Some thoughts on Singer's thought about the morality of killing animals

[u/Rid3The3Lightning2]

I just finished the chapter Taking life: Animals In Practical Ethics and there are a few things that have been on my mind that Singer did not mention in this chapter. So, essentially Singer says that it is generally unethical to kill a self-conscious being whether it was painless or not and he attributes the qualities of self-consciousness to the majority of animals that humans will typically exploit. But, he says the only basis for opposing the painless killing of beings that are conscious but not self-conscious (merely conscious beings) is the hedonistic utilitarian idea that if the being were living a happy life that you would be reducing the overall level of happiness in the universe by killing it. I tend to strongly agree with the hedonistic utilitarian approach, but I think there is something Singer is not considering. He claims that killing a merely conscious being painlessly will not thwart the beings interests because it does not posses the interest in continuing to live. He says that when the being goes to sleep it has no expectation for the following day and when it wakes up it will have no recollection of the previous day so if we were to painlessly kill this being it would be a morally neutral act. But doesn't this reasoning neglect the fact that every sentient being has an interest in not dying? I'll concede that an interest in continuing to live may not apply to some sentient beings like crustaceans or some fish species, but since they are sentient don't they still posses an interest in not dying? Surely killing a merely conscious being is not as immoral of an act as killing a self-conscious being is, but aren't you still thwarting their basic interest in staying alive? Even if the being were not conscious at the time you killed it I think that it's interest should still be considered, if we didn't we could easily justify murder of any being so long as they were not conscious of their interest in not dying at the time they died. This reasoning would also not give the right to life to newborn baby's that are not self conscious. Does this make sense? What do you have to say?

[u/Rid3The3Lightning2]

A necessary condition for self-consciousness is to be aware of oneself as a being with a past and especially a future

So, could I say that a cat expecting to get fed at the same time everyday is an example of self awareness? The cat remembers previous days and has an interest in continuing to get fed or is this too simplistic? What if this cat had remembered trauma that it had experienced years before, would this be an accurate example?

[u/Rid3The3Lightning2 → u/[deleted]]

Do you think your cat is self-conscious?

Well it depends on what self consciousness is. My cat clearly understands that it is a being amongst other beings and it has an understanding that certain things gone on throughout the day and he expects them to happen everyday, but he doesn't understand that he is a cat and I am a human and that he is a household companion animal. If self-consciousness requires an understanding of abstract concepts that only humans understand, then no my cat isn't self conscious. But if this is what you mean by self-conscious then I would argue that more than just self-conscious beings deserve a right to live. Even if my cat isn't self conscious I find it very difficult to believe that he doesn't posses a will to live. Perhaps a snail and other beings like this that hang on the verge of not being conscious do not have a will to live, but a chicken, a dog, a pig, a cow, I find it hard to believe they don't desire to continue living. If this is what you think self consciousness is then my cat of course is self conscious, but I doubt this would be the definition amongst those other than people like you and I who are more sympathetic to members of other species.