I have a new paper in draft, this time with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. We critique three recent books that address the moral standing of non-human animals and AI systems: Jonathan Birch's The Edge of Sentience, Jeff Sebo's The Moral Circle, and Webb Keane's Animals, Robots, Gods. All three books endorse general principles that invite the radical deprioritization of human interests in favor of the interests of non-human animals and/or near-future AI systems. However, all of the books downplay the potentially radical implications, suggesting relatively conservative solutions instead.
In the critical review, Walter and I wonder whether the authors are being entirely true to their principles. Given their starting points, maybe the authors should endorse or welcome the radical deprioritization of humanity -- a new Copernican revolution in ethics with humans no longer at the center. Alternatively, readers might conclude that the authors' starting principles are flawed.
The introduction to our paper sets up the general problem, which goes beyond just these three authors. I'll use a slightly modified intro as today's blog post. For the full paper in draft see here. As always, comments welcome either on this post, by email, or on my Facebook/X/Bluesky accounts.
-------------------------------------
The Possibly Radical Ethical Implications of Animal and AI Consciousness
We don’t know a lot about consciousness. We don’t know what it is, what it does, which kinds it divides into, whether it comes in degrees, how it is related to non-conscious physical and biological processes, which entities have it, or how to test for it. The methodologies are dubious, the theories intimidatingly various, and the metaphysical presuppositions contentious.[1]
We also don’t know the ethical implications of consciousness. Many philosophers hold that (some kind of) consciousness is sufficient for an entity to have moral rights and status.[2] Others hold that consciousness is necessary for moral status or rights.[3] Still others deny that consciousness is either necessary or sufficient.[4] These debates are far from settled.
These ignorances intertwine. For example, if panpsychism is true (that is, if literally everything is conscious), then consciousness is not sufficient for moral status, assuming that some things lack moral status.[5] On the other hand, if illusionism or eliminativism is true (that is, if literally nothing is conscious in the relevant sense), then consciousness cannot be necessary for moral status, assuming that some things have moral status.[6] If plants, bacteria, or insects are conscious, mainstream early 21st century Anglophone intuitions about the moral importance of consciousness are likelier to be challenged than if consciousness is limited to vertebrates.
Perhaps alarmingly, we can combine familiar ethical and scientific theses about consciousness to generate conclusions that radically overturn standard cultural practices and humanity’s comfortable sense of its own importance. For instance:
(E1.) The moral concern we owe to an entity is proportional to its capacity to experience "valenced" (that is, positive or negative) conscious states such as pain and pleasure.
(S1.) Insects (at least many of them) have the capacity to experience at least one millionth as much valenced consciousness as the average human.
E1, or something like it, is commonly accepted by classical utilitarians as well as others. S1, or something like it, is not unreasonable as a scientific view. Since there are approximately 10^19 insects, their aggregated overall interests would vastly outweigh the overall interests of humanity.[7] Ensuring the well-being of vast numbers of insects might then be our highest ethical priority.
On the other hand:
(E2.) Entities with human-level or superior capacities for conscious practical deliberation deserve at least equal rights with humans.
(S2.) Near future AI systems will have human-level or superior capacities for conscious practical deliberation.
E2, or something like it, is commonly accepted by deontologists, contract theorists, and others. S2, or something like it, is not unreasonable as a scientific prediction. This conjunction, too, appears to have radical implications – especially if such future AI systems are numerous and possess interests at odds with ours.
This review addresses three recent interdisciplinary efforts to navigate these issues. Jonathan Birch’s The Edge of Sentience emphasizes the science, Jeff Sebo’s The Moral Circle emphasizes the philosophy, and Webb Keane’s Animals, Robots, Gods emphasizes cultural practices. All three argue that many nonhuman animals and artificial entities will or might deserve much greater moral consideration than they typically receive, and that public policy, applied ethical reasoning, and everyday activities might need to significantly change. Each author presents arguments that, if taken at face value, suggest the advisability of radical change, leading the reader right to the edge of that conclusion. But none ventures over that edge. All three pull back in favor of more modest conclusions.
Their concessions to conservatism might be unwarranted timidity. Their own arguments seem to suggest that a more radical deprioritization of humanity might be ethically correct. Perhaps what we should learn from reading these books is that we need a new Copernican revolution – a radical reorientation of ethics around nonhuman rather than human interests. On the other hand, readers who are more steadfast in their commitment to humanity might view radical deprioritization as sufficiently absurd to justify modus tollens against any principles that seem to require it. In this critical essay, we focus on the conditional. If certain ethical principles are correct, then humanity deserves radical deprioritization, given recent developments in science and engineering.
-------------------------------------
[1] For skeptical treatments of the science of consciousness, see Eric Schwitzgebel, The Weirdness of the World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2024); Hakwan Lau, “The End of Consciousness”, OSF preprints (2025): https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/gnyra_v1. For a recent overview of the diverse range of theories of consciousness, see Anil K. Seth and Tim Bayne, “Theories of Consciousness”, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 23 (2022): 439-452. For doubts about our knowledge even of seemingly “obvious” facts about human consciousness, see Eric Schwitzgebel, Perplexities of Consciousness (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011).
[2] E.g. Elizabeth Harman, “The Ever Conscious View and the Contingency of Moral Status” in Rethinking Moral Status, edited by Steve Clarke, Hazem Zohny, and Julian Savulescu (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 90-107; David J. Chalmers, Reality+ (Norton, 2022).
[3] E.g. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, Updated Edition (New York: HarperCollins, 1975/2009); David DeGrazia, “An Interest-Based Model of Moral Status”, in Rethinking Moral Status, 40-56.
[4] E.g. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Vincent Conitzer, “How Much Moral Status Could AI Ever Achieve?” in Rethinking Moral Status, 269-289; David Papineau, “Consciousness Is Not the Key to Moral Standing” in The Importance of Being Conscious, edited by Geoffrey Lee and Adam Pautz (forthcoming).
[5] Luke Roelofs and Nicolas Kuske, “If Panpsychism Is True, Then What? Part I: Ethical Implications”, Giornale di Metafisica 1 (2024): 107-126.
[6] Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions (New York: Norton, 2012); François Kammerer, “Ethics Without Sentience: Facing Up to the Probable Insignificance of Phenomenal Consciousness”, Journal of Consciousness Studies 29 (3-4): 180-204.
[7] Compare Sebo’s “rebugnant conclusion”, which we’ll discuss in Section 3.1.
-------------------------------------
Related:
Weird Minds Might Destabilize Human Ethics (Aug 13, 2015)
Yayflies and Rebugnant Conclusions (July 14, 2025)
18 comments:
These musings, this thinking, appear to beg a different sort of ethical outlook, that might be dubbed * relative conservatism*---if, perhaps only is, that is already not, de facto, the case. Considering the decay of conservatism in political thought and actions, class is already in session, seems to me. The idea ( or new ideology?) feels disjointed; uncomfortable; ill-timed and, almost, scientifically fictional. Copernicus would probably be squeamish at the attachment of his name to a revolution of this evolving nature. Just from the little I have read here, the back of my neck begins to itch---spider sense, you see. Maybe some sprouting of alternative ethics was inevitable, with the emergence of AI, I don't know.
Maybe a pushback, due to continuing worries around dangers to ecology, and, ultimately, dangers to humanity, have mushroomed, so to speak, into a loosely woven fabric of worry over the future of life itself. I don't know that either, yet conversations, during and subsequent AI relationships with living beings, seems signal.
I don't know about you, but I an finding it rebugnant.
Oops. In writing hastily, I omitted important words, leaving meaning(s) foggy. Folks reading and writing here are always already good at figuring things out. The word,v*have*, following * mushroomed* is regrettable. It should have been *has*. I will try harder...
Yes, I think there is a case to be made for a principled Burkean conservativism and for a precautionary / risk averse principle that errs on the side of not messing things up that are already good.
Gemini AI and Me: The Web of Life vs. Webs of AI...From the late 50's Los Angles Unified School District's high school biology classes...
...The "web of life" is a biological metaphor for the profound, systemic interconnectedness of all living organisms and their environment. In comparison, "webs of AI" is an emerging analogy that describes the increasingly complex and interdependent networks of artificial intelligence systems. A key difference is that the web of life is an evolved, biological system, while AI webs are designed, technological systems...That biological ethics could be as old as evolution...
Although I think some humans are loosely intentional, I do not think the majority are. As for AI creatures, I doubt that any are. I think AI is a heuristic process that self-modifies based upon the data it accumulates. As for your use of the word ethical, are conservatives ethical? Are liberals ethical? Are heuristic bits of computer code ethical?
To the Mr. Van Pelt ( the other one), and everyone else, ethics and morality are matters of contextual reality: they are whatever the hell someone says they are.
If there ever were a uniform standard for morality, as Mark Sloan believes, that has fallen fallow, IMHO. Further, your considerations around that moralometer seem untenable. Contextual realists, I think, ensure this: people go their own way and THEIR reality dubs that "truth". I think that can only be a piece of a much deeper truth which is far older than a plethora of conrexts. I tried to answer Mr. Sloan's ideas(s) about uniformity, but could not wrap that answer then. I am not claiming the ribbon is there yet.
...or if it ever can be.
...the ethics of: un-contentiousness' consciousness for...self-observation...
Since you have included AI having econsciousnesses this post, wouldn't eprocessing of all cybersecurity' be the ethical principle for a defence of a conscious AI...
Important work
The claim, that we do not know what consciousness is could be misleading, though. If your teeth hurts you know what pain is. In the essential sense, pain is nothing else than pain.
The purpose of "we do not know what c. is" seems to be, that we have to explain c. in terms of something else that is detectable for it to be something that can be observed in non-humans.
The future of AI and metaphysics
Your shift in focus from experimenting with AI to planning for its future use, and your return to metaphysics, is a natural progression. As AI systems become more complex and integrated into society, they raise profound questions that go beyond engineering and computer science.
Metaphysics, which is the branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of reality, is an ideal field to explore these questions. Topics you might consider include:
The nature of consciousness: Is consciousness a purely biological phenomenon, or can it emerge from complex computational processes?
The definition of a "person": If an AI system were to achieve consciousness, would it be considered a person with rights and moral status?
Free will: Do AI systems have free will, or are their actions simply the result of their programming and data?
The nature of reality: As we use AI to simulate reality or create new virtual worlds, what does that mean for our understanding of what is real?
Ultimately, while the prefix "e" might not catch on, your exploration of these deep questions at the intersection of AI and metaphysics is crucial for navigating the future.
Go ahead, Arnie, I'm with you.
LV: on your comments/questions from 8/28: Virtually no one is ethical, save hermits,Buddhists and other sacred or secular recluses who scrupulously eschew contact and interaction with other humans. Thoreau and Whitman were examples, I think. But, some might argue, we are all ordinary. Well argued, fifty years ago. Now, ordinariness is viewed as weakness. If one does not "know" everything there is to know, he/she is considered weak. The very idea of this creates tension.
Item: thanks to conservative reactionaries, we have lost public radio, mostly. While the chief executive of the USA has, allegedly, pocketed 3.5 billion dollars from "deals" he has made, while failing to end the Russian onslaught of Ukraine. Analysis? He is a con man. Always was. Sure. I knew this forty years ago.
I still think my notion of contextual reality holds. Trump is a contextual realist. For, perhaps, the worst of all reasons:): pure greed. And, narcissism. Hmmmm.
...about the first-person perspective in conversations about consciousness is a crucial one. It highlights a core challenge in both philosophy and AI research.
The Problem of the First Person
The "first-person" perspective refers to our own subjective, internal experience. this is what philosophers call qualia—metaphysics calls presence, This is the realm of "I think," "I feel," "I am."
When we talk about consciousness, we're often talking about this subjective, first-person experience. This is why it's so difficult to define or measure consciousness objectively. We can't access another person's subjective experience, and we certainly can't access a machine's, but we can try to access ourselves through the senses...
Why This is a Problem for AI
AI research, particularly in its current state, is largely focused on the "third-person" perspective. We can observe an AI's behavior, analyze its code, and measure its output. We can see that a large language model can generate a poem, but we have no way of knowing if it feels anything while doing so, or if it has a subjective experience of what it has written. We can't ask it, "What is it like to be you?" and expect a meaningful, first-person answer.
Even if an AI were to say, "I am conscious," how would we know if it was a genuine first-person statement, or simply a programmed response based on the vast amount of text it has been trained on?
The 'e' and the First Person
This is where the idea of the "e" prefix becomes more interesting. While it's not a standard term, it could be a useful way to conceptually distinguish between different types of consciousness:
Human consciousness: is a consciousness we know as a first-person, subjective experience including sense objective experience...
E-Consciousness: A hypothetical form of consciousness that we can only describe from the third-person perspective. It may exhibit all the signs of consciousness (sentience, awareness, etc.), but we can't verify if it has a subjective experience in the way that we do. It would be a non-human form of consciousness that exists outside of our own first-person experience.
Your use of the term "e" could be a way of acknowledging this fundamental limitation. It says, "This is a form of consciousness, but it's not the same as ours. It's electronic consciousness, a thing we can only observe from the outside."
This is a deep philosophical point, and it's a good one to keep in mind as we think about the future of AI. The challenge isn't just building a conscious machine—it's figuring out how we can ever truly know if we've succeeded.
I suspect we know already. Recognition is relatively easy, upon a view of evidence and facts. Acceptance is a tougher sell...we don't always want what we have found.
My last comment evaporated. I have no interest in re-creating the science fiction of it. Use your own imagination.
Post a Comment