(March 6, 2024 at 11:19 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Pain, as we understand it, isn't basic. It's a recent acquisition associated with the mammalian cortex. We can't help but intuit that other creatures feel pain when we see them respond, but at the same time we know that alot of them literally don't have the machinery. The vast majority of basic responses to harmful things in living creatures (even us) are hard wired or straight up chemical reactions. The compromise that researchers have landed on is that fish feel something like their own version of pain, distinct from what we mean when we discuss that in human terms. They possess some of the machinery, but not all, they display some of the associated behaviors, but not all...and "fish" is a pretty broad category, so there are differences between specimens.
I think that it's a good pain avoidance strategy to treat anything you think feels pain as though it does. That way, even if it doesn't...you wont.
I am not sure this precautionary principle ("In case you are not certain whether something is sentient, treat it as if it is.") works well in politics. Sure, it works in ethics as a way to make the debates about solipsism irrelevant to ethics, but I am not so sure it works in politics. When we say "Fish should be treated as if they felt pain.", we are advocating for coercion. We are saying that fishing ships should somehow be modified to kill the fish humanely, which costs money and, in all likelihood, freedom (as fishers probably need to be forced to do that). One who is advocating for coercion has the burden of proof, doesn't he?
Sure, sometimes coercion is justified, such as regulating the use of antibiotics in the egg industry (as it's basic biology that it causes superbacteria). But coercing people to kill fish humanely even though we aren't certain they feel pain... I am not sure that's justified.
