I don’t doubt that the zebra has a worse time than the lion has a good time.
Yes, I know. But it’s much greater. As in, many times greater.
And I don’t know what you mean by ‘pleasure as an interesting variable in and of itself’. I take pleasure as a synonym for happiness as state that in my definition.
I mean the pleasure of eating another animal, as separated from the pleasure of eating simpliciter.
I would expect the pleasure a lion gets from eating zebra is greater than the pleasure a zebra gets from eating grass for the following reason: lions literally have to chase and kill their prey. It’s a lot of effort and risks injury and death to the lion if it gets kicked, etc. So you’d expect lions would need stronger incentives to overcome their fear of pain, and so on. The zebra just needs to bend its neck when it’s hungry.
If lions suffer from extra effort and injuries in the process of hunting, then the net happiness of predators is going to be less, ceteris paribus. You hypothesize that the pleasure they get is more, to counterbalance it, but that just takes you back to the original point that there is no reason to view their happiness as different from that of herbivores.
I don’t know what you mean by “The happiness of a predator can be expected to be similar to the base rate for ordinary large animal lives in the wild”. Which ordinary animals are you thinking about?
Other animals in general. Lions equal to zebras, perhaps. (On average.) I’m saying that introducing happiness-from-predation as a separate line of analysis is flawed because it implies double counting—imagine if one made two arguments; one that we need to take into consideration all kinds of ordinary happiness in daily life, and a second that we need to take into consideration the fuzzy warmth of sleeping in the sun. Clearly the second is just part of the first, because it’s just another ordinary part of how some animals are motivated in their daily lives. It’s the same thing with pleasure from killing.
As we probably all agree, the pleasure per unit time for eating a zebra is probably higher than the pleasure per unit time for eating grass. (Compare the human experience of eating steak with that of eating kale.) But zebras eat grass for much longer.
Eating grass (and any food) can also involve unpleasantness if you’re eating low-quality food (as well as if you’re nervous about predators or conspecifics, etc.).
Yes, I know. But it’s much greater. As in, many times greater.
I mean the pleasure of eating another animal, as separated from the pleasure of eating simpliciter.
If lions suffer from extra effort and injuries in the process of hunting, then the net happiness of predators is going to be less, ceteris paribus. You hypothesize that the pleasure they get is more, to counterbalance it, but that just takes you back to the original point that there is no reason to view their happiness as different from that of herbivores.
Other animals in general. Lions equal to zebras, perhaps. (On average.) I’m saying that introducing happiness-from-predation as a separate line of analysis is flawed because it implies double counting—imagine if one made two arguments; one that we need to take into consideration all kinds of ordinary happiness in daily life, and a second that we need to take into consideration the fuzzy warmth of sleeping in the sun. Clearly the second is just part of the first, because it’s just another ordinary part of how some animals are motivated in their daily lives. It’s the same thing with pleasure from killing.
As we probably all agree, the pleasure per unit time for eating a zebra is probably higher than the pleasure per unit time for eating grass. (Compare the human experience of eating steak with that of eating kale.) But zebras eat grass for much longer.
Eating grass (and any food) can also involve unpleasantness if you’re eating low-quality food (as well as if you’re nervous about predators or conspecifics, etc.).