At any one time, there are more than 4.5 billion chickens trapped in cages that cause them constant pain and distress. Because of this, I believe that improving chicken welfare should be one of humanity’s most urgent moral priorities.
A lot of people disagree with me on this because, while they agree that it’s bad to treat chickens poorly, they think that we should help humans first.
In today’s post, I’m going to go over each of the main reasons one could think this and why I think they’re wrong.
Reason #1: Human suffering is more important than animal suffering
Some may argue that, while animal suffering is bad, human suffering is always more important than animal suffering.
I think this is wrong for three reasons.
First, it’s unclear why this would be the case. Humans and animals are quite similar so it’s hard to think of any difference between them that would make it so that human suffering is somehow intrinsically worse than animal suffering. After all, we were both produced by the same process of evolution, our bodies are made of the same material, and our brains function in very similar ways so we have good reason to think that our experiences of suffering are quite similar.
Second, since we are humans, we’re naturally inclined to think that humans are more important. But, since morality is objective, we have to remember that morality’s true independent of the observer. If we look at the world from the perspective of the universe, then we shouldn’t have any bias towards thinking that the suffering of humans is inherently more important than the suffering of other animals.
Lastly, very few moral views have such an extreme ordering of what’s important. On this view, we should be willing to help one human avoid stubbing their toe over saving hundreds of millions of pigs from eternal torture because animal suffering is always less important than human suffering. This seems implausible on the face of it, and it is not how most moral views think about ranking what’s important. For instance, most people think that many things such as justice, beauty, nature, happiness, and love are important, but very few people are willing to say that we should only maximize one value before focusing on increasing the next one. For instance, most people would not say that we should maximize all love within the universe before increasing the beauty within it all.
Reason #2: Animals suffer vastly less than humans
Some people will agree that animals can suffer, but they will argue that animals suffer vastly less than humans.
Since our society has normalized the mistreatment of animals, it makes sense that one would think this, but I don’t think that we have any good reason to.
For one, we can generally say that humans have some differences from animals (such as being more social, more intelligent, and more capable of abstract thought), but none of these differences indicate that humans experience more pain than other animals. After all, if a human were less social, less intelligent, or less capable of abstract thought, we would not think that they experience less pain so we should also not do the same for other animals.
For two, animals (or, at least, land animals) are closely evolutionarily related to humans. Since humans evolved to experience intense pain in response to physical injuries, it’s hard to think of a good reason why other animals would not also experience a similarly intense amount of pain in response to the same injury. It could certainly be the case that certain animals need to experience less pain to have the same response, but it could also be that certain animals need to experience more pain to have the same response. Since the science on this is so embryonic, it’s really hard to say which direction this goes for any animal.
And, for three, animals seem to experience very intense pain. When put in danger, they look extremely anxious. And, when injured, they appear particularly distressed. Many people will say that animals experience less pain, and, yet, they will also actively avoid images of animals suffering because of how horrifying they are.
Reason #3: We, as humans, have a unique obligation to help other humans
Some people will argue that animal suffering is bad but that, since we are humans, we have a unique obligation to help other humans.
I find this unlikely for three reasons.
First, humans are the only known species in the universe that are also moral agents. Since we are responsible for the effects of our actions, it seems like we should take into account all effects of our actions rather than merely the effects that affect other humans.
Second, humans are the only species that are able to help themselves and others. Since animals are unable to help themselves, it seems like we have an inherent obligation to help them.
Lastly, if suffering is bad, it seems like we should have an obligation to reduce it (no matter who experiences it), otherwise it isn’t actually bad.
Reason #4: Helping humans is best long-term
Another reason one may offer for helping humans over animals is that helping humans is best long-term. After all, if we help humans today, we can expect that our help will compound over time, causing society to be much wealthier and more productive in the future. The long-term benefits of helping humans may strongly outweigh the immediate benefits of helping animals.
I used to think this argument was somewhat compelling, but, now, I’m no longer convinced because this argument relies on the view that we can predictably determine the effects of our actions over very long timelines. I think this is unlikely to be the case.
For one, human history thus far has been very unpredictable. Since someone five hundred years ago could in no way reasonably predict the effects of their actions, I don’t think that we should also believe that we can predict the effects of our actions over long time lines.
For two, human history thus far has also been very chaotic. For instance, because of a scientific discovery in 1938, humanity rushed to develop nuclear weapons, which caused humanity to come close to nuclear war multiple times. As such, since we don’t know how future scientific discoveries will affect society or what will end up being important long-term, we should focus on what matters right now rather than trying to forecast extremely long timelines.
This is a crosspost from my blog post.
At any one time, there are more than 4.5 billion chickens trapped in cages that cause them constant pain and distress. Because of this, I believe that improving chicken welfare should be one of humanity’s most urgent moral priorities.
A lot of people disagree with me on this because, while they agree that it’s bad to treat chickens poorly, they think that we should help humans first.
In today’s post, I’m going to go over each of the main reasons one could think this and why I think they’re wrong.
Reason #1: Human suffering is more important than animal suffering
Some may argue that, while animal suffering is bad, human suffering is always more important than animal suffering.
I think this is wrong for three reasons.
First, it’s unclear why this would be the case. Humans and animals are quite similar so it’s hard to think of any difference between them that would make it so that human suffering is somehow intrinsically worse than animal suffering. After all, we were both produced by the same process of evolution, our bodies are made of the same material, and our brains function in very similar ways so we have good reason to think that our experiences of suffering are quite similar.
Second, since we are humans, we’re naturally inclined to think that humans are more important. But, since morality is objective, we have to remember that morality’s true independent of the observer. If we look at the world from the perspective of the universe, then we shouldn’t have any bias towards thinking that the suffering of humans is inherently more important than the suffering of other animals.
Lastly, very few moral views have such an extreme ordering of what’s important. On this view, we should be willing to help one human avoid stubbing their toe over saving hundreds of millions of pigs from eternal torture because animal suffering is always less important than human suffering. This seems implausible on the face of it, and it is not how most moral views think about ranking what’s important. For instance, most people think that many things such as justice, beauty, nature, happiness, and love are important, but very few people are willing to say that we should only maximize one value before focusing on increasing the next one. For instance, most people would not say that we should maximize all love within the universe before increasing the beauty within it all.
Reason #2: Animals suffer vastly less than humans
Some people will agree that animals can suffer, but they will argue that animals suffer vastly less than humans.
Since our society has normalized the mistreatment of animals, it makes sense that one would think this, but I don’t think that we have any good reason to.
For one, we can generally say that humans have some differences from animals (such as being more social, more intelligent, and more capable of abstract thought), but none of these differences indicate that humans experience more pain than other animals. After all, if a human were less social, less intelligent, or less capable of abstract thought, we would not think that they experience less pain so we should also not do the same for other animals.
For two, animals (or, at least, land animals) are closely evolutionarily related to humans. Since humans evolved to experience intense pain in response to physical injuries, it’s hard to think of a good reason why other animals would not also experience a similarly intense amount of pain in response to the same injury. It could certainly be the case that certain animals need to experience less pain to have the same response, but it could also be that certain animals need to experience more pain to have the same response. Since the science on this is so embryonic, it’s really hard to say which direction this goes for any animal.
And, for three, animals seem to experience very intense pain. When put in danger, they look extremely anxious. And, when injured, they appear particularly distressed. Many people will say that animals experience less pain, and, yet, they will also actively avoid images of animals suffering because of how horrifying they are.
Reason #3: We, as humans, have a unique obligation to help other humans
Some people will argue that animal suffering is bad but that, since we are humans, we have a unique obligation to help other humans.
I find this unlikely for three reasons.
First, humans are the only known species in the universe that are also moral agents. Since we are responsible for the effects of our actions, it seems like we should take into account all effects of our actions rather than merely the effects that affect other humans.
Second, humans are the only species that are able to help themselves and others. Since animals are unable to help themselves, it seems like we have an inherent obligation to help them.
Lastly, if suffering is bad, it seems like we should have an obligation to reduce it (no matter who experiences it), otherwise it isn’t actually bad.
Reason #4: Helping humans is best long-term
Another reason one may offer for helping humans over animals is that helping humans is best long-term. After all, if we help humans today, we can expect that our help will compound over time, causing society to be much wealthier and more productive in the future. The long-term benefits of helping humans may strongly outweigh the immediate benefits of helping animals.
I used to think this argument was somewhat compelling, but, now, I’m no longer convinced because this argument relies on the view that we can predictably determine the effects of our actions over very long timelines. I think this is unlikely to be the case.
For one, human history thus far has been very unpredictable. Since someone five hundred years ago could in no way reasonably predict the effects of their actions, I don’t think that we should also believe that we can predict the effects of our actions over long time lines.
For two, human history thus far has also been very chaotic. For instance, because of a scientific discovery in 1938, humanity rushed to develop nuclear weapons, which caused humanity to come close to nuclear war multiple times. As such, since we don’t know how future scientific discoveries will affect society or what will end up being important long-term, we should focus on what matters right now rather than trying to forecast extremely long timelines.