Wild animals suffer more than they flourish. This should be obvious to vegetarians. As it is obvious that our own prey suffer more than benefit from their consumption, it should be obvious that wild prey suffer more than their predators benefit. We are not perfectly energy efficient, nor is any predator. Our energy goes to maintaining our bodies and dissolves into heat. We, like all predators, consume our body weight many-fold on a yearly basis. Although predators are more complex than their prey, this is not by the same order of magnitude. So on average, predators are living unethically. If we could remove all predators, it would be of net benefit. So, if it was possible, we might destroy those at the top of the food chain first. The sharks, the lions and son on. We would then kill those on the next rung down. Once each rung is removed, the next would be a predator that, all things being equal, has an unethical diet and ought to be killed. We would keep going until we had doubts about the consciousness of these prey. But even then, would we wish for bugs, for instance, to persist in eating grass. Probably, but I am not so sure. For although I feel personally certain that grass is unconscious, I don't know quite how I could convince you of this. I would be loathe to allocate the possibility of conscious grass a probability of zero. Ants also seem unlikely to be conscious. But perhaps they are behaving unethically by eating a large volume of grass by mass when they are not so much more complicated than it. After all, they're made of the same sorts of Eukaryotic cells, they have the same nuclei containing similar DNA and so on. Then, we would destroy the entire ecosystem, except the grass. Then, what's next. After all, the grass itself depends on carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for maintenance and growth. But after all, this plant requires an awful lot of carbon dioxide to carry on living. Perhaps it should not be allowed to do so. Consider, in particular, that the carbon dioxide is made of the very same protons, electrons and neutrons as that selfish plant! All those plants should be killed.

Note I don't think this is a true representation of utilitarianism. But I would like you to point out where I'm wrong scientifically or philosophically. What is the proper expected-value based approach to this type of problem?

Lastly, note that the killings are assumed to be not very painful or expensive. This is not currently possible, but the argument requires you to imagine a future possible world in which this has become possible.

RyanCarey wrote:Wild animals suffer more than they flourish. This should be obvious to vegetarians. As it is obvious that our own prey suffer more than benefit from their consumption, it should be obvious that wild prey suffer more than their predators benefit. We are not perfectly energy efficient, nor is any predator. Our energy goes to maintaining our bodies and dissolves into heat. We, like all predators, consume our body weight many-fold on a yearly basis. Although predators are more complex than their prey, this is not by the same order of magnitude. So on average, predators are living unethically. If we could remove all predators, it would be of net benefit. So, if it was possible, we might destroy those at the top of the food chain first. The sharks, the lions and son on. We would then kill those on the next rung down. Once each rung is removed, the next would be a predator that, all things being equal, has an unethical diet and ought to be killed. We would keep going until we had doubts about the consciousness of these prey.

up to here it sounds interesting except that for the assumption that "Wild animals suffer more than they flourish" which im still not totally convinced of

I should be clearer. My argument goes like this.
1. Our prey suffer more than we enjoy eating them
2. In general, prey suffer more than their predators enjoy eating them.
3. Predators ought not exist
4. Animals that predate animals ought not exist
5. Animals that eat plants also ought not exist
6. Plants that consume other matter also ought not exist.
7. All life ought not exist

Where does this argument fail?

Let's assume that the best action is generally determined by "happiness" and your goal here is to quantify and compare degrees of happiness. The questions are also a bit dangerous by leaving the need for extermination as an open question. You might want to clarify the connection betwee your questions and the need to exterminate organisms.

1) The pleasure of plants is something that I do not know how to measure, and I'm not sure that it is "happiness." I am not convinced that it is morally relevant in the same way as animal happiness. I would suggest that there might be a different way to evaluate the moral status of plants, especially in consideration of the impact of senseless destruction or forced extinction. Perhaps this is a respect for life that underlies the happiness principle.

2) The relevant comparison is not simply to look at the one event of killing, but to look at the status of entire species over all time. If meat-eaters disappeared, it is possible that some grass-eaters would become overpopulated, then larger numbers of them would suffer greatly and die of starvation (or maybe disease due to overcrowding) which is probably worse than being killed by a predator. It would be difficult or impossible to quantify this on a global scale.

3) Even if plant life were morally relevant, the basis of measurement and comparison is not simply to compare idealized acts of organisms that eat plants. What if humans are able to redirect a meteor that would otherwise destroy all life on earth? On the flip side, and probably more likely, maybe humans will destroy life on earth through their ignorance. Either way, the calculations are difficult or impossible to answer with precision. It would seem unwarranted to make a strong claim about the existence of all plants or animals based on unreliable speculation.

4) Is your #6 saying that it is wrong for plants to "consume" dirt? I would say that I am not convinced that dirt-eating is morally wrong.

5) Moral culpability: is there a justification for claiming that the happiness principle applies to organisism that are not moral agents and does so in a way to justify extermination? I say this because some people might see the value in the principle of utiltiy because they know that many humans can understand the actions and intents of others and thereby allow the noble acts of one person to influence the actions of others in a sort of chain-reaction. This positive chain-reaction doesn't happen for worms or trees. People might accept the principle of utilty because of this insight into how it effects humans but fail to consider how this might affect our emphasis on enforcing this principle on nonrational organisms. It is possible that we can say that things would be better if all organisms thrived on manna from heaven but at the same time say that there is no justification for exterminating predators.

RyanCarey wrote:5. Animals that eat plants also ought not exist
6. Plants that consume other matter also ought not exist.
7. All life ought not exist

this is the bit i dont get, are you saying that maybe plants can suffer? id wanna be real sure of that before we killed everything cause once we did there'd obvoiusly be no way to reverse that

At some point, there is not only a question of what is conscious, but what it likes. A blade of grass won't respond to being eaten. It's possible that being eaten causes it to feel pain, but it's just as likely that it causes it to feel pleasure. These possibilities would cancel each other out.

DanielLC wrote:At some point, there is not only a question of what is conscious, but what it likes? A blade of grass won't respond to being eaten. It's possible that being eaten causes it to feel pain, but it's just as likely that it causes it to feel pleasure. These possibilities would cancel each other out.

Yep, I agree beyond the level of plants (e.g., for dirt and molecules and quarks).

For plants themselves, a Pascalian argument may work, because plants do respond in certain ways against noxious stimuli. However, perhaps out of irrationality,I don't take the scenario seriously, because plant injury doesn't trigger my mirror neurons. If we did take this Pascalian argument seriously, the best course might be to study more whether plants do feel conscious pain. But if we had to make a decision now without further information, then yeah, I think having no life would be the safest option.

... plants do respond in certain ways against noxious stimuli.

They respond a little, but it's impossible to tell which response is caused by pain unless it can learn to try to avoid that situation.

Searching around, I found one useful summary article on "Plant intelligence: Why, why not, or where?" From the evidence presented, the probability of meaningful plant intelligence seems low, though not zero. Of course, intelligence is not the same as sentience. In general, I think sentience requires a lot more than mere intelligence.

RyanCarey wrote:Wild animals suffer more than they flourish. This should be obvious to vegetarians. As it is obvious that our own prey suffer more than benefit from their consumption, it should be obvious that wild prey suffer more than their predators benefit.

Alan, this is a great way to approach vegetarians about wild animal suffering! (Unless they're vegetarians because "It's wrong for humans to kill").

"A quick test of the assertion that enjoyment outweighs pain in this world, or that they are at any rate balanced, would be to compare the feelings of an animal engaged in eating another with those of the animal being eaten."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "On the Sufferings of the World"

Of course, this isn't the whole story, because it ignores the happiness and suffering of the prey before being devoured. But I tend to think the lives of hungry, cold, injured, and disease-ridden wild animals aren't worth living even up to death.

*steals quote for Facebook profile...*

All common traits requiring energy which are brought about through evolution must have some survival benefit which outweighs the cost of their development and maintenance. The complex neural basis of conscious pain and pleasure (i.e. the limbic system) requires a ton of energy to maintain. In guiding behavior through the carrot and stick approach it survival value outweighs the cost. However, the survival value imparted by conscious emotional experience would be minimal due to the plant's very limited range of motion. If a squirrel starts chewing on it, it can't bloody well run away can it? Hence, the energy costs of maintaining the biological mechanisms required for consciousness would most certainly outweigh the value.

But that's only that specific mechanism. We all know grass doesn't have neurons. It may have a different, less costly way of experiencing pain that doesn't work so well for animals (for example, because it operates on too large a time scale).

DanielLC wrote:But that's only that specific mechanism. We all know grass doesn't have neurons. It may have a different, less costly way of experiencing pain that doesn't work so well for animals (for example, because it operates on too large a time scale).

That's certainly possible, but do most plants have the ability to take actions to minimize pain and maximize pleasure? If not, what would make consciousness an evolutionarily stable characteristic?

Also, we have about the same amount of evidence for rocks possessing some form of consciousness. They also might have some means of experiencing pain that we can't understand. This seems analogous to the fact that we have the same amount of evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as we do for the Christian god. Occam's razor implies to me that we should just assume that neither plants nor rocks feel pain.

rory_rocket wrote:That's certainly possible, but do most plants have the ability to take actions to minimize pain and maximize pleasure? If not, what would make consciousness an evolutionarily stable characteristic?

Nicely said. Of course, it's not completely clear what subjective experience does for humans and other conscious animals. Given that the brain makes most of its decisions prior to conscious awareness of them, why do we have conscious awareness at all? There's probably some connection with long-term reflection on one's actions, but I'm not aware of the latest hypotheses here.

Alan Dawrst wrote:Of course, it's not completely clear what subjective experience does for humans and other conscious animals. Given that the brain makes most of its decisions prior to conscious awareness of them, why do we have conscious awareness at all? There's probably some connection with long-term reflection on one's actions, but I'm not aware of the latest hypotheses here.

Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that.

The way I figure it is that, if you can train something, you have some idea of what it likes and dislikes. If it can't learn there's no way to say what it likes and what it doesn't. It might take actions that result in something specific, but it's not like it has any idea of what it's doing.

Also, if plants are conscious, you're more likely to be a plant. As such, the fact that you're a human is evidence that plants are conscious. That said, very few people seem to agree with this line of reasoning.

DanielLC wrote:That said, very few people seem to agree with this line of reasoning.

Do they? Suppose very few people did agree with this line of reasoning. Then it would be very unlikely that you'd find yourself believing it. So maybe there aren't many people who disagree with it after all.

...Sorry, couldn't help myself.

My own feeling is that this anthropic argument seems plausible, but its implications are sufficiently counterintuitive that I give it <60% probability.