technicalities of suffering

[Sparky]

i was having a discussion lately about animal rights etc. and they kept bringing up the point that we have an obligation to end suffering wherever it may be.

my response to this had to do with crops, now, when we harvest corn, we use a massive tractor to strip away the valuable corn, and trample the stalks and leave them to die a slow, prolonged death of starvation (basically drying out) so, if that corn had a brain, it would definetly believe itself to be suffering. so, why is it that some neurons in an animals brain acknowledging the suffering, make it a worthwhile cause?

you could parallel it to the old "if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound" so is suffering the cruel acts, or is suffering the cognitive recognition of those acts.

and if the latter, would you be ok with horrendously killing a brain-dead animal?

[mncavylover]

I'm not sure I know what you mean--are you asking if killing plants is cruel? They can't feel. And no, I'm not ok with killing an animal horrendously under any circumstances.

[suzy_99]

Well, judging by the previous response, I would consider that most people here would constitute pain by the conscious feeling of pain, Right?? Well, plants can feel, but they cannot vocalize their pain in the way that we can. When a plant is in need of sun, it points itself towards the sun. When it has no water, it begins to droop. Is this not a reaction. All animals have the exact same type reactions. Pain is a psychological reaction to an external stimulus and nothing more. Bleeding, brusing, clotting, and so on are the body actual reactions to something that causes it discomfort or a type of injury. In this way, the idea of pain and suffering is very subjective to personal opinion. Do I believe that it is wrong to kill plants...no. But it is not because they cannot feel it, because their bodies do feel it, so this is not a logical argument against this point. It is because they do not have a conscious awareness of what it occuring to them. Their reactions are simply reflexes to their environment. Saying this, I must point out that an animal that is brain dead would not be aware of the pain, so to be technical, he would not really be suffering, but I find this wrong because I don't believe that people should torture animals. Torturing animals have been proven to be a warning sign of future violent acts, as many serial killers started by torturing animals. So would it really be wrong to horrendously kill a brain dead animal... If I look at it from a purely scientific view, then no, because he or she cannot feel it so technically there is no pain, as pain is psychological and the reactions are physical. But moraly, it is wrong, because even though the animal cannot feel it, it is having an effect on the person who is doing the torturing. That person is either already severely disturbed or is headed down that path.

[mncavylover]

I agree with what you're saying, suzy. Thanks, you got it out better than I could!

[LuvMyPiggers]

This is kinda like that Terri Shciavo thing.... Sorry... Just kinda sounded like it..

[TheAlmightyMiko]

Let me preface this by saying that I feel that suffering is the actual experience of feeling any sort of cruelty/pain inflicted on a sentinent creature, whether the pain is inflicted intentionally or unintentionally. The pain itself is definitive of the suffering. It is impossible for anyone in a position of objectivity to judge whether or not a being can actually "feel" the pain-this is true in the case of humans believed to be "brain dead" and animals believed to be in a similar circumstance. Since we have no ability other than to speculate on the ability of any one subject to experience pain, I feel that we are in no position to impose any action that would, under all normal circumstances, result in a painful experience, whether or not we believe that the action will inflict pain or not. It is up to humans to exert proper judgement and compassion toward members of our own species and members of other species because we have the capacity to understand the root of pain and the consequences of actions, where as animals are, for the most part, under our mercy. Having said that, I found this quote today on the PETA website:

“What about plants?”
There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain because they are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains. It is theorized that animals are able to feel pain so that they can use it for self-protection purposes. For example, if you touch something hot and feel pain, you will learn from the pain that you should not touch that item in the future. Since plants cannot move from place to place and do not need to learn to avoid certain things, this sensation would be superfluous. From a physiological standpoint, plants are completely different from mammals. Unlike animals’ body parts, many perennial plants, fruits, and vegetables can be harvested over and over again without dying.

So, from this standpoint-one I believe Sparky may be willing to consider (meant earnestly, not offensively)-pain is a reflex, a natural defence mechanism. The presence of a brain and central nervous system results in the reaction of pain to any abnormality as a warning to the being to stop, to revaluate, to flee, to defend. Therefore, if humans exploit this natural reaction (one that we invariably sympathize with as we experience it as well), then we are in essence being cruel to the animal by knowingly causing it to suffer. Following this reasoning, it would seem to me that the actual definition of suffering is therefore the unnecessary prolongment of this natural defense and reaction by outside forces beyond the subject's cotrol. So yes, I feel that the ability to feel pain followed by the experience of prolonged pain is the root of suffering; one suffers when the pain they experience cannot be controlled or stopped, as their nervous system's central defense mechanism is being exploited and controlled.

Now of course, I believe there to be an ethical issue attached to this as well, meaning that any being that we are aware has the potential to experience pain should not be treated with cruelty despite a belief that they are no longer physically able to feel the pain due to mental inactivity, paralysis, etc. As we are all outsiders, I feel we must proceed in any issues concerning living beings under the fixed assumption that our actions have the absolute potential to result in pain and suffering, exercising as much restraint and compassion as possible.

I also do not believe that plants are physically able to feel pain, or to suffer in the above physical sense. I am aware that their physiology dictates responses to physical needs for light and water, etc. but their physiology also lacks the necessary parts to result in a cause and effect synthesis in relation to a defence mechanism of pain (see above definition).

[Access]

Originally Posted by Sparky

my response to this had to do with crops, now, when we harvest corn, we use a massive tractor to strip away the valuable corn, and trample the stalks and leave them to die a slow, prolonged death of starvation (basically drying

People need to eat. Agriculture is key to feeding large numbers of people. Animals alone cannot make a complete diet, nor is raising animals for food as efficient as raising plants for food. Like the other posts say, plants have no central nervous system, they are incapable of 'feeling' any sensation. Worrying about agricultural 'plant welfare' or mistreatment is the last thing we should be doing when there are still people who are hungry or starving in the world.

[holli'smommy]

I'm not really sure I completely understand what is being said, but I think I get the point. Yes I believe it is morally wrong to torture an animal that is considered brain-dead, even though the animal cannot feel it. If the death were one with no pain, such as medicine administered via I.V., than the death may be the only humane thing to do, so the issue is how the animal dies and why. To intentionally do acts that under normal circumstances would result in pain for the animal, is not only wrong, it's sick and twisted.

[Sparky]

i was never implying that a plant could consciously recognize pain, i was using it as an example of something that does not, so as to draw a parrallel to my question. what if an animal was like a plant, and could not feel when it was killed for food, (like a plant)

i dont mean torture, and i'm not advocating plant welfare.

how would you define suffering?
how do you feel about farming brain-dead animals?

[critterlover]

how do you feel about farming brain-dead animals?

I don't understand what you mean. If an animal is brain-dead, the body is dead too, is it not?

[suzy_99]

the body would not necessarily be dead, but it wouldn't be moving and without medical attention the animal would die very quickly. In a previous post someone stated that pain is a reflex. I must correct them on this, pain itself is not a reflex and for the most part it is a learned response. When a baby falls, it does not usually begin to cry until someone notices. If we are hurt while we are unconscious we do not cry, therefore, pain itself is not an automatic reaction. There are methods used that can overcome the sensation of "pain", such as hypnotizism. One type of hypnotizism can actually allow a person to be operated on without nay anesthetic and that person will feel no pain, so clearly the mind has a lot to do with this sensation. On the other hand, when a person is under anesthetic, their body still has all of the same physical reactions that it would have if the person were awake. So in essence, pain is something that we have associated with the bodies natural instinctual reflexes to an injury. We must not confuse the two. Pain is also a reaction that is not very easily controlled, but it can be. We cannot control bleeding with our brain or cloating or bruising, so obviously there must be some difference between them.

As for Sparky's question. I would define suffering itself as any acts that cause physical injury or emotional damage to a person or animal that is not wanted. But I would also define this further to say that the animal or person should be aware on at least some level of what is happening to them. Torturing a brain dead or even dead animal is not causing that animal to suffer, but its just sick.

[stipma]

Originally Posted by suzy_99

In a previous post someone stated that pain is a reflex. I must correct them on this, pain itself is not a reflex and for the most part it is a learned response. When a baby falls, it does not usually begin to cry until someone notices.

Trust me as a mother of 4 young children...if a child is in real pain, they cry

[VoodooJoint]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea of a brain dead animal.

However if science was to master the science of stem cell research and start to grow just beef steak from stem cells (without the rest of the cow) I may be first in line to buy that type of steak.

I miss steak. I haven't had one in over 20 years. Meat without cruelty appeals to me.

[VoodooJoint]

Originally Posted by cangirl

Trust me as a mother of 4 young children...if a child is in real pain, they cry

I have kids and work with kids. I agree with Cangirl. Pain is not learned. It is a survival instinct that cannot be overcome without years of hard work and meditation. A child certainly doesn't have that capability.

I have seen children/babies cry in pain many times from things that were never taught caused pain. Like a fire ant bite, splinter, first shots as an infant...

[suzy_99]

pain can be overcome with hypnosis. There are documented cases of people having actual surgery while hypnotized and I know this because I am a psychology major. Hypnotism is also a very effective pain killer if it is used correctly. It is especially effective when people have "phantom Limb Pains" from an amputated limb. What I meant with the child comment, was that a lot of our responses to pain are learned, a child learns to say oww by watching those around him or her and modelling them.
Pain is also psychological in the sense that we as humans have the ability to stop our own pain, if we knew how to control our minds. People given placebo pain killers often say that it got rid of their pain, but in truth, the mind just released endorphins which are the bodies own pain killers. If we could control our mind enough to know how to release these, then pain would be almost non-existent. Also, pain is related to a person's anxiety level. If you are nervous, the pain will be much worse. Distraction work wonders for people who are in "serious" pain. Just get them to talk about something else and they will forget that they are even hurt (this works wonders with broken bones). So obviously, the mind has a lot to do with our perception of pain and it is clearly not just a reflex.

Here is a direct quote from my psychology textbook:
" We learn how to react to pain by observing family members, peers, and other social role models, that is why members of some societies endure cutting, burning, whipping, tattooing, and piercing of the skin that would agonize you or me".

[Access]

Originally Posted by suzy_99

pain can be overcome with hypnosis. There are documented cases of people having actual surgery while hypnotized and I know this because I am a psychology major. Hypnotism is also a very effective pain killer if it is used correctly. It is especially effective when

But this is the power of the human mind, not the animal mind. In zen training you learn something similar, look at things like Yoga which is at least known and practiced by some in the west.

Pain is a sensation, hence it is 'real'. Yes, part of the reaction to pain is socialized, in a warrior-type society (ie. some native american tribes) the reaction might be to ignore it, whereas in our modern society the common reaction is to go to see a doctor or take an over-the-counter painkiller. Whereas an animal in pain will nearly always react in a predictable way.