would one be worth more than the other for the one living them?
Eating something tasty, resting somewhere warm, playing, and having company are very good things, even though they don't take complex reasoning.
Problem 2: even so, simple pleasures are worth a lot
This is the main problem. Even if intellectual pleasures were worth a bit more, that does not mean simple pleasures are worth little or nothing.
A baby doesn't play chess. Still, nobody says a baby's death is a small harm because the baby has no intellectual pleasures.
In short
- It hasn't been proven that intellectual pleasures are worth more.
- Even if they were, simple pleasures would still be valuable.
- So death is a big harm for animals too.