How does it work the mechanism that ignores the sentience of non-human animals

How does it work the mechanism that ignores the sentience of non-human animals?

2016

Many humans (most, actually) systematically ignore the sentience of countless animals. How is this possible? In my opinion the following situations happen:

Ethics is a masquerade. It is a fiction that conceals beneficial cooperation pacts for the individual and it’s genes. When one cooperates, in general it does because it is beneficial (for itself and it’s genes), more or less complicated or covertly.
Each one, in addition to worrying oneself, is also concerned about the next genetically beings. This happens as would be expected to happen if the behavior was guided by the selfishness of the genes that build machines (bodies) for the sole purpose of self perpetuating themselves (genes). This leaves room for a certain altruism.
The most powerful beings concerned, therefore, of themselves, their children, and other relatives genetically closed, and their sexual partners, friends or colleagues as they serve their purpose.
Increasingly large human communities according to this scheme are formed. Some groups face with others without any ethical qualms (slavery, wars).
Since other humans have power (strength, intelligence) that is never negligible (slaves, and peoples and conquered nations may eventually rebel) a pact between all those who have some power (humans) is established. This leads to the declaration of human rights, a nonaggression contract (contractualism) between the powerful states. Those who do not reach a certain level of influence (nonhuman animals) are ignored.

How is it possible then the consideration of non-human animals? All these reasons are consistent with the above:

For interest, even if it is more or less complicated or covertly, as can be the case of pets.
For interest, being the moral consideration of animals a kind of moral or intellectual caprice, a way to stand out from others, to achieve recognition, a way to get sense of a meaningless life.
For genetic proximity. For example, the empathy with great apes. And actually with any animal. As the proximity is a matter of degree, the more developed companies and individuals are, the more covered are their needs, the more they will be willing to morally consider other beings at greater genetic distances.
The evolution has side effects, epiphenomena, and the effect can be very important. So it is with music, with beauty in general and with sentience itself. The same applies to altruism.
Maximum efficiency produces total altruism, so it is foreseeable an alignment of evolution towards the consideration for increasingly more and more beings, untill reach them all.

If the source of moral consideration is evolution, and evolution is a particular case of a manifestation which could be described as the tendency of things towards stability, inertia or recurrence, which responds to our way of observing and conceptualizing reality, our moral consideration could be unfairly limited to objects that we are able to identify.

The “principle of stability, inertia and recurrence” was first published in 2002 in the journal REDcientífica in this direction (now inaccessible):

www.redcientifica.com/doc/doc200205200001

available in this new direction:

http://www.redcientifica.org/evolucion_estabilidad_inercia_y_recurrencia.php

and in the book “Arena Sensible”

The principle has been cited in:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply