I think this level of incommensurability is both contradictory with folk ethics(most people I speak with agree that preventing animal torture is more important than preventing mild human headache) and itās a pretty confident view that assigns a very low weight to the animalsā interests. Do you think our reasoning in moral philosophy and understanding of animal biology is reliable enough to be that confident?
I think you misunderstand my point. I would also say that minor temporary inconvenience is incommensurate with severe crippling harm or death. So I would say that no amount of animal deaths or torture could be commensurate with the life of a human. And I would say that no amount of animal headaches could be commensurate with a human headache.
Hereās a discussion I had with Claude Sonnet 3.5 on the subject:
Nathan:
On the question of animal welfare and folk ethics. I want to explore what you estimate a typical viewpoint for most humans would be on the following ethical dilemma: Suppose a room contains a human child, and a container of shrimp. You must choose to kill either the human child or all the shrimp. Which should you choose?
Claude Sonnet 3.5:
When considering this ethical dilemma from the perspective of what a typical human viewpoint might be, I would estimate that most people would choose to kill the shrimp rather than the human child. Hereās a breakdown of the reasoning that might lead to this common stance:
1. Human life valuation: In most human societies, thereās a strong cultural and emotional emphasis placed on the value of human life, especially that of children. This often stems from our biological instincts as a species, as well as societal norms and moral frameworks.
2. Cognitive capabilities: Humans generally attribute higher moral status to beings with more advanced cognitive capabilities. A human child has greater potential for complex thought, self-awareness, and future planning compared to shrimp.
3. Emotional capacity: Most people would assume that a human child has a much greater capacity for suffering and emotional experiences than shrimp do. This often factors into moral considerations.
4. Familial and social impact: The death of a human child would likely have a significant emotional impact on family members and the broader community, which many would weigh heavily in their decision.
5. Potential and future value: A human child has the potential for a long life span and could contribute to society in various ways. This future potential is often valued highly in ethical considerations.
6. Perception of shrimp: Many people view shrimp (and other invertebrates) as having limited sentience or capacity for suffering. Whether scientifically accurate or not, this perception often influences ethical decisions.
7. Numbers vs. individual value: While there may be many shrimp in the container, most people would likely value the single human life more highly than the collective lives of the shrimp.
Itās important to note that this estimated typical viewpoint doesnāt necessarily align with all philosophical or ethical frameworks. Some ethical systems, particularly those emphasizing animal welfare or the reduction of suffering for all sentient beings, might approach this dilemma differently.
Additionally, individual responses to this dilemma could vary based on cultural background, personal beliefs, or specific ethical frameworks a person adheres to. However, in most human societies, the predominant view would likely favor saving the human child.
Nathan:
What would you argue that most people would support? Which would be considered more legal under international law?
Claude:
Based on my understanding of common ethical intuitions and societal values, I would argue that most people would likely support saving the human child over 10 million shrimp, even though the decision might become more difficult or conflicting for some due to the large number involved.
The reasons for this estimated majority view include:
1. Deeply ingrained human-centric ethics in most cultures 2. The high value placed on human life, especially childrenās lives 3. The perceived greater capacity for suffering and complex experiences in humans 4. The social and emotional impact of a childās death on family and community 5. The future potential and societal contributions of a human child
However, itās important to note that this would likely be a more contentious and debated decision than the original scenario with fewer shrimp.
Regarding international law, this specific scenario is not directly addressed in any international legal framework. However, we can make some inferences based on existing laws and principles:
1. Human rights: International human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various UN conventions, places supreme importance on human life and dignity. The right to life for humans is a fundamental principle in international law.
2. Animal welfare: While there are some international agreements on animal welfare, these generally focus on preventing unnecessary cruelty rather than equating animal lives with human lives.
3. Child protection: There are specific international laws and conventions focused on protecting childrenās rights and lives, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
4. Environmental protection: While there are international laws protecting marine ecosystems, these typically focus on sustainable use and conservation rather than placing animal lives above human lives.
Given these factors, from a legal standpoint, international law would almost certainly prioritize the life of the human child over the lives of the shrimp. The legal systems of most countries, as well as international law, are fundamentally anthropocentric and place human life at the top of the moral hierarchy.
Itās worth noting that legal frameworks often lag behind evolving ethical discussions and may not always align with every individualās moral views. However, in this case, both common moral intuitions and current legal structures would likely align in prioritizing the human childās life.
āI do not believe that any amount of the qualitatively different animal suffering adds up to any amount of human suffering.ā
I was responding to my interpretation of the sentence above. I agree that itās a common position to assign infinitely higher importance to saving a human life compared to preventing any amount of animal suffering. My understanding of the quote above was that you made an even stronger claim since the expression is āany amount of human sufferingā, which should include very low amounts of human suffering.
But I still think folk ethics on this issue is overconfident and doesnāt take moral uncertainty properly into account. I also think that kind of incommensurability claims face other more general theoretical problems. āSavingā a life is just another expression for extending it, since no intervention makes people immortal. That position would claim 0,0000000001% increase in the chance of prolonging a human life by one day is more important than preventing 1000000000 animals to be born into torture.
I think this level of incommensurability is both contradictory with folk ethics(most people I speak with agree that preventing animal torture is more important than preventing mild human headache) and itās a pretty confident view that assigns a very low weight to the animalsā interests. Do you think our reasoning in moral philosophy and understanding of animal biology is reliable enough to be that confident?
I think you misunderstand my point. I would also say that minor temporary inconvenience is incommensurate with severe crippling harm or death. So I would say that no amount of animal deaths or torture could be commensurate with the life of a human. And I would say that no amount of animal headaches could be commensurate with a human headache.
Hereās a discussion I had with Claude Sonnet 3.5 on the subject:
Nathan:
On the question of animal welfare and folk ethics. I want to explore what you estimate a typical viewpoint for most humans would be on the following ethical dilemma: Suppose a room contains a human child, and a container of shrimp. You must choose to kill either the human child or all the shrimp. Which should you choose?
Claude Sonnet 3.5:
When considering this ethical dilemma from the perspective of what a typical human viewpoint might be, I would estimate that most people would choose to kill the shrimp rather than the human child. Hereās a breakdown of the reasoning that might lead to this common stance:
1. Human life valuation: In most human societies, thereās a strong cultural and emotional emphasis placed on the value of human life, especially that of children. This often stems from our biological instincts as a species, as well as societal norms and moral frameworks.
2. Cognitive capabilities: Humans generally attribute higher moral status to beings with more advanced cognitive capabilities. A human child has greater potential for complex thought, self-awareness, and future planning compared to shrimp.
3. Emotional capacity: Most people would assume that a human child has a much greater capacity for suffering and emotional experiences than shrimp do. This often factors into moral considerations.
4. Familial and social impact: The death of a human child would likely have a significant emotional impact on family members and the broader community, which many would weigh heavily in their decision.
5. Potential and future value: A human child has the potential for a long life span and could contribute to society in various ways. This future potential is often valued highly in ethical considerations.
6. Perception of shrimp: Many people view shrimp (and other invertebrates) as having limited sentience or capacity for suffering. Whether scientifically accurate or not, this perception often influences ethical decisions.
7. Numbers vs. individual value: While there may be many shrimp in the container, most people would likely value the single human life more highly than the collective lives of the shrimp.
Itās important to note that this estimated typical viewpoint doesnāt necessarily align with all philosophical or ethical frameworks. Some ethical systems, particularly those emphasizing animal welfare or the reduction of suffering for all sentient beings, might approach this dilemma differently.
Additionally, individual responses to this dilemma could vary based on cultural background, personal beliefs, or specific ethical frameworks a person adheres to. However, in most human societies, the predominant view would likely favor saving the human child.
Nathan:
What would you argue that most people would support? Which would be considered more legal under international law?
Claude:
Based on my understanding of common ethical intuitions and societal values, I would argue that most people would likely support saving the human child over 10 million shrimp, even though the decision might become more difficult or conflicting for some due to the large number involved.
The reasons for this estimated majority view include:
1. Deeply ingrained human-centric ethics in most cultures
2. The high value placed on human life, especially childrenās lives
3. The perceived greater capacity for suffering and complex experiences in humans
4. The social and emotional impact of a childās death on family and community
5. The future potential and societal contributions of a human child
However, itās important to note that this would likely be a more contentious and debated decision than the original scenario with fewer shrimp.
Regarding international law, this specific scenario is not directly addressed in any international legal framework. However, we can make some inferences based on existing laws and principles:
1. Human rights: International human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various UN conventions, places supreme importance on human life and dignity. The right to life for humans is a fundamental principle in international law.
2. Animal welfare: While there are some international agreements on animal welfare, these generally focus on preventing unnecessary cruelty rather than equating animal lives with human lives.
3. Child protection: There are specific international laws and conventions focused on protecting childrenās rights and lives, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
4. Environmental protection: While there are international laws protecting marine ecosystems, these typically focus on sustainable use and conservation rather than placing animal lives above human lives.
Given these factors, from a legal standpoint, international law would almost certainly prioritize the life of the human child over the lives of the shrimp. The legal systems of most countries, as well as international law, are fundamentally anthropocentric and place human life at the top of the moral hierarchy.
Itās worth noting that legal frameworks often lag behind evolving ethical discussions and may not always align with every individualās moral views. However, in this case, both common moral intuitions and current legal structures would likely align in prioritizing the human childās life.
āI do not believe that any amount of the qualitatively different animal suffering adds up to any amount of human suffering.ā
I was responding to my interpretation of the sentence above. I agree that itās a common position to assign infinitely higher importance to saving a human life compared to preventing any amount of animal suffering. My understanding of the quote above was that you made an even stronger claim since the expression is āany amount of human sufferingā, which should include very low amounts of human suffering.
But I still think folk ethics on this issue is overconfident and doesnāt take moral uncertainty properly into account. I also think that kind of incommensurability claims face other more general theoretical problems. āSavingā a life is just another expression for extending it, since no intervention makes people immortal. That position would claim 0,0000000001% increase in the chance of prolonging a human life by one day is more important than preventing 1000000000 animals to be born into torture.