Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
Another issue to consider is configuration, lifespan and their place in ecosystems. Cephalopods have plenty of neurons (but many of them in their semi-autonomous arms). Further, they only live for a year or two - just long enough to reproduce. Further, they are one of the few groups that is doing well today because humans have fished out a number of their predators, and the more acidic oceans that undermine the shells of most molluscs is not an issue for them.
So, they are perhaps a more ethical animal food option than longer-lived and social animals that form close bonds, but that also depends on their treatment before slaughter.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
The point of the neural analysis is not to determine to what extent animals are capable of moral agency (conscious awareness of rules for governing their behavior), but what capacity they have for "welfare," i.e., for suffering and enjoyment.GrayArea wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 7:36 pm
The existence of human beings can still be explained when we say that there are a lot of factors that make morality POSSIBLE to begin with, including the number of neurons. And just because it's possible for a species to possess moral values, it doesn't automatically mean that all members of that species should.
The sheer high amount of neurons and other factors making morality possible is merely one of the countless ways of how those neurons can be used based on our choices (not "are"). In the end, the act of choice itself prevails over the option / possibility. I presume this would be due to the fact that the number of neurons does not definitively equal to what the neurons do.
But the high EQs of dolphins raises the question of whether they may also possess some agency.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
I would think their unique neural architecture would make computing EQs for cephalopods difficult. But based on their behavior their cognitive powers rank right up there with those of great apes and corvids. Wonder what they'd be capable of if they had longer lifespans, were social, and had a means of communicating acquired knowledge.Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 8:06 pm Neuron count probably does not yield significantly different results to behavioural cues, but the extra data is still helpful in reducing anthropocentric bias, which over-emphasises intelligent human traits over unfamiliar displays of intelligence.
Another issue to consider is configuration, lifespan and their place in ecosystems. Cephalopods have plenty of neurons (but many of them in their semi-autonomous arms). Further, they only live for a year or two - just long enough to reproduce. Further, they are one of the few groups that is doing well today because humans have fished out a number of their predators, and the more acidic oceans that undermine the shells of most molluscs is not an issue for them.
Good points, but I'd have reservations about raising octopuses as food animals. A proposal to establish the world's first octopus farm in Spain has drawn protests.So, they are perhaps a more ethical animal food option than longer-lived and social animals that form close bonds, but that also depends on their treatment before slaughter.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59667645
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
Almost everything draws protests these days :)GE Morton wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 10:05 pmI would think their unique neural architecture would make computing EQs for cephalopods difficult. But based on their behavior their cognitive powers rank right up there with those of great apes and corvids. Wonder what they'd be capable of if they had longer lifespans, were social, and had a means of communicating acquired knowledge.Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 8:06 pm Neuron count probably does not yield significantly different results to behavioural cues, but the extra data is still helpful in reducing anthropocentric bias, which over-emphasises intelligent human traits over unfamiliar displays of intelligence.
Another issue to consider is configuration, lifespan and their place in ecosystems. Cephalopods have plenty of neurons (but many of them in their semi-autonomous arms). Further, they only live for a year or two - just long enough to reproduce. Further, they are one of the few groups that is doing well today because humans have fished out a number of their predators, and the more acidic oceans that undermine the shells of most molluscs is not an issue for them.
Good points, but I'd have reservations about raising octopuses as food animals. A proposal to establish the world's first octopus farm in Spain has drawn protests.So, they are perhaps a more ethical animal food option than longer-lived and social animals that form close bonds, but that also depends on their treatment before slaughter.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59667645
Given that octopi are anti-social and cannibalistic, would farmed animals need extra feeding? I suppose they could be penned like pigs, but that would be cruel.
I personally think that their intelligence is overrated, boosted by their manual dexterity (tentacular dexterity?). I think they are less intelligent than dogs and cats, let alone apes and corvids, despite being by far the most intelligent invertebrates. Consider the work of guide dogs, for instance. A guide octopus would only take you to its favourite crevices to hide in or find food - for themselves :)
Still, what can we expect from a one or two year-old? The level of cognition they achieve in that time is impressive. If they lived a long time, as you suggest, the result would be interesting. In the meantime, animals with the evolutionary strategy of living a short time and producing thousands of eggs are doing better than others in the Anthropocene.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
It's still rubbish, because its about the content of the brain, not its relative mass.GE Morton wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 7:19 pmYes, the neuron count would have to be adjusted for the animals' body weight. Most of the brain, in all animals, is devoted to managing the body. One measure for making these comparisons is the "encephalization quotient," or EQ, which is the ratio of brain weight to body weight:Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 2:59 pmNah. That would make the Blue Whale so massively moral as to put to shame all other life forms. Other Cetaceans would follow in a logn hierarchy and humans would be way down the list, behind elephants.GE Morton wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2022, 7:04 pm At least one philosopher thinks so, or at least that it is a relevant factor.
https://reason.com/2022/09/22/counting- ... s-animals/
At first blush I thought the suggestion ridiculous. But after some reflection decided there might be something to it, if that number relates to an animal's capacity for experiencing "welfare."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
Humans have an EQ of ~ 7.5; pilot whales ~4-6
Another adjustment might be to restrict the neuron count to neocortical neurons, which are those involved in cognitive processing. Pilot whales (actually a species of dolphins) have twice as many neocortical neurons as humans, but a lower ratio of such to neurons to body weight.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00132/full
Nonetheless, these animals would have high moral standing, per this theory.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
Well duh?? I am making moral judgements?? Are you kidding?GE Morton wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 7:28 pmYou're making moral judgments here based on behavior. The question is, what is the moral standing of various animals, based on their capacity for "welfare," i.e., for suffering or enjoyment?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 5:10 pm
Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies.
And what of the selfless ant or bee giving up everything for the greater good, though with very limited neurons.
The brains of cetacaens are far more complex and convoluted than humans despite trying to minimise them because of their mass, that would indicate a greater propensity for emotional understanding and potential suffering.
What makes you think, even if you could measure it, that a concept such a "moral standing" is meaningful, even inside human society, let alone outside it?.
Does a killer whale deserves special attention in a moral world, above the seals that they gang up on to kill and play with before they eat them?
Your trouble is that you have a weird understanding or "moral" as if it were a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
You are just running yourself in ever decreasing circles..GrayArea wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 7:36 pmThe existence of human beings can still be explained when we say that there are a lot of factors that make morality POSSIBLE to begin with, including the number of neurons. And just because it's possible for a species to possess moral values, it doesn't automatically mean that all members of that species should.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 5:10 pmNo.
Morality is a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one. The idea is without merit.
I am quite happy to believe that female elephants are more moral than most humans. But how would you judge morality except by utterly subjective preconceptions and biases.
Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies.
And what of the selfless ant or bee giving up everything for the greater good, though with very limited neurons.
The sheer high amount of neurons and other factors making morality possible is merely one of the countless ways of how those neurons can be used based on our choices (not "are"). In the end, the act of choice itself prevails over the option / possibility. I presume this would be due to the fact that the number of neurons does not definitively equal to what the neurons do.
But I assume factors such as the number of neurons, and the strength of the connections between them, etc, can also contribute to heightening the limit of how deep an organism can think if they simply chose to.
The selfless ant or bee has less grasp of "what's so good about giving up everything" than the humans who act the same way. For the former, it's more of an instinct. The act itself does not decide the depth or the motivations behind that act.
But let's say that you can use this measurement, and put different animals on a hierarchy of morality?
What would you do with it?
WHat do you think it would justify?
- GrayArea
- Posts: 374
- Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
Explain how i'm running myself in ever decreasing circles. You didn't really counterargue any of my points. Also, neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy, unlike computing power. It's more than mechanistic, one of the reasons being that neurons allow more freedom within the system. But if we say that it's hypothetically possible, (though it's not) what one could do with this hierarchy of animal morality is to use them to understand the motivations behind animal behaviors, and etc. However, this hierarchy would not justify much of their actions, since to have morality does not mean that morality is always perfect. It's mostly just for the sake of knowledge.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 5:11 amYou are just running yourself in ever decreasing circles..GrayArea wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 7:36 pmThe existence of human beings can still be explained when we say that there are a lot of factors that make morality POSSIBLE to begin with, including the number of neurons. And just because it's possible for a species to possess moral values, it doesn't automatically mean that all members of that species should.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 5:10 pmNo.
Morality is a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one. The idea is without merit.
I am quite happy to believe that female elephants are more moral than most humans. But how would you judge morality except by utterly subjective preconceptions and biases.
Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies.
And what of the selfless ant or bee giving up everything for the greater good, though with very limited neurons.
The sheer high amount of neurons and other factors making morality possible is merely one of the countless ways of how those neurons can be used based on our choices (not "are"). In the end, the act of choice itself prevails over the option / possibility. I presume this would be due to the fact that the number of neurons does not definitively equal to what the neurons do.
But I assume factors such as the number of neurons, and the strength of the connections between them, etc, can also contribute to heightening the limit of how deep an organism can think if they simply chose to.
The selfless ant or bee has less grasp of "what's so good about giving up everything" than the humans who act the same way. For the former, it's more of an instinct. The act itself does not decide the depth or the motivations behind that act.
But let's say that you can use this measurement, and put different animals on a hierarchy of morality?
What would you do with it?
WHat do you think it would justify?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
I think I've changed my mind. The link you originally provided talks first about neuron-count per individual, which, I suppose, might be a useful measurement. Then it seems to talk about the total number of neurons per species, multiplying the neuron count by the count of individuals, and concludes that humans are, in some way, superior because of this. And now I think that maybe this is a cobbled-together 'justification' for human indifference to the suffering (if any) of animals. Disappointing, but then maybe the idea was a non-starter in the first place?GE Morton wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 10:34 amThe number of connections is (roughly) proportional to the number of neurons, at least with mammals.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 10:00 amMy first thought is that the idea has possibilities, but is incomplete. It seems to estimate the 'magnitude' of particular attributes by counting the nodes of the 'network', which sounds OK as a starting point, but ignores the network's connections.GE Morton wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2022, 7:04 pm At least one philosopher thinks so, or at least that it is a relevant factor.
https://reason.com/2022/09/22/counting- ... s-animals/
At first blush I thought the suggestion ridiculous. But after some reflection decided there might be something to it, if that number relates to an animal's capacity for experiencing "welfare."
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
Good Grief!GrayArea wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 7:02 amExplain how i'm running myself in ever decreasing circles. You didn't really counterargue any of my points. Also, neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy, unlike computing power.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 5:11 amYou are just running yourself in ever decreasing circles..GrayArea wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 7:36 pmThe existence of human beings can still be explained when we say that there are a lot of factors that make morality POSSIBLE to begin with, including the number of neurons. And just because it's possible for a species to possess moral values, it doesn't automatically mean that all members of that species should.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 5:10 pm
No.
Morality is a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one. The idea is without merit.
I am quite happy to believe that female elephants are more moral than most humans. But how would you judge morality except by utterly subjective preconceptions and biases.
Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies.
And what of the selfless ant or bee giving up everything for the greater good, though with very limited neurons.
The sheer high amount of neurons and other factors making morality possible is merely one of the countless ways of how those neurons can be used based on our choices (not "are"). In the end, the act of choice itself prevails over the option / possibility. I presume this would be due to the fact that the number of neurons does not definitively equal to what the neurons do.
But I assume factors such as the number of neurons, and the strength of the connections between them, etc, can also contribute to heightening the limit of how deep an organism can think if they simply chose to.
The selfless ant or bee has less grasp of "what's so good about giving up everything" than the humans who act the same way. For the former, it's more of an instinct. The act itself does not decide the depth or the motivations behind that act.
But let's say that you can use this measurement, and put different animals on a hierarchy of morality?
What would you do with it?
WHat do you think it would justify?
That being the case then why are we even talking about this absurd wretched article?
- GrayArea
- Posts: 374
- Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
Because I want to talk about it, and you're responding to me.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 10:43 amGood Grief!GrayArea wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 7:02 amExplain how i'm running myself in ever decreasing circles. You didn't really counterargue any of my points. Also, neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy, unlike computing power.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 5:11 amYou are just running yourself in ever decreasing circles..GrayArea wrote: ↑September 24th, 2022, 7:36 pm
The existence of human beings can still be explained when we say that there are a lot of factors that make morality POSSIBLE to begin with, including the number of neurons. And just because it's possible for a species to possess moral values, it doesn't automatically mean that all members of that species should.
The sheer high amount of neurons and other factors making morality possible is merely one of the countless ways of how those neurons can be used based on our choices (not "are"). In the end, the act of choice itself prevails over the option / possibility. I presume this would be due to the fact that the number of neurons does not definitively equal to what the neurons do.
But I assume factors such as the number of neurons, and the strength of the connections between them, etc, can also contribute to heightening the limit of how deep an organism can think if they simply chose to.
The selfless ant or bee has less grasp of "what's so good about giving up everything" than the humans who act the same way. For the former, it's more of an instinct. The act itself does not decide the depth or the motivations behind that act.
But let's say that you can use this measurement, and put different animals on a hierarchy of morality?
What would you do with it?
WHat do you think it would justify?
That being the case then why are we even talking about this absurd wretched article?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
Yes, it takes a utilitarian turn at that point ("greatest good for the greatest number"). But that argument is no more valid for animal welfare than it is for humans.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 8:53 am
Then it seems to talk about the total number of neurons per species, multiplying the neuron count by the count of individuals, and concludes that humans are, in some way, superior because of this.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
Yes: "Since Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler had more neurons than a female Labrador with her puppies you would have to conclude that wiping out millions of humans for greed and gain is more moral than giving up the substance of your own body to feed babies."
You're rendering judgment on the morality of Genghis Khan and Labradors. Which is irrelevant to the question of the moral standing of humans or Labradors.
No, it doesn't (if you mean greater than humans). Because most of a brain's mass is not involved in cognitive processes.The brains of cetacaens are far more complex and convoluted than humans despite trying to minimise them because of their mass, that would indicate a greater propensity for emotional understanding and potential suffering.
Well, that concept allows us to distinguish entities to whom we moral agents may have moral obligations from those we don't, e.g., rocks from humans. All moralities presuppose that some entities have moral standing and others don't.What makes you think, even if you could measure it, that a concept such a "moral standing" is meaningful, even inside human society, let alone outside it?.
Again, you seem not to grasp the question of the thread. Neither orcas nor seals are moral agents, and how they behave toward one another is irrelevant to that question, which is, What obligations do WE, as moral agents, have to either species? How must WE treat them? And, might we have have more obligations to some species than to others?Does a killer whale deserves special attention in a moral world, above the seals that they gang up on to kill and play with before they eat them?
Your trouble is that you have a weird understanding or "moral" as if it were a scientifically quantifiable phenomenon.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Does the moral standing of animals depend upon the number of neurons they have?
If, as you say, " neural activity is not something that can be measured and put on a hierarchy,", then the conversation os over.GrayArea wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 11:31 amBecause I want to talk about it, and you're responding to me.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 25th, 2022, 10:43 amGood Grief!
That being the case then why are we even talking about this absurd wretched article?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023