Whose life is more important – your life or an insect’s?
I will argue, using hedonistic utilitarian principles, and Locke’s definition of pleasure,
that an ant’s life is more important than that of a human based on the surplus,
balance, or deficit of happiness and unhappiness experienced throughout that life. I
will use the term ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’, meaning the results of an experience based on
our bodily sensations and mental reflections (Locke, J. 1689).
Hedonism states the only two important elements in any hypothesized situation are
the creation of pleasure and pain. The action that will produce the greatest amount of
pleasure is the correct action. Mill’s Utilitarianism states “...namely, that pleasure, and
freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends.” (Mill, J.S. 1861) When
making a decision, we must therefore consider the ends it produces, which action will
give us freedom from pain, or attract pleasure.
Socrates says that bodily pleasures are relief from pain; the pleasures that we feel
are not true pleasures. According to Socrates, the only true pleasure we can feel is
what a philosopher feels when understanding an object. All other pleasures are not
true pleasures, and only suppress pain (Plato, 380BCE). If we can only temporarily
null pain by feeling pleasure, then the pain would be our primary state of existence.
The only true pleasure is that which a philosopher feels. From this, we can logically
understand if we are not feeling pleasure, then we are in a state of pain, and the
majority of us are in a constant state of pain. Pleasurable experiences are the
suppression of a painful experience. When considered mathematically, it is therefore
impossible to have a “pain deficit”. We can only hope to achieve a net-zero pain
existence with the constant experience of pleasure. To be in a constant state of
pleasure is only hypothesized within Nozick’s experience machine (Nozick, R. 1974).
Therefore, we can only ever have a “pain surplus”.
Under Bentham’s utilitarian ethics, happiness comes from the experience of pleasure
(Driver, J. 2009). Pleasure creates happiness. Bentham says we should make
decisions based on the amount of pleasure they create (Bentham, J. 1789).
Rudimentarily it must therefore mean the more pleasure we experience, the more
happiness we have. Seen as pleasure and pain have a dichotomic relationship, we
must also accept that happiness and unhappiness do too. Pleasure is our source of
happiness and our pain suppressant. If we accept Socrates’ understanding of
pleasure-pain must be our natural state. If we cannot always be in a state of
pleasure, we must therefore always be in a “happiness deficit”, or an “unhappiness
surplus”.
The correct phrasing of the question, under the aforementioned truths, is not which
will create the most pleasure (thereby happiness), but instead is: what choice will
create the least pain (unhappiness)? Under hedonistic utilitarian principles, the
correct choice, therefore, is the choice that will prevent the most amount of pain.
Pleasure and pain, when compared with insects, are uniquely human concerns. Ants
are arthropods, and although they have a nervous system, their response to pain is
reactionary (Fiorita, G. 1986). Pain, as humans experience it, does not exist in the life
of an ant. Therefore, an ant experiences a net-zero life. It does not feel pleasure or
pain.
My argument has shown that valuing the importance of human life is based on the
amount of pleasure, and pain it experiences. Humans, because we are in a constant
state of pain, can only ever strive to reach a net-zero balance. Moreover, ants, as per
Locke’s definition and because they are unable to feel pleasure or pain, will always
achieve a net-zero balance. Therefore, under Bentham’s utilitarianism, using a
hedonistic definition of pleasure, when deciding which life is of greater importance,
an ant’s life is more valuable than that of a human.
Whose life is more important – your life or an insect’s?
Are all lives equal?
No.
First, we need to establish the principle that all lives are not equal. This should be too difficult,
as we in fact do this all the time. Prior to receiving a donated organ, organ donation charities
often weigh the value of the organ to the recipient. If the recipient survives, what benefit will
that organ have to their quality of life? (Donor Alliance, 2017.) If all lives were equal, the most
pragmatic way of deciding organ donation would be to simply give it to the next available person
on the donor list. The act of weighing the benefit the recipient will receive establishes a
preferential principle: this life is worth more, because said recipient will benefit more from this
organ. Interestingly, we are also considering the pleasure said person will have after a
successful donation. Doctors will often consider the questions: how long will this organ prolong
the recipient’s life? Will this improve the recipient’s quality of life? In this we are also measuring
the length of life it will give and the amount of happiness it will bring.
How can be measure the importance of a life?
What ways can we measure? Which one is the best?
Now that we have established all lives are in-fact not equal, we need to decide upon a metric
in which to weigh their value. When faced with ethical conundrums such as the trolley problem
participants often ask the age, living-relations, and lifestyle of those about to be executed
(Kahane, G. 2013). The equation being calculated by the executioner is: how much time
(potential for pleasure) will be lost? How much pain will be caused if these people die? Will
loved ones suffer too? The question, therefore, comes down to a matter of pleasure and pain.
We are judging the value of an action exclusively in regard to the amount of perceived
happiness to which it leads (Mill, J.S., 1861). If we can judge actions based on their pleasure
output, it seems reasonable to judge the value of a life based on the same metric: pleasure.
Establishing the constant presence of pain.
If what Bentham refers to as pleasure, is the same as what Socrates refers to as
pleasure. I will use Socrates’ understanding of pleasure and pain to prove that we spend
most of our lives in pain. Socrates says that bodily pleasures are relief from pain; the
pleasures that we feel are not true pleasures (Plato, 380BCE. Republic). It seems
Socrates is distinguishing between mental and physical pleasures. He says that the only
true pleasure we can feel is what a philosopher feels when understanding an object. This
is a pleasure derived from logos, or reason. All other pleasures are not true pleasures.
They are finite and only suppress pain (Plato, 380BCE). If the suppression is pain is only
finite, and it requires suppression, it seems that Plato is suggesting our natural state is
pain. Over the span of a human lifetime, if the only time we experience true pleasure is
when understanding an object, it seems reasonable to conclude that our painful moments
outweigh our pleasurable moments. Over a lifetime, we can thereby only end our lives in
a “pain deficit”.
Pain is a measure of unhappiness.
Pleasure is a measure of happiness.
In Utilitarianism, Mill consistently draws a dichotomy between pleasure and pain (Mill,
J.S., 1861). Their relationship is that of opposites. Since Mill exchanges the terms, pain
and pleasure, happiness and unhappiness interchangeably, it is reasonable to assume
that pain directly correlates with unhappiness, and pleasure with happiness. On the
hedonic calculus pleasure and happiness is the only good (Bentham, J., 1761), there are
no other variables. If we are to weigh the good or pleasure/happiness one person
experiences in their life, it would be reasonable to assume, as the only inherent good, the
life with more pleasure, or less pain, is the more valuable life.
Who can feel pleasure?
Who can feel pain?
I want to argue only humans can feel pain.
The existence of pleasure and pain requires sentience.
Pleasure and pain are uniquely human concerns. Ants are arthropods, and although they
have a nervous system, their response to pain is reactionary (Fiorita, G. 1986). Pain, as
humans experience it, does not exist in the life of an ant. Therefore, an ant experiences a netzero life. It does not feel pleasure or pain.
Insects cannot feel pleasure or pain, therefore when their life ends, they have a net balance of pleasure to pain.
Humans are in a state of constant pain.
When humans die, they have suffered more pain than they have pleasure.
The value of a life is determined by the amount of happiness and pain experienced throughout that life.
An insect’s life is more important.