Q+A 5

Vegetarianism is a dietary choice. The only time one should feel morally obligated to stop eating meat would be if they no longer want to. Assuming that one genuinely believes that all animals have a right to life, is informed about current practices in meat production/causal effects on our planet, is not a hedonist and is ready to face the truth, the desire to eat meat should naturally dissipate. If one still desires to eat meat, then it is likely that one of these conditions is not met, and that individual should not feel a moral obligation to cease meat-eating until their mind automatically rejects this diet conceptually. If an individual does meet all of these conditions, and no longer wishes to eat meat, then they are morally obligated to take steps to reduce their meat intake towards a vegan ideal- but are not obligated to take it any farther than they are comfortable. In either case, I think people only have a moral obligation to form a congruency between their beliefs and actions.

Q+A4

Apes and Cetaceans are persons. Whales in particular, have a very interesting case that supports this. This of course, is their ability to pass down certain information from generation to generation as songs. This seems rather absent in most of the animals kingdom. Although songs seem rather irrelevant, it is the principle that matters here, as it is indicative of individual value, and a long-term effect of any individual's whale's life.
With Apes, I don't feel like the case is as strong, but their ability to tell emotionally laden stories through sign-language is certainly indicative of something very important. I once saw a video of a gorilla tell a story of her mother being captured and killed by poachers, which was very heartbreaking. It seems that this gorilla has memory of this event outside of conditioning, and still experiences an emotional effect as a result- certainly an area that requires more research.

Love, love, love

Nonhuman animals that show some degree of significant pain perception outside of an automatic relex should be shown moral consideration. This is not directly related to any harm or suffering inflicted upon another being, but the indirect harm it does to our community and to ourselves. Morally aware beings should take consideration of others not out of a care for other life, but out of care for their own as well. In The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm discusses the role of morality regarding both self-love and the love of others, and how they all interconnect. By loving oneself (separately from narcissism, and conceit), one can fully love others, and what could be more moral than that? From a psychological viewpoint, even committing immoral acts against a nonmoral agent (like a robot) could have unconscious negative consequences. On the other side of the coin, performing morally relevant acts upon a non-moral agent (like a robot), could very well have positive effects on our psychology, as loving is a skill like any other and needs practice/can always fall out of practice. As such, any act of harm in general, no matter to what (outside of a cathartic or just scenario), is a step away from bettering- and as such, loving- oneself, and is by that token a step away from morality. On the contrary, acts of moral consideration in general, may serve as a means to practice, hone, and eventually perfect the moral skill, so they should be practiced towards all forms of life- for our own sake, and for the people we care about.

RE: Q&A 2 (Avery)

 Original post found here.

If by sentience, one refers to the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, then it is quite possible that children have greater sentience, due to their physical and emotional sensitivity- not to mention the happy days of childhood are often seen as some of life's most powerful. However, when referencing children's ability to reason, then of course they fall short in comparison to adults. When considering sentience as a human faculty (as opposed to a generalized view of potential subjective experiences as described above), it is actually quite feasible that (many) children may have the same (ish) level of sentience as adults.
 If one considers sentience an evolutionary adaptation, then it probably develops with the same chronology in lifetime development as it does in species development, as do many of our other adaptations (birth -> color perception -> sentience -> moral sense -> executive functions etc.). Quite often, with the exception perhaps of some of our newer faculties, these adaptations develop rather suddenly and largely to their full extent as soon as they begin to appear. By this token, the fundamental qualities of sentience are largely developed by mid-childhood. While many other mental faculties may be underdeveloped, I believe that by age six or seven, most children will have reached a (largely) full level of sentience, according to this theory.
In addition to sentience however, many people feel a much stronger moral obligation to children due to instinct, kinship, or cuteness. As such, harming a child may carry greater moral weight than harming an adult, due to the indirect effect it could have on others, but of course, this is entirely situational.
In short, it seems that children, once having achieved basic sentience, are probably of equal moral weight when compared to adults- although quite often the moral faculty does not develop fully until later in childhood, which of course, opens up a whole new can of worms.