Should we really care if fish feel pain?
Yes, of course we should care, but does a fish’s capacity to suffer truly have a bearing on the ethical discussion? We take a look first at the science behind fish pain before delving a little deeper into the question of whether a being has to feel pain in the same way we do for them not to be killed needlessly.
In our recent video - Is there actually an ethical reason to not eat fish? - Ed goes through all the salient points regarding the ethics of eating fish. Let’s cut to the chase and say outright that it’s not ethical, but for most who have yet to see the vegan light, the easiest way to introduce this truth is by showing that fish feel pain. And not just any kind of pain, but one that we mammals can identify with.
The science
It is an enduring fallacy that fish do not feel pain, or perhaps it is a more comfortable state of wilful ignorance for those who so enjoy eating their dead bodies. We regard marine life as far removed, unfeeling, unintelligent and not capable of experiencing anything unpleasant.
However, science conducted over the last 100 years has roundly disproved this Cartesian notion - marine animals are no more the unfeeling automata than land animals. Few today would agree with Descartes, who said that cats, dogs and all non-human animals were unfeeling machines, yet many still think this true of fish, crustaceans and other marine life.
This report by Euro Group for Animals sums everything up, including the timeline of research over the decades leading up to the European Commission stating in 2009 that “there is now sufficient scientific evidence indicating that fish are sentient beings and that they are subject to pain and suffering.”
Essential to this veritable paradigm shift in scientific opinion appears to have been the publication of a groundbreaking paper in 2003 by researchers from the University of Liverpool and the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute. It sought to show not only that fish have the necessary physiology to feel pain, but also test the hypothesis that they don’t simply react unconsciously to painful stimuli, but have a genuine conscious, subjective experience - the key to the notion of suffering.
Suffice to say: “This study provides significant evidence of nociception in teleost fishes and furthermore demonstrates that behaviour and physiology are affected over a prolonged period of time, suggesting discomfort.” That’s science jargon for yes, fish do feel pain and they do know about it.
Having corroborated earlier work by scientists before them, and opening up new discussion, they brought about the widespread modern understanding that fish suffer despite not having the same brain structure as mammals (specifically a neocortex, but neither do birds). This discussion has filtered across to the political and public spheres, though in both there is still a considerable way to go.
The ethics
To the question at hand: should it matter whether fish feel pain in order to accept the idea that they have a basic right to live and not have that life taken away from them, particularly for no reason other than to satisfy our taste buds? Of course, there are people in the world who rely on marine life for sustenance, and for those who don’t, there was a time when their ancestors did… and in those circumstances, pain actually matters little. But for anyone reading this who has access to affordable plant-based food, the survival argument simply doesn’t apply.
As animal rights advocates, we are left with pain and suffering as ways to convince others not to kill animals. The argument goes that if fish feel pain and suffer, then they deserve to be left in peace. However, that implies that beings who do not feel pain or have a conscious experience, i.e. suffering, should not have the same ethical protection. Therein lies the rub: should subjective experience of suffering be the ultimate benchmark of the right to life? Consider that there are humans who cannot subjectively experience pain, merely react to stimuli, and the line becomes blurred.
If you are not prepared to get into this ethical conundrum - and very few people are - it is safe to say that veganism is the safest route. Why do mental gymnastics, simply to feel ok about buying smoked salmon? If you find yourself on a desert island with nothing but a fishing net, then perhaps you could while away the time thinking on this.
For now though, we’ll leave you with a couple of quotes from two philosophers who thought a great deal about animal rights, and whose words have been hugely influential:
“If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?”
Peter Singer, Animal Liberation
“What could be the basis of our having more inherent value than animals? Their lack of reason, or autonomy, or intellect? Only if we are willing to make the same judgment in the case of humans who are similarly deficient.”
Tom Regan, The Animal Rights Debate
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Andrew Gough is Media & Education Coordinator for Surge.
