Home / A. Sentience and moral status / Part DIR
"Humans suffer more than animals"
in some cases, a more complex mind suffers more, for example when it anticipates a threat or remembers violence. In many others, it's the opposite: those who don't understand what's happening suffer more, like the animal or the baby who panics on being given medicine. And even if humans did suffer more, that would only give priority in real conflicts. It wouldn't authorize ignoring the suffering of those who suffer less.
Short answer
Sometimes humans suffer more, because they anticipate and remember. But often it's the opposite: an animal caught to be treated panics because it thinks it's going to die, and can't console itself by thinking it'll soon be over. And even if we suffered more, that would only tell us whom to prioritize when we can't help both. It doesn't authorize making another being suffer for a taste.
For children
When a dog goes to the vet, he doesn't know the injection is to help him. He just feels the jab and gets very scared. A big child understands that the vaccine protects them and stays calmer. So sometimes understanding things makes us suffer less, not more. And even someone who suffers a bit less doesn't deserve to suffer for nothing.
"If someone suffers less than you, does that make it acceptable to make them suffer?"
Como pode aparecer
"Humans suffer more because they understand what's happening to them."
"Animals live in the moment; they don't suffer like we do."
"Fish don't even remember the hook."
"Superior cognition amplifies human suffering."
"Animals aren't conscious and don't feel pain like we do." (which is A5)
"A fish's brain is small, it feels very little." (which leads to A6)
The strongest version
"Humans suffer much more, because they understand what's happening. An animal feels it in the moment and forgets."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1The intensity of suffering depends on cognitive capacities: those who anticipate, remember and understand also suffer over the past and the future.
- P2Humans have more sophisticated cognitive capacities than other animals.
- P3So humans suffer more in equivalent situations.
- CThat's why it's justified to prioritize humans and give less weight to animal suffering, including in farming for consumption.
The argument starts from something true: only someone who understands they'll be killed in a week suffers in anticipation.
The argument isn't valid: from "they suffer more" it doesn't follow that "others' suffering can be ignored". Its soundness also fails at P1, which generalizes what only holds in some cases.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument depends on two steps:
Step What it claims Status Empirical More cognition means more suffering True in some cases, false in others Moral Those who suffer less may be disregarded Doesn't follow from the first step Even if the empirical step were always true, the moral step wouldn't follow.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Sometimes, understanding reduces suffering.
Animals and small children tend to suffer more from an injection, because they don't know it will help. Those who understand can also ease present pain by remembering good things or expecting it to pass, something impossible for those without that capacity.
2. Less cognition often means more vulnerability.
That's why babies and people with cognitive disabilities need more care, not less. A lesser capacity to understand increases exposure to harm.
3. Intensity may even be greater in simpler minds.
For an animal with fewer cognitive resources, pain and pleasure may be the only drivers of behavior. That's why some argue that, in these animals, pain has to be intense to do its job (see A6).
4. Suffering less isn't not suffering.
Even if the argument were right about intensity, it would at most justify giving priority to humans when both harms can't be avoided. In animal exploitation there's no such conflict: the harm to the animal serves a small, avoidable benefit.
5. The argument is used selectively.
No one accepts that an adult may cause suffering to a child because the child "understands less".
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note *A Journey Through Animal Ethics*, vol. II, ch. 9 Greater cognition sometimes increases and sometimes decreases suffering; lesser cognition increases vulnerability The main source for this chapter *A Journey Through Animal Ethics*, vol. VI, ch. 8 Discusses whether simpler brains imply less sentience Basis for point 3 Singer, *Practical Ethics*, ch. 3 Shows that the difference in cognition cuts both ways Cambridge University Press; chapter "Equality for Animals?" - d
The strongest counter-reply: on average, human life holds more possible suffering
The most serious version admits the counterexamples, but says that, on average, a human mind can suffer in more ways: humiliation, despair, loss of meaning. So, on an overall scale, human suffering would weigh more.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
More ways to suffer isn't suffering more in each case.
The pain of a pig castrated without anesthesia isn't smaller because he doesn't feel humiliation.
The argument justifies priority, not exploitation.
Weighing more in real conflicts doesn't authorize breeding animals to suffer.
Scale changes the sum.
There are tens of billions of land animals and trillions of fish each year. Even with a lower weight for each, the total is enormous.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Non sequitur
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Hasty generalization
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Disproportion
Biases
Anthropocentrism
Measures suffering by human ways of suffering
General literature
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "those who suffer less may have their suffering ignored".
If it applied to…BabiesTap to see
It would be acceptable to cause them pain, since they understand less
No one accepts this
If it applied to…People with dementiaTap to see
Their suffering would count for less
Rejected as discrimination
If it applied to…Farmed animalsTap to see
Their suffering would count for less
This is the argument's conclusion
Contradictions
And uses understanding less to protect animals less.
But avoids watching what happens to them (E7).
And denies the same to the pig, whose cognition is comparable.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Cognitive capacities change the way we suffer, and there are forms of suffering only humans seem to have, such as anguish over a diagnosis or grief for someone who died years ago. A serious ethics takes this into account when weighing harms.
But
But taking into account isn't discarding. An animal's suffering is still suffering, and doesn't become acceptable because other kinds of suffering exist.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- But Aren't Humans Capable of Suffering to a Greater Degree? Vol. II, ch. 9