# Why is it wrong for animals to suffer? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2002, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451 "2002-11-12T16:49:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Regina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d78d45/32.png) [@Regina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Regina)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2002, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/21 "2002-11-13T23:18:31Z")
**erislover** – Except sea life? Does this include whales, dolphins, seals, walruses? Is there a difference between a fish, shellfish, or sea urchin and sea _mammals_? I wouldn’t like to see any form of life tortured (yes, even a tree), but it seems worse to torture a seal over a fish over a tree. Maybe the life that’s closer to us on the old species tree rates more concern. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/22 "2002-11-14T03:32:16Z")
I know this will make me go blind or give me a hairy keyboard, but > [@](#): > > Tell me, what has rights, and what does not? Do plants have the right not to suffer? Self-organizing crystalline systems? Memes? Why are seals worse than fish, or algae? Because they are cuter? ---
**Author:** ![LuthAeron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3e96dc/32.png) [@LuthAeron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LuthAeron)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/23 "2002-11-14T03:46:40Z")
As I see it, only in the eyes of another does anybody own anything. Legaly, I own quite a few things, my greatly loved cats included; however, in my eyes, I do not own my cats. They are with me of their own accord, and if they decided to stop feeding in my garauge I would greive, but not try and bring them back to me. If something is alive, it has its own being, ie: it is itself. If you don’t recognize that, then it doesn’t mean that it isn’t. People should not be abusive to anything, from the enviroment to their fellow people. That happens to be against what most people accept as human nature, so barring that it is best to abstain from all but the extreemly necesary abusivenesses. I am not religious, and this is not really a religious view. I am however a student of Korean philosophies along with a large hunk of Amerindian heratige (and philosophy). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/24 "2002-11-14T05:37:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Eonwe, I get that living conditions for most livestock are horrible. But an animal can no more ‘do its thing’ if it is eaten by wolves then if it is slaughtered for meat. I would argue that butchering an animal humanely is more moral than a random fate in the wild. > > DW: Not a typo. I am a member of a large, powerful group of ‘us’ > (The U.S.) If the U.S. decided to outlaw homosexuality, I would fight this, not because I fear that the homosexual population of the U.S. could ‘win’, but because ‘we’ would have a precedent for turning on, say, computer nerds. > > Re your two scenarios: I see no good reason to kill in either one mentioned, and several reasons not to. Questions of evidence aside, most people would feel guilt at killing someone, and extreme guilt at killing them for no reason. Killing someone just because isn’t good enough to justify the always present\* repurcussions. > Re killing the kids: Sure it’s immoral. Either society will come after you (because it’s illegal), or you are enabling a society which may well make the torturing of you legal next. Exact same principle. > \*Again, psycopaths and sociopaths don’t feel guilt. Again, Ps and Ss are amoral. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/25 "2002-11-14T05:44:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Eonwe, I get that living conditions for most livestock are horrible. But an animal can no more ‘do its thing’ if it is eaten by wolves then if it is slaughtered for meat. I would argue that butchering an animal humanely is more moral than a random fate in the wild. > > DW: Not a typo. I am a member of a large, powerful group of ‘us’ > (The U.S.) If the U.S. decided to outlaw homosexuality, I would fight this, not because I fear that the homosexual population of the U.S. could ‘win’, but because ‘we’ would have a precedent for turning on, say, computer nerds. > > Re your two scenarios: I see no good reason to kill in either one mentioned, and several reasons not to. Questions of evidence aside, most people would feel guilt at killing someone, and extreme guilt at killing them for no reason. Killing someone just because isn’t good enough to justify the always present\* repurcussions. > Re killing the kids: Sure it’s immoral. Either society will come after you (because it’s illegal), or you are enabling a society which may well make the torturing of you legal next. Exact same principle. > \*Again, psycopaths and sociopaths don’t feel guilt. Again, Ps and Ss are amoral. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/26 "2002-11-14T13:17:41Z")
Oh, goody, he agrees with me. Twice. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/27 "2002-11-14T13:51:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*In this thread: > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=143663](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=143663) > > it was brought up that some of us hold cruelty to animals to be wrong. How do we define the ‘rights’ of animals, and are they applied to all animals? Why or why not? > > My view: There are people, and there is everything else. If a person owns something, they may do what they like with it. Thus a person may inflict horrible torture on a lamb or calf, because it is their damn lamb or calf. > What do you all think? \*\* I love animals and don’t have much respect for people who mistreat them. They may not be on a par of human beings but they’re still living beings that deserve to be treated in a humane manner. A person who feels the need to be cruel to animals shows what kind of character they have. If you have young children who take a delight in cruelty to animals, watch out. Eventually, it’ll transfer to humans. Cruelty to animals **is** wrong in my view and you were brought up correctly in this area. If you delight in causing pain and agony to a living creature just for your enjoyment or because you can, then you have something seriously wrong with you, in my humble opinion. If you were an animal, how would you like to be at the mercy of a cruel person? People who mistreat animals totally disgust me. Chances are some of them aren’t going to treat people very well either. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/28 "2002-11-14T14:16:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Oh, goody, he agrees with me. Twice. 🙂 \*\* D’oh! Very sorry about that: I blame the hamsters. I in no way meant to mislead you into thinking I agree with you; my apologies. Let me try again: > [@](#): > > DW: Not a typo. I am a member of a large, powerful group of ‘us’ > (The U.S.) If the U.S. decided to outlaw homosexuality, I would fight this, not because I fear that the homosexual population of the U.S. could ‘win’, but because ‘we’ would have a precedent for turning on, say, computer nerds. “Stop me before I kill again!” It’s individuals who commit immoral acts, not societies. Your fear needds to be that other people would turn on computer nerds: if you’re one, you’re not likely to be part of the “we” that turns on them. But this may be a semantics question; at least now I know what you mean by that. > [@](#): > > Re your two scenarios: I see no good reason to kill in either one mentioned, and several reasons not to. Questions of evidence aside, most people would feel guilt at killing someone, and extreme guilt at killing them for no reason. Killing someone just because isn’t good enough to justify the always present\* repurcussions. > \*Again, psycopaths and sociopaths don’t feel guilt. Again, Ps and Ss are amoral. Let me see if I get your argument here: 1. It is immoral to perform an act when the negative consequences of performing the act outweigh the positive consequences. 2. In the case of murders in which the killer won’t get caught, the killer will still feel so much guilt that it’ll outweigh any potential benefit of committing the murder. 3. If the killer doesn’t feel guilt, they’re psychopathic, and my moral system doesn’t apply to them anyway. Is that what you’re saying? It sounds like you’re coming up with arbitrary definitions, and when I show you that your definitions don’t adequately explain good and evil, you dismiss my counterexamples by defining them into irrelevance. no good. > [@](#): > > Re killing the kids: Sure it’s immoral. Either society will come after you (because it’s illegal), or you are enabling a society which may well make the torturing of you legal next. Exact same principle. This is even worse, and betrays a lack of understanding of rational egoism (although since I’ve been typing “rational egotism” all this time, I can’t really criticize, can I? 🙂 ). Let me deal with the easier part of the issue first: saying that an act is immoral because you’ll suffer for it because it’s illegal is getting your priorities mixed up. If the only negative consequences of an act stem from society’s repression of the act, the society is acting immorally, not you. To claim otherwise is to put babykilling on a level equivalent with smoking pot or committing sodomy, both of which are foolishly illegal and can therefore have negative consequences. Now for the more interesting argument, the slippery slope argument. RI, or social contract theory, suggests that beings act in their best interests by making a mutual nonaggression pact with other beings. In order to enter into a relevant mutual nonaggression pact, you’ve got to meet two criteria: - You’ve got to be able to harm other people potentially, and - You’ve got to be potentially able to agree not to harm other people. If you don’t meet these two criteria, then nobody’s gonna make a MNP with you. Is that clear? There’s a fundamental difference between the set of beings who meet these criteria and the set of beings who don’t meet the criteria: you have moral responsibilities only to the first set. Adult humans generally meet these criteria. Iguanas do not meet these criteria (they can’t agree to a MNP). Babies are a special case. Most babies _potentially_ will be able to harm other people, and _potentially_ will be able to agree not to do so. You don’t generally beat on toddlers in a social-contract system because those toddlers will grow up into adults with an axe to grind. But if you kill the babies before they grow up, then they won’t meet the criteria. And that puts them in the second set of beings, the one to which you have no moral obligations. They’re joined in that set by puppies, grasshoppers, pine trees, and solar systems. You still with me? (You can see why I’m pissed that my post last night got eaten: too long!) Given that, if you want to outlaw babykilling because otherwise “you are enabling a society which may well make the torturing of you legal next,” you need to explain why you don’t want to outlaw puppykilling for the same reason. What moral difference, within a social contract system, exists between puppies and human babies? ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/29 "2002-11-14T16:30:56Z")
Simple. Babies are people. Puppies are not. It’s true that a society that disallows puppykilling will be ‘safer’ than one that does. On the other hand, if you consider a puppy property, then telling you what you can and cannot do to it is a no-no. And in Robert’s magical country, sodomy and smoking of anything would not be on a level with killing someone of any age. Here in this society (U.S.), they are on the same scale, albeit fairly far removed. Also, as a footnote > [@](#): > > It’s individuals who commit immoral acts, not societies. > [@](#): > > …the society is acting immorally, not you. Just thought I’d point that out. Re the MNPs: It’s a nice metaphor, but my system works on the concept of a) you don’t go after people, and b) if someone goes after people, you go after them. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/30 "2002-11-14T16:37:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Simple. Babies are people. Puppies are not. It’s true that a society that disallows puppykilling will be ‘safer’ than one that does. On the other hand, if you consider a puppy property, then telling you what you can and cannot do to it is a no-no. > \*\* It’s not this simple, though. Now you’ve reduced the moral situation to: 1. I say that killing people is bad. Killing animals is not bad. 2. Why do people say that killing animals is bad? You’ve reduced it to an essentially religious standpoint, if you’re not willing to describe the moral difference between babies and puppies. When you say, [quote] my system works on the concept of a) you don’t go after people, and b) if someone goes after people, you go after them.[/quote I wonder: why don’t you go after people? Sorry to harp on this, but if you can’t explain why you don’t go after people, then I can’t explain why you also shouldn’t go after puppies :). Good catch on my saying that “society is acting immorally.” This was a mistake on my part: I meant that the individuals who would punish you for an act purely because the act is illegal are acting immorally themselves. Before we can continue this discussion, I need to understand where you’re coming from. Why is it wrong to go after people, if not for social contract reasons? I could go ahead and describe **my** reasons for not doing so, but I think you’ll reject my reasons as long as you hold to yours. So I want to show you the flaws in yours first. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/31 "2002-11-14T16:53:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*I’ll argue that, Eonwe. Some animals’ version of animal-ness includes being domesticated/slaughtered for food, just as it includes being run down by wolves or trapped by spiders. Just because we use knives and guns instead of webs and fangs doesn’t mean that it’s not the same basic thing. > > \*\* Seems to me that spiders and wolves don’t capture rabbits or flies and torture them for amusement. They kill their prey for food, not for amusement. If the method they use is painful, that is not their fault. It just happens to be the way it happened. Other than saying this, I have nothing to say that should be said in GD, if this were in the pit on the other hand… ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/32 "2002-11-14T19:13:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Simple. Babies are people. Puppies are not. \*\* As to what **Daniel** was saying about the problem of equality: I’ve never really seen it as a very big problem. (It basically says that we should treat all creatures the same as long as there is no moral difference. It’s the difference that is usually the debate.) As I’ve always seen it the problem is when the requirements of the “right not to suffer” over-lap within the species. So a monkey would not be included based on something like moral autonomy, but the senile and very young (people) are included based on their membership in the human species. Problem? As I said before: I don’t think so. As a person it is easy to become caught up in the sentimental response of "sure, she can’t make any of her own decisions and has completely ceased to be an autonomic being, _but she’s human!_ As a moral philosopher though, that being has objectively fallen under the minimum requirement for the contract and is no longer covered. Thus, any time we decide to cover these non-person’s under the contract it is more of a social convention than a legitimate inclusion. Something like respect for a sacred object. Discuss 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/33 "2002-11-14T19:14:02Z")
**AlaItalia** … maybe it should trigger those feelings as they are mammals or whatever, but it doesn’t. I think it is just because most animals people discuss when they discuss abuse (cats and dogs come to mind) seem to be able to emote better, and so I can anthropomophize and consider their expressions as cries of pain. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/34 "2002-11-14T20:59:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\ ***AlaItalia** … maybe it should trigger those feelings as they are mammals or whatever, but it doesn’t. I think it is just because most animals people discuss when they discuss abuse (cats and dogs come to mind) seem to be able to emote better, and so I can anthropomophize and consider their expressions as cries of pain. \*\* ?? What makes you think that their expressions aren’t cries of pain? Other than religious arguments or solipsistic arguments, I can’t imagine interpreting them as anything else. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/35 "2002-11-14T23:33:02Z")
Daniel, there is no objective moral difference between an adult person, an infant, and a kitten. They are all lumps of impure hydrocarbons. However, the first two have subjective moral value to me, because protecting them leaves me better off. I have no reason to kick people or puppies, and a good reason not to. However, although I have a good reason to get involved if someone else is kicking a third party, I have no such reason if said person is kicking their own puppy. Epimetheus: Ever owned a cat? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2002, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/36 "2002-11-14T23:59:33Z")
> [@](#): > > What makes you think that their expressions aren’t cries of pain? I do consider them cries of pain; hence my reaction. Or was it the anthopomorphizing that got to you? Pain is a word we use to describe certain behavior; as much as a cat can reproduce that behavior, it does, and in circumstances similar to humans. And since it seems not a stretch to consider them conscious then this is what gives me trouble with torturing them. But maybe that’s just dressing. Again, I feel bad when I see cats get abused. This remains the totality of my motivation to not torture them. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/37 "2002-11-15T00:54:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Daniel, there is no objective moral difference between an adult person, an infant, and a kitten. They are all lumps of impure hydrocarbons. \*\* I have to take issue with this one. Under _my_ theory of “ethics”, if you can call them that, there is a big difference. Humans (and maybe even a few of the smarter animals, like dogs and apes and dolphins) have future-oriented mental states. They have hopes, dreams, desires that look towards the future. That’s why it’s unethical to kill them, because killing them constitutues the use of positive force to frustrate every future-oriented goal they possess. A cow strolls along, sees some grass, and probably thinks something like “hungry - food - here - now - eat”, if such could even be called thinking at all. Killing it won’t frustrate any goals, because it forms goals only in the present. Now, one could argue that torturing it is quite another matter, and more would need to be known about animals mental states to decide the issue. Yet there is at least _something_ to distinguish between humans and the majority of animals in ethical terms, something that I think justifies treating them differently. ---
**Author:** ![Regina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d78d45/32.png) [@Regina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Regina)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/38 "2002-11-15T02:07:38Z")
I think that’s a good way to distinguish a “moral difference” between humans and most animals, being able to in some way conceptualize a future. **RexDart** said much more eloquently what I was trying to express (and please correct me if I misunderstood): that some animals deserve not to be killed/tortured because they are, or we think they are, more like us (i.e., having goals and desires, or being mammalian). We can empathize with another being in which we can observe what we think is something in common with ourselves. While I still think something’s wrong with a person who tortures anything, a kid pulling the legs off flies just isn’t up there with beating a puppy. It sickens **erislover** to see a cat tortured but not a fish. The more like us, the more we can empathize, and torture of these creatures is bad. If you do not have any empathy, or your culture does not foster empathetic feelings (China?), then it doesn’t matter if cats are skinned alive, because you can’t relate to the animal and “feel its pain.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/39 "2002-11-15T04:02:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Daniel, there is no objective moral difference between an adult person, an infant, and a kitten. They are all lumps of impure hydrocarbons. However, the first two have subjective moral value to me, because protecting them leaves me better off. \*\* How does protecting infants leave you better off? If you’re gonna resort to the slippery slope argument, explain why puppies don’t, contrary to law enforcement statements, form part of that slippery slope of pain. **Rexdart** , I’m not an expert on cows – but the behavioral research I’ve read on bonobos suggests that they do have goals, memories, desires, and beliefs, and possibly even an ability to understand symbols (one bonobo seemed able to read a primitive map of a large enclosure, and use it to find treats). Experiments with dogs show that they have memories, beliefs, and the ability to form goals (although generally we’re talking memories, beliefs, and goals like, “I buried a big juicy bone out in the yard yesterday, and I believe it’s still there! If I wag my tail and jump on the door, I believe my owner will let me out, and then if I dig up the bone and chew on it, it’ll be tasty and wonderful! That’s just what I’m gonna do!”, not, “I believe that time is an abstraction, and that the events of my life so far have led me toward an inescapable encounter with death; therefore, if I roll over in bed now, my boss won’t mind my being twenty minutes late to work”). It appears that we share many basic cognitive patterns with many other mammals. To the extent that a moral system is based around not frustrating goals, not inflicting harm, not acting contrary to a being’s interests, it is hard to draw a bright line between the goals, the interests of humans and of other mammals. As near as I can tell, we’re on much more of a continuum than that. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2002, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451/40 "2002-11-15T12:51:25Z")
> [@](#): > > How does protecting infants leave you better off? If you’re gonna resort to the slippery slope argument, explain why puppies don’t, contrary to law enforcement statements, form part of that slippery slope of pain. Puppies, cute, fuzzy, and intelligent as they may be, are property. People are not property. Actually, it’s a different slippery slope altoghether. If puppy pain is illegal, how about lobster pain? Plant pain? We (people) have a tacit agreement that the best way to ensure our own personal survival is to help each other and beat on people who hurt other people. We have no such agreement with puppies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-it-wrong-for-animals-to-suffer/136451.md?page=3)