The standard view in philosophy treats pains as phenomenally conscious mental states. This view has a number of corollaries, including that it is generally taken to rule out the existence of unfelt pains. The primary argument in support of the standard view is that it supposedly corresponds with the commonsense conception of pain. In this paper, we challenge this doctrine about the commonsense conception of pain, and with it the support offered for the standard view, by presenting the results of (...) a series of new empirical studies that indicate that lay people not only tend to believe that unfelt pains are possible, but actually, quite common. (shrink)

This chapter examines the ethical case that can be mounted for veganism. Because there has been comparatively little discussion in ethics focused directly on veganism, the central aim of this chapter is threefold: to orient readers to (some of) the most important philosophical literature relevant to the topic, to provide a clear explanation of the current state of the ethical case for veganism, and to focus attention on the most important outstanding or underexplored questions in this domain. The chapter examines (...) the range of positions that deserve to be called ethical veganism, and some of the types of reasons that philosophers can potentially appeal to in arguing for veganism. It then spells out the core of the most promising case for veganism, which argues directly for the wrongness of making animals suffer and die. The chapter then considers three ways of arguing from this conclusion to an ethical defense of the vegan lifestyle, which appeal respectively to the ethical significance of the effects of individual use of animal products, of group efficacy, and of complicity with wrongdoing. The chapter concludes by examining several neglected complications facing the ethical case for veganism. (shrink)

Peter Carruthers argues that phenomenal consciousness might not matter very much either for the purpose of determining which nonhuman animals are appropriate objects of moral sympathy, or for the purpose of explaining for the similarities in behavior of humans and nonhumans. Carruthers bases these claims on his version of a dispositionalist higher-order thought (DHOT) theory of consciousness which allows that much of human behavior is the result of first-order beliefs that need not be conscious, and that prima facie judgments about (...) the importance of consciousness are due to confabulation. We argue briefly against his claim that 'the moral landscape can remain unchanged' even if all or nearly all nonhuman animals are taken to be incapable of conscious experience. We then show how a first-order representational (FOR) theory of consciousness might be defended against Carruthers' criticisms. Finally, we argue that Carruthers' appeal to confabulation undercuts his own arguments for an evolutionary explanation for consciousness, posing a greater epiphenomenalist threat to his DHOT theory than he concedes. (shrink)

Which non-human animals are phenomenally conscious? In this paper I argue that the distribution of phenomenal consciousness in the animal world is ultimately an unsolvable issue, because of an underlying problem inherent in the field: what I call the Kinda Hard Problem. The Kinda Hard Problem arises because the grounds on which we base our consciousness attributions to humans third-personally are either unavailable or ambiguous once we move to the animal case. Its nature is that of an epistemic problem: we (...) cannot collect enough evidential grounds to justify attributions of phenomenal consciousness (and attributions of its lack) to non-human animals. Thus, it is impossible to ground rational belief one way or another regarding animal consciousness. This paper presents the problem and explains how it differs from other problems of consciousness. (shrink)

Compassion is often described in terms of suffering. This paper investigates the nature of this suffering. It is argued that compassion involves suffering of a particular kind. To begin with a case is made for the negative claim that compassion does not involve an ordinary, or afflictive, suffering over something. Secondly, it is argued that the suffering of compassion is a suffering for someone else’s sake: If you feel compassion for another person, P, then you suffer over P:s suffering for (...) P:s sake, and if that is all you do, then you are not affected with an afflictive suffering over something. The final section identifies and addresses a problem concerning self-pity, and a suggestion is made on how to specify the proposed account so as to cover both self-directed and other-directed compassion. (shrink)

This paper argues for ethical veganism: the thesis that it is typically wrong to consume animal products. The paper first sets out an intuitive case for this thesis that begins with the intuitive claim that it is wrong to set fire to a cat. I then raise a methodological challenge: this is an intuitive argument for a revisionary conclusion. Even if we grant that we cannot both believe that it is permissible to drink milk, and that it is wrong to (...) set fire to cats, this leaves open the question of which of these judgments we should abandon. I consider and reject three strategies for addressing this question: more methodologically naïve moral theorizing, appeal to systematic normative theory, and attacking non-moral presuppositions. I argue that philosophically satisfying the resolution of the conflict requires debunking our grounds for belief in one of the conflicting claims. Finally, I argue that ethical veganism is supported by consideration of the most salient debunking arguments available. (shrink)

One major problem many hypotheses regarding the neural correlate of consciousness, face is what we might call “the why question”: why would this particular neural feature, rather than another, correlate with consciousness? The purpose of the present paper is to develop an NCC hypothesis that answers this question. The proposed hypothesis is inspired by the cross-order integration theory of consciousness, according to which consciousness arises from the functional integration of a first-order representation of an external stimulus and a second-order representation (...) of that first-order representation. The proposal comes in two steps. The first step concerns the “general shape” of the NCC and can be directly derived from COI theory. The second step is a concrete hypothesis that can be arrived at by combining the general shape with empirical considerations. (shrink)

Recent results from neuroimaging appear to indicate that some patients in a vegetative state have partially intact awareness. These results may demonstrate misdiagnosis and suggest the need not only for alternative forms of treatment, but also for the reconsideration of end-of-life decisions in cases of disorders of consciousness. This article addresses the second consequence. First, I will discuss which aspects of consciousness may be involved in neuroimaging findings. I will then consider various factors relevant to ethical end-of-life decision-making, and analyse (...) whether and to what extent the above consequence applies to these factors. It will be shown that knowledge of the existence of partial awareness in patients with disorders of consciousness only influences end-of-life decision-making if certain background assumptions are made. (shrink)

Wilkinson and Savulescu did not agree with the court's decision to continue M's treatment and suggested in their recent commentary that the magnitude of benefits of being alive for M is small compared with the potential use of health resources for other patients. We argue that the benefits of being sensate to the surroundings for an otherwise unconscious person are not necessarily small. One cannot assess on behalf of another person the magnitude of benefits of being alive according to the (...) intensity or the duration of negative experiences. Denying life-sustaining treatment to patients in a minimally conscious state solely on the grounds that they are less capable of enjoying the benefits represents grave discrimination against disabled persons. For patients in a minimally conscious state who have not delegated a surrogate or made any advance decision about their medical treatment, the duty of doctors is to preserve their right to self-determination and maximise their capacity to enjoy their life. M should live on, and life-sustaining treatment should not be withdrawn. (shrink)

According to higher-order thought accounts of phenomenal consciousness it is unlikely that many non-human animals undergo phenomenally conscious experiences. Many people believe that this result would have deep and far-reaching consequences. More specifically, they believe that the absence of phenomenal consciousness from the rest of the animal kingdom must mark a radical and theoretically significant divide between ourselves and other animals, with important implications for comparative psychology. I shall argue that this belief is mistaken. Since phenomenal consciousness might be almost (...) epiphenomenal in its functioning within human cognition, its absence in animals may signify only relatively trivial differences in cognitive architecture. Our temptation to think otherwise arises partly as a side-effect of imaginative identification with animal experiences, and partly from mistaken beliefs concerning the aspects of common-sense psychology that carry the main explanatory burden, whether applied to humans or to non-human animals. (shrink)

Shriver and Allen (this volume, this journal; hereafter S&A) make three unconnected criticisms of my views concerning phenomenal consciousness and the question of animal consciousness. First, they claim that my dispositional higher-order thought theory of consciousness has much greater significance for ethics than I recognize. Second, they claim that, in the course of attempting to motivate that theory, I have presented inadequate criticisms of first-order theories (according to which phenomenal consciousness may well be rampant in the animal world). And third, (...) they claim that my argument that the question of animal consciousness might not matter a great deal for comparative psychology may prove too much, showing that such consciousness is genuinely epiphenomenal in ourselves, and undermining some of my own evolutionary arguments in support of higher-order theories. I shall focus mostly on the second and third criticisms. But I begin with a few remarks about the first. (shrink)

Peter Carruthers has recently argued for a surprising conditional: if a global workspace theory of phenomenal consciousness is both correct and fully reductive, then there are no substantive facts to discover about phenomenal consciousness in nonhuman animals. I present two problems for this conditional. First, it rests on an odd double-standard about the ordinary concept of phenomenal consciousness: its intuitive non-gradability is taken to be unchallengeable by future scientific developments, whereas its intuitive determinacy is predicted to fall by the wayside. (...) Second, it relies on dismissing, prematurely, the live empirical possibility that phenomenal consciousness may be linked to a core global broadcast mechanism that is shared by a wide range of animals. Future developments in the science of consciousness may lead us to reconsider the non-gradability of phenomenal consciousness, but they are unlikely to lead us to accept that there are no facts to discover outside the paradigm case of a healthy adult human. (shrink)

Taking perceptual experience to consist in a relation of acquaintance with the sensible qualities, I argue that the state of being acquainted with a sensible quality is intrinsically a form of knowledge, and not merely a means to more familiar kinds of knowledge, such as propositional or dispositional knowledge. We should accept the epistemic claim for its explanatory power and theoretical usefulness. That acquaintance is knowledge best explains the intuitive epistemic appeal of ‘Edenic’ counterfactuals involving unmediated perceptual contact with reality (...) (cf. Chalmers, in: Gendler, Hawthorne (eds) Perceptual experience, Oxford University Press, 2006). It explains the elusiveness of knowledge gained through new acquaintances. It coheres with the knowledge-like functional role of acquaintance in the special context of evaluative beliefs and evaluative reasoning, where the objects of acquaintance serve as evidence and inferential basis. And, finally, taking acquaintance to be knowledge is theoretically fruitful: it helps vindicate claims about the relationship between knowledge and concern for others we already find intuitive or outright accept. After developing a novel case for the epistemic claim, I respond to two familiar objections against it: namely, (1) that there are no pre-propositional, pre-conceptual cases of perceptual experience that remain epistemically relevant (Sellars in Empiricism and the philosophy of mind, Routledge, 1968, McDowell, in: Lindgard (ed) John McDowell: Experience, norm, and nature, Blackwell, 2008); and (2) that the category of knowledge appears gerrymandered once we add ‘object’ knowledge to the epistemological mix (Farkas, in: Knowles, Raleigh (eds), Acquaintance: new essays, Oxford University Press, 2019). (shrink)

This paper proposes the ‘AGENCY model’ of conscious state attribution, according to which an entity's displaying certain relatively simple features (e.g. eyes, distinctive motions, interactive behavior) automatically triggers a disposition to attribute conscious states to that entity. To test the model's predictions, participants completed a speeded object/attribution task, in which they responded positively or negatively to attributions of mental properties (including conscious and non-conscious states) to different sorts of entities (insects, plants, artifacts, etc.). As predicted, participants responded positively to conscious (...) state attributions only for those entities that typically display the simple features identified in the AGENCY model (eyes, distinctive motion, interaction) and took longer to deny conscious states to those entities. (shrink)

Suppose that consciousness is a natural feature of biological organisms, and that it is a capacity or property or process that resides in a single organ. In that case there is a straightforward question about the consciousness organ, namely: How did the consciousness organ come to be formed and why is its presence maintained in those organisms that have it? Of course answering this question might be rather difficult, particularly if the consciousness organ is made of soft tissue that leaves (...) at best indirect fossil records, or if it has been fixed in the populations for such a long time that there are few available examples of organisms that lack the consciousness organ on which to conduct comparative experiments. No doubt there are other confounding practical obstacles as well. But these are just the complications that face biologists and natural historians on a regular basis, and they do not reflect any special problems about the study of consciousness. This is just to say that if consciousness is a natural feature of biological organisms then its origins and history can be studied in the same manner as other features of the biological world. It’s a hard business, but biologists are pretty good at it. (shrink)

Recently some philosophers interested in consciousness have begun to turn their attention to the question of what evolutionary advantages, if any, being conscious might confer on an organism. The issue has been pressed in recent dicussions involving David Chalmers, Todd Moody, Owen Flanagan and Thomas Polger, Daniel Dennett, and others. The purpose of this essay is to consider some of the problems that face anyone who wants to give an evolutionary explanation of consciousness. We begin by framing the problem in (...) the context of some current debates. Then we. (shrink)

The paper aims at clarifying the distinctions and relations between pain and suffering. Three negative theses are defended: 1. Pain and suffering are not identical. 2. Pain is not a species of suffering, nor is suffering a species of pain, nor are pain and suffering of a common (proximate) genus. 3. Suffering cannot be defined as the perception of a pain’s badness, nor can pain be defined as a suffered bodily sensation. Three positive theses are endorsed: 4. Pain and suffering (...) are categorically distinct: pain is a localised bodily episode, suffering is a non-localised affective attitude. 5. Suffering can be expressed, pains cannot. As a consequence, we can have compassion for the suffering of others, not for their pains. 6. The relation between pain and suffering is akin to the relation between danger and fear, injustice and indignation, wrongdoing and guilt: suffering is the correct reaction to pain. One upshot is that both the influential view that the experience of pain is incorrigible and the influential view that the ordinary conception of pain is paradoxical are false. (shrink)

The paper presents some considerations concerning the role of consciousness as a privileged state in nature which has implications for ethics. Especially in the modern talk about consciousness of human beings or animals since Thomas Nagel or Peter Singer we find discussions about the role of consciousness as an important irreducible and ‘higher’ phenomenon connected with a first person authority in epistemology and with special privileges in bioethics. In particular animal consciousness is often considered as a ‘lower’ state in a (...) “natural hierarchy”. In bioethics consciousness has been combined with qualities like the ability for future options, subjectivity, sentience or pain and further more, these elements have been used as criteria to justify an extraordinary ‘moral status’ for instance in these of ‘higher’ beings like Great Apes or for ‘higher’ conscious animals as “subjects of life” or having pain . On the other hand some analytical philosophers deny any ‘higher’ consciousness with respect to animals because of different theoretical reasons . Nevertheless advocates and denyers of animal ‘consciousness’ both assume that the possession of consciousness justifies privileges in ethics. This is the background for modern ethicists and philosophers of human and animal mind to refer implicite or explicite to a concept of “natural hierarchy” expressed by terms of “higher/lower” etc. In short, they talk in hierarchical terms about relations between natural entities like plants, animals, and men . This implies at first a theoretical question: What kind of epistemological or ontological justifications do allow to speak in terms of a “natural hierarchy”? The second more practical question is: If it is possible to talk in this way, is it justified for ethics? These and similar questions are discussed in the following paper from the perspective of modern and a Kantian epistemology. The first part reminds the great influence of two traditional metaphysical thinking patterns – the Aristotelian anima-order and the Cartesian machina-order on natural philosophy in general and its influence on modern neurocentric philosophy of mind . The second part presents some epistemological and ontological problems and considerations in this field. The third part presents an example in modern ethics using an hierarchical order . The important main result is, that it is very difficult to justify consciousness at the top of a “natural hierarchy” of organisms. (shrink)

Empirical evidence shows that non-conscious appraisal processes generate bodily responses to the environment. This finding is consistent with William James’s account of emotion, and it suggests that a general theory of emotion should follow James: a general theory should begin with the observation that physiological and behavioral responses precede our emotional experience. But I advance three arguments (empirical and conceptual arguments) showing that James’s further account of emotion as the experience of bodily responses is inadequate. I offer an alternative model, (...) according to which responses (physical states) are perceived and interpreted by a separate cognitive process, one that assigns meaning to those responses. The non-conscious appraisal process and the interpretive process are distinct, hence a two-stage model of emotion. This model is related to Schachter and Singer’s two-factor theory. Their often-discussed experiment showed that interpretation can play a role in producing emotions. But they do not show that interpretation is necessary for producing emotions in general, outside of the experimental conditions that generated unexplained arousal in subjects. My two-stage model supports this stronger claim by situating the interpretive process in a comprehensive model of emotion. (shrink)

Even though the 3Rs are widely accepted as ethical standards when evaluating research projects using animals as experimental subjects, the ethical status of the 3Rs still remains to be clarified. The 3Rs were not derived from any ethical theory, but they represented an attempt to increase humanity to animal experimentation and at the same time to improve validity of scientific data . The aim of the present article was to provide an ethical analysis of the 3Rs through Engelhardt's bioethics theory (...) . The analysis revealed the 3Rs fitted to some extent Engelhardt ethical values. But the analysis also revealed some internal contradictions between the 3Rs and Engelhardt's ethical vaules. Although the 3Rs are still valuable tools in animal ethical evaluation, the present analysis suggests that some ethical issues still remain to be clarified. (shrink)

Dieser Beitrag präsentiert einige Betrachtungen über die Rolle des Bewusstseins als eines in der Natur privilegierten Zustands, der mit Implikationen für die Ethik behaftet ist. Besonders im modernen Diskurs über das Bewusstsein beim Menschen oder beim Tier nach Thomas Nagel oder Peter Singer stößt man auf Diskussionen über die Rolle des Bewusstseins als eines wichtigen irreduktiblen und „höheren” Phänomens, das in Bezug steht zur Autorität der ersten Person in der Epistemologie sowie zu speziellen Vorrechten in der Bioethik. Insbesondere tierisches Bewusstsein (...) wird oft als ein „niedrigerer” Zustand in der „Naturhierarchie” bewertet. In der Bioethik wurde Bewusstsein mit Eigenschaften wie zukünftige Entscheidungsfähigkeit, Subjektivität, Empfindungsvermögen oder Schmerzfähigkeit in Verbindung gebracht. Mehr noch: Diese Elemente dienten als Kriterien, um den außerordentlichen „moralischen Status” bestimmter Lebewesen zu bestätigen, so etwa den Status der als „höhere Wesen” geltenden+ Menschenaffen oder anderer „höherer”, mit einem Bewusstsein ausgestatteter Tiere im Sinne von „Lebenssubjekten” , oder auch den Status von Schmerz empfindenden Tieren . Andererseits streiten einige analytische Philosophen die Existenz eines „höheren” Bewusstseins bei Tieren aus verschiedenen theoretischen Gründen ab . Dennoch vertreten sowohl die Befürworter als auch die Gegner der These von der Existenz tierischen „Bewusstseins” die Ansicht, dass Wesen, die über ein Bewusstsein verfügen, in der Ethik mit Vorrechten ausgestattet seien. Vor diesem Hintergrund greifen moderne Ethiker und Philosophen, die sich mit der Frage des Bewusstseins bei Mensch und Tier beschäftigen, zurück auf das Konzept der „Naturhierarchie”, die in Termini „höher/niedriger” usw. zum Ausdruck kommt. Kurz gesagt, ist damit in hierarchischen Termini von den Beziehungen zwischen natürlichen Wesen wie Pflanzen, Tieren und Menschen die Rede . Dies impliziert zunächst folgende theoretische Frage: Was für epistemologische oder ontologische Gründe berechtigen, mit den Termini einer „Naturhierarchie” zu sprechen? Die zweite, praktischere Frage lautet: Wenn es möglich ist, in dieser Weise zu sprechen, ist dann auch die Ethik dazu berechtigt? Diese und ähnliche Fragen werden im Beitrag aus der Perspektive der modernen wie auch der kantischen Epistemologie erörtert. Im ersten Teil wird an den großen Einfluss zweier traditioneller metaphysischer Denkmuster erinnert – der Seelenlehre des Aristoteles und der cartesianischen Sichtweise des Menschen als einer Maschine, die ihren Niederschlag in der Naturphilosophie allgemein fanden und sich auch auf die moderne neurozentrische Philosophie der Vernunft auswirken. Der zweite Teil präsentiert bestimmte epistemologische und ontologische Probleme und die dazu existierenden Reflexionen. Im dritten Teil wird an einem Beispiel gezeigt, wie eine hierarchische Ordnung in die Praxis umgesetzt wird . Das ausschlaggebende Ergebnis ist die Einsicht, dass es äußerst schwierig ist, Bewusstsein als den Gipfel einer „natürliche Hierarchie” der Organismen zu rechtfertigen. (shrink)