Ever fed a T another T?

[MrCrackerpants]

Mostly, I'm trying to disentangle "pain" from "suffering"... there are quite a few ways you could define "pain", one of which is any response to negative stimuli. Suffering is a higher-order function that seems to require at a minimum some degree of ability to remember and reflect on that pain. Suffering is by no means unique to humans (or mammals... birds certainly exhibit that capacity; reptiles might.)

I think it's important to keep the concepts separate precisely because organisms that are clearly incapable of suffering still respond to negative stimuli. Demonstrating suffering requires more than responding to stimuli.

To give an example of evidence that I would expect to see if tarantulas could suffer, there was a study done a while back (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090327072759.htm) about hermit crabs. They used electric shocks in some shells to inflict discomfort on the crabs. Those crabs then remembered which shells did that, and avoided them. I haven't seen or heard of such behavior in tarantulas; if you think about how they deal with severe injuries, such as the loss of a leg, they don't seem to behave any differently than normal. If they lost the leg because of mesh, for example, they continue to climb that mesh as though completely unaware of the risk. (And it makes sense. Spiders don't seem to have memory past about 20 hours from what I have read.)

No specific research exist but when a T is being eaten alive by another T do you believe it is it experiencing pain?

 

[jakykong]

No specific research exist but when a T is being eaten alive by another T do you believe it is it experiencing pain?

Really, I think the word "experience" needs defining here, as well; there really isn't much going on in a tarantula's nervous system. To experience something implies a certain level of self-awareness, which I doubt tarantulas have for this reason. Again, it's a concept that I feel needs to be kept separate because there are organisms that fit most definitions of pain but which clearly do not have any ability to experience it (Nematodes, for example).

Having said that, yes, I have no problem with the idea that a tarantula being bitten and masticated, at least while it is still alive, would be subjected to pain. I just think it's not enough, on its own, to demonstrate suffering.

 

[MrCrackerpants]

Having said that, yes, I have no problem with the idea that a tarantula being bitten and masticated, at least while it is still alive, would be subjected to pain. I just think it's not enough, on its own, to demonstrate suffering.

I can live with that!! : ) Thanks for the interesting, peaceful discussion.

 

[ZergFront]

Never fed a T to another T (yet. I haven't had a pairing go horribly wrong but I've just started so...) I have fed a T an injured mantis that was on his way out. There was really nothing I could do for him. It was either feed him to a T or wait until he dies and feed him to a plant (bury him under one of the house plants).

 

[jakykong]

I can live with that!! : ) Thanks for the interesting, peaceful discussion.

Always fun. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[SuzukiSwift]

I can live with that!! : ) Thanks for the interesting, peaceful discussion.

Always fun. Thanks for the discussion.

Got respect for you guys, most convos like this end in childish argument. I enjoyed reading both sides and aspects of the discussion =)

 

[Definitions]

no never thought about it either except for breeding.

 

[Tarac]

Now, just to play devil's advocate (and for the record, I am also strongly against dog fighting and tarantula gladiators) there is a very fine line between fighting tarantulas and feeding tarantulas. Yes, it is necessary for them to eat, and no, I'm not playing the whole "it's inhumane" crap, but watching a cricket be snatched up and melted into slurpable cricket soup by digestive juices is pretty sadistic when you think about it. Albeit crickets are complete morons and would likely die just as dead by their own devices,we are still feeding them to a predator and watching the spectacle as they unknowingly wandering about the cage while death stalks them. We could just as easily feed them and walk away, but we watch. Yes, tarantula vs. tarantula battles are pointless, a waste of money, and a waste of a good tarantula (or two), but the concept still remains the same. To me, the principle is the same as the devout PETA person who eats fish. Cows have cute faces, so we don't eat them. Fish are wierd looking, so they can be food.

There's the captivity part that we are overlooking here. When you buy an animal, you are now responsible for it's well being- there is the ethics of being an animal keeper. It is not unethical for a T to eat a T because, well, obviously if a T can't even measurably experience suffering how can it possibly have a moral dilemma ? However, you as the owner have purchased an animal that exists only because it was either a) created for you via captive breeding or b) snatched from its home so that you ("you" being any of us of course) can be amused/fascinated/have something nice to look at.

To feed a T a cricket is different because you have bought an animal that eats crickets (or whatever other feeder that was bred/snatched/etc. for the purposes of maintaining your "pet"). To feed a pet another pet is a whole other story. See where the line is crossed? One is ethical handling of one's pets via providing for their needs, the other is providing for one pet by sacrificing/ignoring/disregarding/compromising the needs of another.

Yes you can be the devil's advocate and say that some people keep crickets as pets. But here is the difference- it is perfectly OK to feed a mouse to a snake, but would it be perfectly OK to feed a mouse to another mouse just for kicks? One is ethical handling of a pet, the other playing a rather pointless and arguably cruel games for no purpose other than one's own satisfaction. You have to choose what you are doing with your animals, the animals who's lives you have accepted responsibility for. To accept this task for the purposes of watching them destroy each other is precisely why feeding a T to another T is just the same as buying a dog to feed to another dog. Your intention is not to be a pet owner but to be an animal fighter. I feel this issue is about the intention of the owner of both Ts (hence accidental male munching is just fine- not the intent, the intent is to breed). If you bought two dogs and loved them both but they one day turned on one another and one ate the other it would be legally viewed entirely differently than it would if you bought two dogs to intentionally eat one another.

You can't fight roosters, you can't fight dogs, hogs or bulls- T's in this scenario are not different other than the law doesn't really pay attention to inverts (whole other issue anyway). All of those fall under the title "animal cruelty" in a set of laws that are generally not all that concerned with the welfare of animals that aren't research or agricultural animals. This is not some group of flaky animal rights crack pots. Under the law, it is defined as inducing, causing or encouraging a fight for "personal amusement or gain." That is the legal precedent and that pretty much sums up exactly what is going on when people are "fighting" their T's on youtube. Totally different than a male being munched or accidentally having two Ts in the same cage via poor dividers, etc.

Here are some statutes that should help clarify why the intention and involvement of the owner is integral to understanding whether or not the behavior was ethical, from the Michigan State College of Law-

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stuscacalpencode597b.htm
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusdogfighting.htm#id-18

They pretty well explain how these issues are decided from a legal standpoint and it does a good job of explaining what constitutes fighting versus "the natural order of things" like a cricket being eaten by a spider. Links to state and federal statutes are provided.

 

[MarkmD]

I believe T's can feel pain to a degree, mainly to begin with they are living creatures, that live by the same laws of nature as we and all life does, means they are not exempt from suffering and pain, yes I've watched my T's eat crickets and other feeders, but for our T's, that's their sheep/cattle as it is for us, ie we slaughter cows etc to eat as we buy feeders for our T's to eat, same difference just different approach on the subject, Its very wrong to feed a T another T, pain/suffering aside, it's the nature of why would you do it to begin with? says you shouldn't have any pets cause that makes you a risk to every creature.

 

[McGuiverstein]

There's the captivity part that we are overlooking here. When you buy an animal, you are now responsible for it's well being- there is the ethics of being an animal keeper. It is not unethical for a T to eat a T because, well, obviously if a T can't even measurably experience suffering how can it possibly have a moral dilemma ? However, you as the owner have purchased an animal that exists only because it was either a) created for you via captive breeding or b) snatched from its home so that you ("you" being any of us of course) can be amused/fascinated/have something nice to look at.

To feed a T a cricket is different because you have bought an animal that eats crickets (or whatever other feeder that was bred/snatched/etc. for the purposes of maintaining your "pet"). To feed a pet another pet is a whole other story. See where the line is crossed? One is ethical handling of one's pets via providing for their needs, the other is providing for one pet by sacrificing/ignoring/disregarding/compromising the needs of another.

Yes you can be the devil's advocate and say that some people keep crickets as pets. But here is the difference- it is perfectly OK to feed a mouse to a snake, but would it be perfectly OK to feed a mouse to another mouse just for kicks? One is ethical handling of a pet, the other playing a rather pointless and arguably cruel games for no purpose other than one's own satisfaction. You have to choose what you are doing with your animals, the animals who's lives you have accepted responsibility for. To accept this task for the purposes of watching them destroy each other is precisely why feeding a T to another T is just the same as buying a dog to feed to another dog. Your intention is not to be a pet owner but to be an animal fighter. I feel this issue is about the intention of the owner of both Ts (hence accidental male munching is just fine- not the intent, the intent is to breed). If you bought two dogs and loved them both but they one day turned on one another and one ate the other it would be legally viewed entirely differently than it would if you bought two dogs to intentionally eat one another.

You can't fight roosters, you can't fight dogs, hogs or bulls- T's in this scenario are not different other than the law doesn't really pay attention to inverts (whole other issue anyway). All of those fall under the title "animal cruelty" in a set of laws that are generally not all that concerned with the welfare of animals that aren't research or agricultural animals. This is not some group of flaky animal rights crack pots. Under the law, it is defined as inducing, causing or encouraging a fight for "personal amusement or gain." That is the legal precedent and that pretty much sums up exactly what is going on when people are "fighting" their T's on youtube. Totally different than a male being munched or accidentally having two Ts in the same cage via poor dividers, etc.

Here are some statutes that should help clarify why the intention and involvement of the owner is integral to understanding whether or not the behavior was ethical, from the Michigan State College of Law-

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stuscacalpencode597b.htm
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusdogfighting.htm#id-18

They pretty well explain how these issues are decided from a legal standpoint and it does a good job of explaining what constitutes fighting versus "the natural order of things" like a cricket being eaten by a spider. Links to state and federal statutes are provided.

In some ways you pretty much summed up most of what I said.. but made it about five times longer. Never said anything about keeping crickets as pets. Totally understand about providing the proper care for tarantulas (or any animal for that matter). Of course it's the responsibility of the owner to make sure the pet doesn't starve or dehydrate, and that it's necessities are met. What I was saying is that when we watch an animal prey on, capture, and consume it's victim (in a rather drawn out and unpleasant way) we're participating in just as sadistic an activity as fighting two spiders. Yes, one is providing necessary nourishment for a pet, and the other is staging a senseless gladiator match, but the whole "pet" vs. "feeder" argument is just semantics. Doesn't matter. The only thing that makes a pet a pet is the value the individual puts on it. You said it yourself, animals like dogs and cats are protected by animal cruelty laws, but spiders are not. Why? Because most people don't value them like we do. They think they're scary and disgusting. My point is we're watching something be captured and eaten. Fascinating to see? Yes. Do I watch my spiders hunt? Yes. Do I see anything wrong with it? No. I was just merely pointing out, for sake of argument, that the only thing that makes tarantula duels unpleasant to us is the value of the spider. The cricket's untimely and terrible death doesn't matter because we don't value them. Well except for Moonfall.. But that's just weird X)

---------- Post added 02-26-2013 at 03:56 PM ----------

In addition, the whole "tarantulas can't suffer" argument is merely speculation. Until we sit down over a cup of coffee and discuss a spider's day with it, we won't really know what capacity they have for assessing their condition. I pose this: pain is our reaction to negative stimulus. Suffering, in the physical sense, is the condition assessed by the individual to prolonged pain or discomfort. Are you saying that tarantulas are not able to become used to particular stimulus and assess it as positive, neutral, or negative? If so, a spider (which relies primarily on sensations felt through vibration) would immediately run for cover if they felt any vibration. How then would they immediately recognize the vibrations of a cricket as prey? Their feeding response seems to be more than a reaction to just "hey that was a small vibration, must be food" To me, this is evidence of some cognitive assessment by the spider. Based off of not only instinct, but also on experience. Of course I'm not saying they're little Aristotles and will wax phiosophic about the trials and tribulations of their lives, but there is the possiblity that they have the capacity for simple understanding and learning. We just don't know for sure. But for some reason we act like we do..

 

[jakykong]

So MrCrackerpants and I already went over the evidence on both sides, this'll be a commentary; I actually mostly agree with you, just a minor point that takes far too many words to articulate.

In addition, the whole "tarantulas can't suffer" argument is merely speculation. Until we sit down over a cup of coffee and discuss a spider's day with it, we won't really know what capacity they have for assessing their condition.

This is not quite true. While we cannot, by definition, learn the subjective sensations of another being, we certainly have evidence. Ethical decisions aren't about certainties, they're about using the available evidence to make right decisions.

I pose this: pain is our reaction to negative stimulus. Suffering, in the physical sense, is the condition assessed by the individual to prolonged pain or discomfort.

Here you've offered a definition of suffering that I can say tarantulas certainly are capable of. The problem is that your definition of suffering here doesn't seem to exclude bacteria. They can react to negative stimulus, which can be prolonged, and yet it seems improbable to think that they suffer.

This is my minor point, but it is important: We need to be very careful how we define a term like "suffering" because broad definitions aren't useful and narrow definitions usually leave things out. This is what philosophers would call "chisholming" and it is the bulk of what I talked about with MrCrackerpants; teasing out what we actually mean by suffering isn't easy. Pain is much easier to define.

Are you saying that tarantulas are not able to become used to particular stimulus and assess it as positive, neutral, or negative? If so, a spider (which relies primarily on sensations felt through vibration) would immediately run for cover if they felt any vibration. How then would they immediately recognize the vibrations of a cricket as prey? Their feeding response seems to be more than a reaction to just "hey that was a small vibration, must be food" To me, this is evidence of some cognitive assessment by the spider. Based off of not only instinct, but also on experience.

A lesson from computer science: Adapting and using complex behavior based on experience does not require cognitive ability. We can do that with perceptrons, bayesian analysis, markov chains and other formalisms. I'm not saying that this means tarantulas are computers or necessarily completely pre-programmed, but the jump from "they behave like X" to "they have cognitive ability" requires more work (much of that work is done in the field of behavioral sciences).

Of course I'm not saying they're little Aristotles and will wax phiosophic about the trials and tribulations of their lives, but there is the possiblity that they have the capacity for simple understanding and learning. We just don't know for sure. But for some reason we act like we do..

I do understand where you're coming from. You and I disagree in exactly the same place that MrCrackerpants and I started our discussion - everything you said about pain, and learning from experience, and sophisticated cognitive abilities, I can grant. Suffering is qualitatively different, primarily because we want to use it for an ethical decision. I invite you to read back in the thread, you might find it interesting.

 

[McGuiverstein]

So MrCrackerpants and I already went over the evidence on both sides, this'll be a commentary; I actually mostly agree with you, just a minor point that takes far too many words to articulate.



This is not quite true. While we cannot, by definition, learn the subjective sensations of another being, we certainly have evidence. Ethical decisions aren't about certainties, they're about using the available evidence to make right decisions.



Here you've offered a definition of suffering that I can say tarantulas certainly are capable of. The problem is that your definition of suffering here doesn't seem to exclude bacteria. They can react to negative stimulus, which can be prolonged, and yet it seems improbable to think that they suffer.

This is my minor point, but it is important: We need to be very careful how we define a term like "suffering" because broad definitions aren't useful and narrow definitions usually leave things out. This is what philosophers would call "chisholming" and it is the bulk of what I talked about with MrCrackerpants; teasing out what we actually mean by suffering isn't easy. Pain is much easier to define.



A lesson from computer science: Adapting and using complex behavior based on experience does not require cognitive ability. We can do that with perceptrons, bayesian analysis, markov chains and other formalisms. I'm not saying that this means tarantulas are computers or necessarily completely pre-programmed, but the jump from "they behave like X" to "they have cognitive ability" requires more work (much of that work is done in the field of behavioral sciences).



I do understand where you're coming from. You and I disagree in exactly the same place that MrCrackerpants and I started our discussion - everything you said about pain, and learning from experience, and sophisticated cognitive abilities, I can grant. Suffering is qualitatively different, primarily because we want to use it for an ethical decision. I invite you to read back in the thread, you might find it interesting.

I definitely will take a look back. Sorry, I went to the last page and didn't even realize a similar argument had already occured X).

You're putting way too much emphasis on defining words and ethical decisions. That said, you keep saying things like evidence, and that's a word I'd like you to define. Have you performed, or read of anyone else performing a test in which a spider is subjected to different types of stimulus, while it's reactions are monitored? Not just by observation.. How such tests would be performed is a challenge in and of itself. Of course this would also have to be a drawn out procedure, which would involve several sessions in order to evaluate the learning and behavior changes (or lack thereof) resulting from continued exposure to negative or positive stimuli. Till this has been done and some empirical data has been obtained, this is all merely speculation on flimsy terms of human ego.

All that aside, I was speaking in terms of physical suffering. In no way was I saying the spider was thinking "Oh man, I'm being eaten by another spider. The irony!". To think a spider would be capable of that that sort of suffering is, of course, rather ludicrous. Physical suffering, on the other hand, as a result of being pierced by fangs, injected with venom, and digested while still alive, is easily conceivable. This is prolonged negative physical stimulus, resulting in a prolonged negative physical reaction (i.e. suffering).

I am not discussing computers. Humans do not use markov chains to think and interact with their surroundings. Mathematical equations do not in any way relate to higher thought and are therefore irrelevant.

 

[Tarac]

In some ways you pretty much summed up most of what I said.. but made it about five times longer. Never said anything about keeping crickets as pets. Totally understand about providing the proper care for tarantulas (or any animal for that matter). Of course it's the responsibility of the owner to make sure the pet doesn't starve or dehydrate, and that it's necessities are met. What I was saying is that when we watch an animal prey on, capture, and consume it's victim (in a rather drawn out and unpleasant way) we're participating in just as sadistic an activity as fighting two spiders. Yes, one is providing necessary nourishment for a pet, and the other is staging a senseless gladiator match, but the whole "pet" vs. "feeder" argument is just semantics. Doesn't matter. The only thing that makes a pet a pet is the value the individual puts on it. You said it yourself, animals like dogs and cats are protected by animal cruelty laws, but spiders are not. Why? Because most people don't value them like we do. They think they're scary and disgusting. My point is we're watching something be captured and eaten. Fascinating to see? Yes. Do I watch my spiders hunt? Yes. Do I see anything wrong with it? No. I was just merely pointing out, for sake of argument, that the only thing that makes tarantula duels unpleasant to us is the value of the spider. The cricket's untimely and terrible death doesn't matter because we don't value them. Well except for Moonfall.. But that's just weird X)

---------- Post added 02-26-2013 at 03:56 PM ----------

In addition, the whole "tarantulas can't suffer" argument is merely speculation. Until we sit down over a cup of coffee and discuss a spider's day with it, we won't really know what capacity they have for assessing their condition. I pose this: pain is our reaction to negative stimulus. Suffering, in the physical sense, is the condition assessed by the individual to prolonged pain or discomfort. Are you saying that tarantulas are not able to become used to particular stimulus and assess it as positive, neutral, or negative? If so, a spider (which relies primarily on sensations felt through vibration) would immediately run for cover if they felt any vibration. How then would they immediately recognize the vibrations of a cricket as prey? Their feeding response seems to be more than a reaction to just "hey that was a small vibration, must be food" To me, this is evidence of some cognitive assessment by the spider. Based off of not only instinct, but also on experience. Of course I'm not saying they're little Aristotles and will wax phiosophic about the trials and tribulations of their lives, but there is the possiblity that they have the capacity for simple understanding and learning. We just don't know for sure. But for some reason we act like we do..

No, it's about human ethics, not about biology. That's what you are missing. I'll completely ignore the suffering bit, I agree with Jay and find so many problems with the cricket vibration example I don't know where to start or think I should use "too many" more words on it.

I will say that watching a cheetah take down a gazelle on a nature program is a whole other beast than arranging a death match between pets for one's own amusement. That is precisely the reason that the laws, as exclusively applied as they currently are or not, distinguish the two in no uncertain terms. It's pretty straightforward in fact- you are either doing it for the benefit of the spider or for your own benefit. Courts of law are often dealing with sorting out semantics. That's sort of a casual way to think about semantics in fact, legal speak puts a great amount of weight on word choice because it is the context that those words imply which test the intent- the issue that is at the heart of the matter in this case.

For me, there is a lot more to watching a spider's behavior than just "oooh kill it kill the nasty cricket!" Is there not anything one can take away from observing tarantula's behavior, regardless of whether it is eating, digging, webbing, mating or pooping? In that paradigm, we must all be getting some kind of dirty pleasure when we watch our spiders mate too, right? Once again, it has to do with the intent and sensibilities of the human involved, not the spider.

---------- Post added 02-27-2013 at 08:34 AM ----------

I am not discussing computers. Humans do not use markov chains to think and interact with their surroundings. Mathematical equations do not in any way relate to higher thought and are therefore irrelevant.

Not talking about human's here, your missing that example. The computer is likened to the tarantula.

 

[McGuiverstein]

I understand it's about human ethics. I'm saying that human ethics are based off of what we think spiders can or can't comprehend or evaluate. We don't have any concrete evidence. Until we do, there can be no real ethical decisions made. Bottom line.

I invite you to use as many words to disagree with my cricket example as necessary. Keep in mind, it was just the first example that came to mind.

Sure, the death match is mostly just that. You seem to think that in some way I condone it, but I meant to be abundantly clear that I don't, and that my initial post was only a different perspective. But that is because I value my spiders. Value is the key word here. Since some don't believe spiders can suffer, value is the only basis for which feeding a spider to another would be "unethical". Since we're getting into the very tedious battle of one individual's interpretation of a word to another's, I ask you to pose your definition of ethics. That aside, while one tarantula is being eaten (valued pet that it is), the other is feeding. It's necessities are being met. What makes the unfortunate spider any less than a food item such as a cricket? Rhetorical question.

Don't throw tarantulas mating at me. That's ridiculous, and a poor attempt to undermine what I'm saying. Of course there's more to owning a tarantula than watching it eat. There's countless things I enjoy about them, and watching them eat is only a minute part of that. But I wasn't discussing watching them web or burrow or just sitting and staring off into space. I was talking about watching them eat.

No, I caught the computer thing. I was likening higher thought to humans. Computers are irrelevant. We're not discussing the ethics of the unfortunate computer that lost it's keyboard to a poorly placed glass of milk. That's just fried circuits, not pain. Sure it can be likened, but all it adds to the conversation is a reach to back up an argument.

 

[jakykong]

You're putting way too much emphasis on defining words and ethical decisions. That said, you keep saying things like evidence, and that's a word I'd like you to define. Have you performed, or read of anyone else performing a test in which a spider is subjected to different types of stimulus, while it's reactions are monitored? Not just by observation.. How such tests would be performed is a challenge in and of itself. Of course this would also have to be a drawn out procedure, which would involve several sessions in order to evaluate the learning and behavior changes (or lack thereof) resulting from continued exposure to negative or positive stimuli. Till this has been done and some empirical data has been obtained, this is all merely speculation on flimsy terms of human ego.

I am emphasizing the definitions of words, because until we are at least reasonably clear about what a term like "suffering" even means, we really can't decide whether tarantulas are capable of it. Like I said, a definition of suffering that includes bacteria is not useful; and a definition that excludes, say, birds is also not useful. Hence the chisholming.

I don't think I've ever heard someone ask me to define evidence; I will defer to the scientific method here. When I say "evidence" I mean observations or experiments which in aggregate demonstrate or refute a hypothesis. Observation is a type of evidence. For example, I did go over the hermit crab example in an earlier post. We may not have numerical evidence, but we do have behavioral evidence, in the form of tarantulas not behaving differently before and after injuries. This isn't an issue of ego, it's an issue of evidence.

All that aside, I was speaking in terms of physical suffering. In no way was I saying the spider was thinking "Oh man, I'm being eaten by another spider. The irony!". To think a spider would be capable of that that sort of suffering is, of course, rather ludicrous. Physical suffering, on the other hand, as a result of being pierced by fangs, injected with venom, and digested while still alive, is easily conceivable. This is prolonged negative physical stimulus, resulting in a prolonged negative physical reaction (i.e. suffering).

I'm not sure how prolonged it actually is, but let's assume that the male is alive for hours while the female munches him. In which case, yes, a tarantula has been exposed to a prolonged negative stimulus, resulting in prolonged negative reaction. (Or perhaps it would result in that if not for the venom's effects, because again here we're granting that it's alive.) If you call that suffering, then tarantulas fit that definition.

The problem, again, is that this makes the term meaningless for ethical decisions, because it applies to situations where we don't have an ethical problem, for example, bacteria. They can respond negatively to prolonged negative stimuli. Are you trying to say that you think bacteria can suffer?

I am not discussing computers. Humans do not use markov chains to think and interact with their surroundings. Mathematical equations do not in any way relate to higher thought and are therefore irrelevant.

I'm not talking about anything as complex as a human. I'm also not saying that a tarantula is a computer. The point of that paragraph was only that observation of complex behavior is not sufficient to show suffering because we have a counterexample. The hermit crab example is a type of behavior that does, but it's not because of the complexity of the behavior.

It's always entertaining to discuss this sort of thing; everyone seems to approach it from a different angle.

 

[McGuiverstein]

I am emphasizing the definitions of words, because until we are at least reasonably clear about what a term like "suffering" even means, we really can't decide whether tarantulas are capable of it. Like I said, a definition of suffering that includes bacteria is not useful; and a definition that excludes, say, birds is also not useful. Hence the chisholming.

I don't think I've ever heard someone ask me to define evidence; I will defer to the scientific method here. When I say "evidence" I mean observations or experiments which in aggregate demonstrate or refute a hypothesis. Observation is a type of evidence. For example, I did go over the hermit crab example in an earlier post. We may not have numerical evidence, but we do have behavioral evidence, in the form of tarantulas not behaving differently before and after injuries. This isn't an issue of ego, it's an issue of evidence.



I'm not sure how prolonged it actually is, but let's assume that the male is alive for hours while the female munches him. In which case, yes, a tarantula has been exposed to a prolonged negative stimulus, resulting in prolonged negative reaction. (Or perhaps it would result in that if not for the venom's effects, because again here we're granting that it's alive.) If you call that suffering, then tarantulas fit that definition.

The problem, again, is that this makes the term meaningless for ethical decisions, because it applies to situations where we don't have an ethical problem, for example, bacteria. They can respond negatively to prolonged negative stimuli. Are you trying to say that you think bacteria can suffer?



I'm not talking about anything as complex as a human. I'm also not saying that a tarantula is a computer. The point of that paragraph was only that observation of complex behavior is not sufficient to show suffering because we have a counterexample. The hermit crab example is a type of behavior that does, but it's not because of the complexity of the behavior.

It's always entertaining to discuss this sort of thing; everyone seems to approach it from a different angle.

That's why I asked you to define evidence. Observations are subjective, a brain scan on a human is not. Blood pressure monitoring is not. Your definition of suffering appears to be specifically a psychological ailment. And while I consider suffering to potentially be either psychological or physical (or both), I am discussing the physical. But on this line of thinking, what behavior would you consider different? This too is subjective. Not only to the observer, but also to the observed. And what is the magnitude of behavioral change you would expect from a suffering creature? For instance, a psychologically suffering human (e.g. one who is depressed) can exhibit a spectrum of behavioral responses to their depression. This can range from extreme aggression to lethargy, and anything in between; which can include normal behavior when the suffering is internally suppressed. What I'm saying is that by observation, we can't even tell for sure if a person is suffering, let alone any lower life form. To me, observation is moot.

I am not familiar with how bacteria respond to stimuli, but I will be sure to look into it. However, if they respond negatively to that prolonged negative stimuli, I would consider that physical suffering. Perhaps a stretch for the word, but not the definition. You say that makes this discussion meaningless to ethics. How? Ethics is the determination of right and wrong. Subjecting anything (regardless of value) to physical suffering, whether it can or can not contemplate on it's situation, is still fundamentally unethical. Pain is pain, whether it is emotional or physical.

It is entertaining, and I hope I don't come off rude. I type how I talk, and I guess sometimes it may come off unpleasant.

 

[MarkmD]

We all could talk about this for months/years and still come up with the same answers or different views/explanations on they answers, the only way it can be fully settled is if some expert scientists etc, do hundreds of specific testing on tarantula subjects (in that area/all areas of T's) , then bring out a full wiki/forum sites etc, 100% accurate then we can properly discuss the subject at hand, this post will probably be overlooked but we know it's true.

 

[jakykong]

That's why I asked you to define evidence. Observations are subjective, a brain scan on a human is not. Blood pressure monitoring is not. Your definition of suffering appears to be specifically a psychological ailment. And while I consider suffering to potentially be either psychological or physical (or both), I am discussing the physical. But on this line of thinking, what behavior would you consider different? This too is subjective. Not only to the observer, but also to the observed. And what is the magnitude of behavioral change you would expect from a suffering creature? For instance, a psychologically suffering human (e.g. one who is depressed) can exhibit a spectrum of behavioral responses to their depression. This can range from extreme aggression to lethargy, and anything in between; which can include normal behavior when the suffering is internally suppressed. What I'm saying is that by observation, we can't even tell for sure if a person is suffering, let alone any lower life form. To me, observation is moot.

I make no claim of certainty. Aside from being an impossible goal because we're talking about a subjective experience, it's also not necessary. Nobody is omniscient; we make do with what we have. We do have some idea of what a typical human does. From that, we can be reasonably sure that creatures such as humans exhibit the capacity to suffer. We all lie on a bell curve; atypical cases are noise and cause uncertainty, but the peak of that curve is so far toward one side that it would be, as famously described, "perverse to withhold provisional assent." Does that clear up how I treat evidence?

I would also argue (and if you disagree, I think we are operating under a fundamentally different epistemology) that suffering is strictly a psychological phenomenon. I really don't know what to make of a phrase like "physical suffering." If you disagree with this, we will never reach the same conclusion. (I'm not making a judgment here, just pointing it out.)

I am not familiar with how bacteria respond to stimuli, but I will be sure to look into it. However, if they respond negatively to that prolonged negative stimuli, I would consider that physical suffering. Perhaps a stretch for the word, but not the definition. You say that makes this discussion meaningless to ethics. How? Ethics is the determination of right and wrong. Subjecting anything (regardless of value) to physical suffering, whether it can or can not contemplate on it's situation, is still fundamentally unethical. Pain is pain, whether it is emotional or physical.

You may be the first person I've met to consider any action against bacteria unethical. Objectively, they lack a nervous system entirely. That, I think, makes them ethically equivalent to a stone. But if bacteria cause you ethical quandries, how about plants? Fungi? All of these organisms respond to negative stimuli.

In other words, defining "pain" as "negative response to a negative stimulus" seems reasonable, but it includes bacteria and other organisms that don't seem to require ethical consideration. Since this concept of suffering is the underpinning on which the rest of the edifice of ethics is built, the question of suffering is thus separate from the question of pain. (Another way in which they are separate: Your depression example is one example, but suffering does not require pain.)

This is why I consider defining suffering in a broad sense rather useless for ethical thought. If we don't treat bacteria or plants with ethical consideration but include them in the class of things that can suffer, then we seem to have dissociated ethics from suffering.

It is entertaining, and I hope I don't come off rude. I type how I talk, and I guess sometimes it may come off unpleasant.

Nothing came off as rude here. It's remained a calm philosophical discussion, which by its nature requires frank speech. I'm enjoying the discussion.

 

[McGuiverstein]

I make no claim of certainty. Aside from being an impossible goal because we're talking about a subjective experience, it's also not necessary. Nobody is omniscient; we make do with what we have. We do have some idea of what a typical human does. From that, we can be reasonably sure that creatures such as humans exhibit the capacity to suffer. We all lie on a bell curve; atypical cases are noise and cause uncertainty, but the peak of that curve is so far toward one side that it would be, as famously described, "perverse to withhold provisional assent." Does that clear up how I treat evidence?

I would also argue (and if you disagree, I think we are operating under a fundamentally different epistemology) that suffering is strictly a psychological phenomenon. I really don't know what to make of a phrase like "physical suffering." If you disagree with this, we will never reach the same conclusion. (I'm not making a judgment here, just pointing it out.)



You may be the first person I've met to consider any action against bacteria unethical. Objectively, they lack a nervous system entirely. That, I think, makes them ethically equivalent to a stone. But if bacteria cause you ethical quandries, how about plants? Fungi? All of these organisms respond to negative stimuli.

In other words, defining "pain" as "negative response to a negative stimulus" seems reasonable, but it includes bacteria and other organisms that don't seem to require ethical consideration. Since this concept of suffering is the underpinning on which the rest of the edifice of ethics is built, the question of suffering is thus separate from the question of pain. (Another way in which they are separate: Your depression example is one example, but suffering does not require pain.)

This is why I consider defining suffering in a broad sense rather useless for ethical thought. If we don't treat bacteria or plants with ethical consideration but include them in the class of things that can suffer, then we seem to have dissociated ethics from suffering.



Nothing came off as rude here. It's remained a calm philosophical discussion, which by its nature requires frank speech. I'm enjoying the discussion.

I didn't ask for your approach to evidence, I asked you to define it. Yes, no one is omniscient. Yes, we rely on what we have to make what assertions we can. But in this case, what we have are merely subjective observations. No scientific tests have been performed by qualified professionals. No data has been compiled. Going back to your comment about the scientific theory, you are still on step three: hypothesis. Like Mark said, we can debate this all day, but we can not make any concrete ethical decisions until we have solid facts.

By definition, suffering is almost entirely a physical ailment. Suffering, in the psychological sense of the word is for the most part a metaphysical construct. Yes, we can not argue about two entirely different things and come to any agreement. Even on the topics we've been discussing that are the same, I don't think we will .

Don't twist what I said about bacteria. Surely you aren't suggesting that I am confronted by an ethical dilemma with taking antibiotics for a staph infection. Before you jump on that, it's only an example. Yes, I know my reaction is based on self-preservation. The magic words here are nervous system. Without one, negative stimuli never becomes any more than negative stimuli. By definition, this is physical suffering, but not pain. In my view, the ethical discussion applies only to something that is capable of perceiving pain. On that we agree. But, as we have no concrete evidence proving or disproving that spiders can feel physical pain, we can not make an informed ethical decision.

 

[jakykong]

I didn't ask for your approach to evidence, I asked you to define it. ... what we have are merely subjective observations.

I honestly don't know how to answer you, then. My understanding of the scientific method is that everything is evidence; the question is how to weigh and interpret it. Which is precisely what I was suggesting how to do.

I'm not sure what to make of the phrase "subjective observations." The two concepts appear mutually exclusive; it's either an observation ("The moon is white.") or it's subjective ("I feel happy when I look at the moon."). Can you give an example of a subjective observation? A more relevant example would be where I pointed out that Ts don't stop doing behaviors that put them at risk of losing a leg, even after they've lost a leg (or legs) for doing it. In what way is that subjective?

Don't twist what I said about bacteria. Surely you aren't suggesting that I am confronted by an ethical dilemma with taking antibiotics for a staph infection. Before you jump on that, it's only an example. Yes, I know my reaction is based on self-preservation.

If I put words in your mouth, I apologize. It wasn't my intention. I was attempting a reductio, so I was attempting to derive from your previous statements an ethical dilemma about bacteria (something which I assumed you would not have).

The magic words here are nervous system. Without one, negative stimuli never becomes any more than negative stimuli.

I think we agree there.

By definition, suffering is almost entirely a physical ailment. Suffering, in the psychological sense of the word is for the most part a metaphysical construct.

This isn't the place for a thorough discussion of metaphysics, but I will state for the record that I am a metaphysical naturalist. That does not preclude a discussion of psychology as distinct from physiology, even though certainly they influence each other. It is roughly analogous to the way we can talk about software separately from the hardware it runs on, even though there is an obvious intermingling of the two.

I think I said this before (in the same post as I discussed the hermit crab), but suffering is not hard to demonstrate: Show a change in behavior due to pain which avoids its cause. I simply have not seen nor heard of that with tarantulas.

By definition, this is physical suffering, but not pain. In my view, the ethical discussion applies only to something that is capable of perceiving pain. On that we agree.

Interestingly, after reading this, I think we are saying more or less the same thing, but we have exactly reversed concepts about pain and suffering.

From my perspective, ethical decisions are based on whether something is able to suffer. Pain is a more primitive function, exhibited by many things that aren't sophisticated enough to be able to suffer. In other words, it seems that what you mean when you say "suffering" is what I meant by "pain."

That being the case, it very much changes the context of our previous discussion (in fact, it makes large swaths of it entirely moot). I think I fairly clearly defined "suffering" in earlier posts. (I'll restate my definitions of them here, for clarity: Pain is a response to a negative stimulus. Suffering is a higher-order response that may result from pain or other factors.)

But, as we have no concrete evidence proving or disproving that spiders can feel physical pain, we can not make an informed ethical decision.

I see no reason we cannot make an informed ethical decision with incomplete information. In fact, we have no choice. This isn't about proofs, this is about the most likely explanation. And, as in any other philosophical discussion, the positive claim has the burden of proof.

And I've set the bar for that pretty low. A few tarantulas and some elbow grease could easily trump the evidence that I've presented that they don't suffer. It just needs to show that their behavior changes in response to pain.


It's been a pleasant discussion, thanks. I'll let you have the last word. :coffee: