According to Bermond animals cannot think and therefore they are not capable of experiencing pain because they are not conscious beings. So why then do we use such things as shock collars to train our dogs not to bark? If Bermond is correct in assuming animals are not “smart” enough to comprehend or feel pain then shock collars shouldn’t work, right? Every time a dog barks the collar administers a shock which tells the dog to stop barking. But how does it tell them to do this?
Lynch demonstrates a great example of this; if an animal is shocked when they attempt to take a food pellet they will refuse the pellet the next time it is offered to avoid the shock. So, an animal counts pain as a reason for refusing food. Just as a dog counts the pain given to them by the collar as a reason to stop barking. I think that there must be some thinking involved in this scenario. Sure, you can argue that it is just training and the animal isn’t really making the decision but if the animal was unable to perceive pain because of it lack of intelligence, as Bermond describes, then the shocks should not have any effect on the dog whatsoever and they would continue the behavior.
Why would we invent a shock collar to use on a dog to train them to stop barking if animals are cognitively unable to perceive pain? We wouldn’t, so where does this theory about the correlation between pain and reason derive, do you think reason or intelligence is related to pain and suffering?
No comments:
Post a Comment