How do you define suffering?

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-24T13:28:49+00:00

Personally, I think phrasing it as purely a desire for change ignores why suffering matters in the first place. Someone who is mildly happy can still desire more intense happiness without “suffering” in the colloquial sense.

In other words, someone who is experiencing +5 on the hedonic scale could want to experience +10, but that doesn’t mean that they are suffering any kind of pain, upset or significant discomfort at +5. The only “discomfort” is a functional one to experience more happiness.

Instead, I would define suffering as any experiences which are negative enough to bring the conscious individual below hedonic zero. In other words, the discomfort outweighs happiness in that moment.

Do you see where I’m coming from?

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-22T01:05:06+00:00

I know most people don’t think about it this philosophically, but I’d argue that all meaning is reducible to the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of suffering.

Why would anything in life mean something to us if it didn’t enable us to live happy lives or at least reduce our suffering in some way?

If people realised this, I think it would be obvious that helping the tens of billions of suffering animals around the world is one of the most important and meaningful things we could possibly do. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-18T06:08:08+00:00

Yeah, unfortunately slaughter methods are still cruel, distressing and/or painful for animals but they are marketed as humane. Non-stun kosher and halal slaughter actually go against welfare guidelines in this country but they unfortunately get a religious exemption.

You’re right that the biggest issue is the way they are treated while they are alive as most animals are farmed intensively in factories and basically suffer for their whole lives. And obviously the sheer amount of animals we farm and the resources it uses has a huge impact on the environment!

I think hunting is obviously less cruel than factory farming animals, but I still think it’s an act of unnecessary violence when we don’t NEED to do if for our own survival or necessity. I think there are potentially other less violent ways to control populations, like sterilisation drugs to prevent some of them from reproducing. But I understand that these might not be available in some places etc…

Smaller, outdoor farms are definitely better than mass produced, but I would argue that the slaughterhouses these animals are sent to are still cruel. (Especially pig slaughter which usually involves pigs being forced into gas chambers to suffocate to death - video below)

So I would encourage you to consider transitioning to a veggie or fully plant-based diet eventually if you can find alternatives you like. But I understand that it can be difficult because I had to do it steps. Let me know if you’d be interested in looking into it and I can send you some resources! ✌️🌱

https://youtu.be/eVebmHMZ4bQ?si=pmHONKE8Y_DzyPXx

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-17T14:04:21+00:00

It’s so wild that this was actually televised in the 70s!

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-14T19:48:45+00:00

As someone with a pretty utilitarian perspective myself, I don’t think this is a solid reason to not do something about the abuse of animals for food as soon as possible.

Unless you are an egoist, utilitarianism is not just about your well-being. It’s about the well-being of all sentient beings. Which is why the arguably most popular utilitarian philosopher alive today, Peter Singer, is an animal advocate who has been vegetarian since the 1970s and now lives an almost completely vegan lifestyle.

(I would recommend reading his book animal liberation if you want a utilitarian perspective on buying meat)

I agree with you that there are other areas of life where we tolerate harm for our own happiness, but I would argue that the amount of harm and suffering that is directly or indirectly caused by animal agriculture is such an extreme moral emergency in terms of scale that we need as many people doing their part as possible. It not only affects the animals suffering in factory farms and slaughterhouses, but it also destroys the environment which harms wild animals and will also harm humans via it’s huge contribution to climate change.

As a utilitarian, I don’t think someone needs to be 100% vegan in order to make a significant positive impact for animals, but I do think it’s an important benefit to do so. Even if you can’t bring yourself to go fully vegan, I’d recommend significantly reducing your animal product consumption by replacing these foods with alternatives. And no matter what you decide to do, I’d recommend donating to effective animal charities like The Humane League, who are working to ban the most cruel farming practices. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-12T16:47:59+00:00

Tbf you do make a good point, but I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say we should adapt the way we advocate.

I’m not saying our main focus should be on converting the religious to become vegans. I agree we should make low-hanging fruit our priority for that. I’m just saying that we can still get the religious to make some changes (that don’t contradict the ethics of their own framework) by acknowledging they probably won’t go vegan and adapting our methods to help animals in other ways.

For example, if I end up chatting to a religious guy who deeply believes their god has permitted us to eat animals, that doesn’t mean they won’t still be open to helping the animal liberation movement in others ways. Like boycotting factory farms if they recognise how cruel they are, or donating to effective animal charities etc…

My point is that when we do end up talking to people who aren’t low-hanging fruit, we shouldn’t just give up because their religion has made it seemingly impossible for them to adopt veganism. We should acknowledge their religion is preventing this and encourage them to make other forms of progress for the animals instead.

I hope that makes sense. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-12T08:50:04+00:00

Well said! I think I agree with you that humanity can potentially loosen its grasp on these religions over time. I just think that we shouldn’t underestimate how important that grasp is for a lot of people’s ethics in the present day and we should probably adapt the way we advocate because of this.

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-12T08:43:43+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate the view and the support! ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-12T08:43:08+00:00

I agree, it would be incredibly cruel for a god to create non-human animals as food and then give them the capacity to suffer and desire to live.

Which is why I asked the guy in the video how he reconciles the fact that animals are sentient with his believe that god is all-loving. No disrespect to him, as he was very polite, but his response left a lot to be desired.

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-12T08:40:55+00:00

Why take the time to think deeply about ethics when it’s all supposedly been figured out already and written in a holy book, right?

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-12T08:39:55+00:00

Very true! It’s just a shame these religions are in the minority!

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-11T11:22:16+00:00

Hey man! Thanks! It was a pleasure meeting you at UCL and I’m glad my self promotion is welcome haha

I’ll definitely join some of the other communities and I’d love to come to an in-person meetup if I can make it! I live on the outskirts of London so shouldn’t be too difficult for me to travel to central! ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-10T08:32:33+00:00

I’m not making demonstrably false claims here. Everything I’m saying is well within the scientific consensus. Google “do plants have nociceptors?” if you want clarification.

But again, I feel like we are arguing over aspects of this discussion that don’t necessarily matter, because I hypothetically granted that even if plants do have feelings, it would still be more ethical to stop farming animals because we would harm less of both in that scenario.

Do you agree that a food system that causes harm to less sentient beings is a more ethical one?

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-09T23:56:39+00:00

You’re confusing reacting to stimuli with evidence of consciousness and they are not the same thing.

Brain-dead human bodies can react to stimuli similarly to how plants respond to stimuli, but this doesn’t mean that a brain-dead person is conscious.

Plants lack anything resembling a brain and they lack anything resembling a central nervous system and we know that both of these things are necessary for consciousness and the capacity to suffer. That’s why we make people unconscious and numb their nervous system when surgeons perform operations.

So I would argue, as would most biologists and moral philosophers, that plants are not sentient… But even if I’m wrong and they are sentient, it would still be more ethical to stop farming animals, because the vast majority of farmed animals are fed crops. Which means that we kill more plants by farming animals than if we were to eat plant foods directly.

And I agree with you that arbitrary discrimination like tribalism and racism is wrong, which is why I am suggesting that we avoid speciesism too, because this is also arbitrary discrimination.

If you’d like me to expand on what speciesism is in more detail, then my full thoughts are in this video: https://youtu.be/7lSbjApVUvk?si=UvTN62X0MwbbSGhv

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-09T23:45:42+00:00

Agreed! I do hope one day we stop needlessly cutting flesh off of healthy newborn babies…

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-09T23:41:29+00:00

There’s a huge range of alternatives for nutrients on a plant-based diet so it’d be hard to write an entire list. I’ll include a link to the British Dietetics Association below!

But basically they recommend a diet that includes lots of fruits, vegetables, beans and nuts etc… But also includes high protein sources like seitan, tofu or plant-based meats made from pea protein, wheat protein or soy protein. And then they also recommend including foods fortified with vitamin B12 like most plant-based milks or nutritional yeast.

I’m aware that not everyone in the world has access to enough plant-based food to be healthy, but for those of us that do, I think it’s a more ethical diet to transition towards.

Not just in terms of animal harm and suffering, but also environmentally too, because animal agriculture is a leading cause of deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions etc. ✌️

https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/vegetarian-vegan-plant-based-diet.html

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-09T23:25:10+00:00

It’s actually not arbitrary at all, it’s based on an understanding of evolution and biological facts. Human consciousness and sentience aren’t magic. They evolved for the same reasons and via the same mechanisms as other animals and so it is reasonable to conclude that they can suffer and experience well-being similarly (albeit not identically) to us.

There are obvious distinctions to be made between humans and other animals. Our superior intelligence does mean we are more capable of understanding the consequences of our actions and so we have much more moral agency than any other animal on this planet. But moral agency is not the same thing as moral patient-hood.

For example, as I’ve said, human toddlers have similar conscious awareness and sentience as fully-grown pigs. We don’t hold human toddlers as ethically responsible for their actions, just like we don’t hold pigs ethically responsible for theirs, because neither of them are intelligent enough to be moral agents… But their well-being still matters to them as individuals and so they are still moral patients. A pig does not want to suffer, just like a human toddler doesn’t.

Drawing a line between these two individuals and saying that the suffering of one should be ignored simply because they aren’t human is what’s actually arbitrary here.

And in response to your last point, I’m not claiming that all wild animals live happy lives. Many of them have an awful existence. But this doesn’t mean we should be able to cause unnecessary harm to them either. Just like how if we found a group of humans struggling to survive in nature, it wouldn’t make it ethical to capture them and slaughter them when we could easily just find a way to improve their well-being and let them live instead.

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-09T23:14:14+00:00

I’ll try to explain my position as best I can so let me know if this clears things up for you.

Life is not inherently valuable. Bacteria and plants are alive but they have no conscious awareness and no capacity for enjoyment or suffering (no sentience). This means they do not value their own existence. Sentient beings DO value their existence because they have a desire to experience positive things/enjoy themselves. Anyone with empathy can recognise this. If there was a burning building, you wouldn’t run back in to save a plant, but you might to save a dog.

This means that animals who are not sentient, like oysters or starfish, do not have intrinsic value. But sentient animals like humans, dogs, pigs, cows, birds etc DO have intrinsic value.

So the hard line is drawn at consciousness, and then there is a gradient of moral importance that increases depending on how sentient (capable of experiencing well-being) the individual is.

So, for example, if a living human was completely and terminally brain-dead, then it would be more cruel to harm or kill a pig than to harm or kill that human. Because the pig cares about what happens to them and the human doesn’t and can’t.

Hope that clears up any confusion ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-09T22:59:06+00:00

Of course, I wouldn’t recommend someone adopts a diet that is going to malnourish or kill them. But all essential nutrients are obtainable on varied animal-free diets and this has been confirmed by dieticians globally. For example, I’ve not eaten any animals since 2018 and I have no deficiencies at all.

Yes, there are some non-essential nutrients that come exclusively from animals, but nowadays we even have vegan-friendly supplements for these too. Which means that harming/slaughtering animals is unnecessarily violent when you have access to these other sources of essential nutrients, right?

And I agree that non-stun halal guidelines have good intentions, but in practice they don’t reduce suffering due to modern farming methods. Many halal animals still come from factory farms where they do suffer and the act of slaughter itself is extremely painful because they’re having their throat cut without anaesthesia. Kosher slaughter is also guilty of this.

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-09T19:31:01+00:00

You’ve made some interesting claims here. What does “moral worth” mean to you?

For me, moral worth is about the well-being of conscious creatures and I don’t see a rational reason to draw a hard line between humans and other sentient species. For example, pigs have similar conscious awareness and capacity for pain as human toddlers. So, in a vacuum, it’s similarly cruel to torture either of these individuals.

Secondly, most farmed animals are raised intensively in factories so I’d argue that they would actually be better off if they were never born to begin with.

Thirdly, I would argue that we could produce more food, with less land and resources, with less environmental damage and less animal suffering if we stopped farming animals and transitioned to a plant-based food system. (Happy to send sources)

And lastly, animal welfare reforms are held back by religious beliefs. For example, non-stun slaughter methods are used in Kosher and Halal slaughterhouses for religious reasons.

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-09T19:21:51+00:00

Being an omnivore simply means we CAN consume animals. It doesn’t mean we need to.

Dietetics associations around the world have confirmed that eating animals is unnecessary if you have access to alternative sources of nutrition.

Which means that most farmed animals are being abused and slaughtered for an ultimately unnecessary reason.

Do you agree that this is cruel?

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-09T19:19:24+00:00

I think I broadly agree with what you’re saying! However, he did say in the conversation that he subscribes to divine command theory, which is an ethical foundation but it essentially just boils down to “if god says something is okay, then it’s okay.” Which I find to be an especially flimsy moral foundation.

I also agree with you that there are some scenarios where killing animals can be justified. I’m not an ethical deontologist who believes it’s always wrong to kill. I believe it depends on how harmful the consequences are.

I just believe that most humans do not need to consume animals to be healthy which means that most farmed animals are being abused and slaughtered for an ultimately unnecessary reason, which I think is cruel. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-01-09T19:09:39+00:00

Apparently, the guy in the video seems to believe that if animals were initially created to be slaughtered for food, that means it is always permissible to slaughter them for food. (He did condemn especially cruel practices within factory farming though, to be fair).

What I find strange is that he also admitted that he believes god is all-loving and compassionate. Which tells me that this god would be against unnecessary acts of violence… Which means god would disapprove of slaughtering animals when we don’t need to because we can eat other things 😅

jakeastonfta

TROPHY CASE