The criticism
Some people say there are ways to harm someone that don't change their experiences. For example: badmouthing someone behind their back without them ever finding out, or disregarding someone's wishes after they've died. If that's a harm, then isn't it more than just sentience that matters?
Separating two things
The author shows we need to separate:
- the sentience standard: the idea that only beings who feel can be harmed or helped;
- a theory about what's good for those who feel. One of these, called hedonism, says only experiences (pleasure and pain) count.
The answer
The examples above might be an objection to hedonism. For example, maybe disregarding someone's preferences harms them even if they don't notice.
But they are not an objection to the sentience standard. Notice: in all these examples, the victim is a sentient being. It only makes sense to talk about disregarding the preferences of someone who has preferences, and only those who feel have preferences.
A rock or a mountain can't be badmouthed or have its wishes disregarded, because it has no point of view at all.
In short
- There may be harms that don't change what someone feels.
- That questions hedonism, not the sentience standard.
- Even those harms only affect sentient beings.