How does a lobster feel when it’s dropped into the boiling pot? The British Parliament wants to know.
— from a story by William Booth, “Lobsters’ feelings loom large as British Parliament debates animal welfare bill” in the Washington Post, July 4, 2021.
It seems appropriate, somehow, that reporter William Booth posted his story, about “The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill” currently being considered by the British Parliament, on July 4.
For too long, we’ve considered all men to be created equal (at least in theory) but we’ve paid mere lip service to the equality of animals. From that perspective, the United Kingdom — without even having the benefit of a Declaration of Independence — is making America look cold-blooded.
Apparently, Britain’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is trying to make good on an electoral pledge by pushing through a new law that will enshrine the idea that animals are sentient beings, at least within the UK. The new law would obligate all sectors of the government to consider the feelings of animals, when formulating policy and writing regulations. The current draft of the legislation goes even further than European Union protections, once seen as the most comprehensive on earth, and far beyond the relatively relaxed laws in the United States.
The sentience bill has had its second reading in the House of Lords, according to Washington Post reporter William Booth. It next goes to committee, where a discussion of amendments takes place; it may be reprinted and more changes debated, and eventually it could be sent to the House of Commons, where a similar (but more detailed?) examination and debate could occur… with more committee work, changes, and votes.
Writes Mr. Booth: “It’s a long haul — and skeptics line the road…”
What is sentience? As suggested by Charles Darwin 150 years ago, it’s the ability to feel “pleasure and pain, happiness and misery.”
Now, we all know that animals have feelings, so I’m not entirely sure why the British Parliament would need to debate the matter, considering all the other things they could be debating instead.
Anyone who has had occasion to discipline their dog, for instance, knows very well the look of confused guilt that clearly says, “You mean I wasn’t supposed to pull the pot roast down off the kitchen counter?”
When it comes to lobsters, however, the situation becomes a bit more complex. We know that they have feelings, or at least something close to feelings, because when you try to poke a lobster in the eye, you’re likely to wind up with your finger in his claw. Not a pleasant experience. For either of you.
But do lobsters have guilt feelings, the same way your dog does? After he breaks your finger with his claw, does he feel remorse? (Probably not, because, after all, you did poke him in the eye.)
As with so many debates in which humans engage — and there’s been a lot of them, lately — the squabble around lobsters hinges on the definition of “sentience”. Some folks will argue that “sentience” depends on intelligence. If an animal (or human, for that matter) lacks intelligence, then they obviously do not feel pain, and we shouldn’t make government policies aimed at protecting them. Or so the argument goes.
Of course, we then get into the debate about what constitutes ‘intelligence’. One school of thought proposes that, if an animal makes use of tools — humans, chimpanzees, certain birds, dolphins, elephants, sea otters, octopuses — then they should be classified as ‘intelligent’ and should qualify to be protected from unnecessary pain.
This is patently unfair to lobsters, because they carry around a veritable Swiss Army knife as part of their biological equipment. They don’t need ‘tools’. They are tools.
I might also argue that ‘the ability to use tools’ is a poor basis on which to define intelligence. My father was very intelligent, but he didn’t seem to know how to hold a hammer, let alone how to use one properly.
Another school of thought would define ‘intelligence’ by whether an animal likes to watch television. (Apparently, dogs enjoy certain types of sit-coms, if one of the actors is a dog. And pigs have been taught to play video games.) I doubt the British Parliament would accept this definition.
My own school of thought, devoid as it might be of disciples, is that ‘sentience’ should be defined by the ability to feel guilt.
This definition would leave out most politicians, lawyers, and used car salesmen. But it would definitely include dogs. And maybe lobsters.