What are the Ethical Implications of Panpsychism?

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده

Associate professor,Department of Philosophy, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده

People often think that phenomenal consciousness is unique to humans and animals,
but panpsychism extends it to other beings, considering consciousness as fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. This extension claim, which is shared by all panpsychists, carries ethical implications. Panpsychists vary in their views of the scope of extending consciousness. Micropsychism extends consciousness all the way down to fundamental particles at the micro-level, while macropsychism extends it to the cosmos and all physical objects in the universe. While micropsychism suggests that fundamental particles have moral status and significant moral standing, this truth does not necessarily translate into practical moral consequences, nor does it require us to change our behavior towards them. On the other hand, macropsychism implies that the universe holds moral status and significant moral standing. Advocates of this view argue that we should act in a way that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain for all beings in which we can discern the causes of pleasure and pain. Additionally, macropsychism requires recognizing the moral status and significant moral standing of all animate and inanimate entities. We should therefore behave in such a way that enhances the pleasure and alleviates the suffering of animals and plants, although we do not have any moral obligation regarding inanimate beings.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

What are the ethical implications of panpsychism?

نویسنده [English]

  • Mahdi Zakeri
Associate professor,Department of Philosophy, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

People usually think that phenomenal consciousness is unique to humans and animals, but panpsychism extends it to other beings and considers consciousness to be fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. This extension is the common claim of panpsychists and has ethical implications. Panpsychists differ from each other in the extent of extension of consciousness. Micropsychism extends consciousness to the fundamental particles at the micro-level, and macropsychism extends it to cosmos and all physical objects in the universe. According to micropsychism, fundamental particles have moral status and significant moral standing, but this truth has no practical moral consequences and does not require us to change our behavior towards them. According to macropsychism, the universe has moral status and significant moral standing, and we should act in a way that increases the pleasure and decreases the pain of all beings that we know the cause of their pleasure and pain. Also, macropsychism requires admitting the moral status and significant moral standing of all animate and inanimate beings, and we must behave in such a way that the pleasure of animals and plants increases and their pain decreases, but we do not have any moral obligation regarding inanimate beings.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • phenomenal consciousness
  • Panpsychism
  • Micropsychism
  • Macropsychism
  • Cosmopsychism
  • Animal Ethics
  • Vegetarianism

مراجع

Birch, J. (2017) Animal sentience and the precautionary principle. Animal Sentience, 16(1). https://doi.org/ 10.51291/2377-7478.1200
Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(2), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00038188
Browning, H. (2023). Welfare comparisons within and across species. Philosophical Studies, 180(2), 529–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-022-01907-1
Brüntrup, G. (2016). Emergent panpsychism. In Brüntrup & Jaskolla (Eds.), Panpsychism (pp. 48–71). Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. J. (2010). The character of consciousness. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311105.001.0001
Chalmers, D. J. (2015) Panpsychism and panprotopsychism. In T. Alter & Y. Nagasawa (Eds.), Consciousness in the physical world: perspectives on Russellian monism (pp. 246–276). Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. J. (2016). Panpsychism and panprotopsychism. In Brüntrup & Jaskolla (Eds.), Panpsychism (pp. 19–47). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199359943.003.0002
Chalmers, D. J. (2022). Reality+: virtual worlds and the problems of philosophy.
W. W. Norton & Company.
Coleman, S. (2016). Panpsychism and neutral monism: How to make up one’s mind. In Brüntrup & Jaskolla (Eds.), Panpsychism (pp. 249–282). Oxford University Press.
DeGrazia, D. (1996). Taking animals seriously: mental life and moral status (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139172967
Degrazia, D. (2007). Human-animal chimeras: human dignity, moral status, and species prejudice. Metaphilosophy, 38(2–3), 309–329.   
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2007.00476.x
DiSilvestro, R. (2010). Human capacities and moral status. Bioethics, 108, 165–99.
Duncan, M. (2021). Experience is knowledge. In M. Duncan, Oxford studies in philosophy of mind (vol. 1, pp. 106–129). Oxford University Press.             
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198845850.003.0005
Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and fundamental reality. Oxford University Press.
Goff, P. (2019a). Did the universe design itself? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 85(1), 99–122.
Goff, P. (2019b). Galileo’s error: foundations for a new science of consciousness. Pantheon Books.
Goff, P. (2020). Micropsychism, cosmopsychism and the grounding relation. In Seager (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of panpsychism (pp. 144–156). Routledge.
Gottlieb, J., & Fischer, B. (forthcoming). The ethical implications of panpsychism, Australasian Journal of Philosophy. Available from 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bdv0TZ9W6mvPrCafeFwTbrBIZ-EJSpcW/view [Accessed 1/24/2024].
Jaworska, A., & Tannenbaum, J. (2014). Person-rearing relationships as a key to higher moral status. Ethics, 124(2), 242–71.
Kagan, S. (2019). How to count animals, more or less. Oxford University Press.
Kant, I., & Wood, A. W. (2018). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Yale University Press.
Lewtas, P. (2013). What it is like to be a quark. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20, 39-64.
Lin, E. (2021). The experience requirement on well-being. Philosophical Studies, 178, 867–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01463-6
Mathews, F. (2011). Panpsychism as paradigm? In M. Blamauer (Ed.), The mental as fundamental: new perspectives on panpsychism (pp. 141-156). Ontos Verlag.
Mathews, F. (2020). Living cosmos panpsychism. In W. Seager. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of panpsychism (pp.131–143). Routledge.
McMahan, J. (2002). The ethics of killing: problems at the margins of life. Oxford University Press.
Nagasawa, Y., & Wager, K. (2016). Panpsychism and priority cosmopsychism. In Brüntrup & Jaskolla (Eds.), Panpsychism (pp. 113–129). Oxford University Press.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.
Roelofs, L. (2023). Sentientism, motivation, and philosophical Vulcans. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 104(2), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12420
Rosenberg, G. (2004). A place for consciousness: Probing the deep structure of the natural world. Oxford University Press.    
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195168143.001.0001
Seager, W. E. (2016). Panpsychism infusion. In Brüntrup & Jaskolla (Eds.), Panpsychism (pp. 229–248). Oxford University Press.
Sebo, J. (2017). Agency and moral status. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 14(1), 1-22.
Sebo, J. (2018). The moral problem of other minds. The Harvard Review of Philosophy, 25, 51–70.
Shani, I. (2015). Cosmopsychism: a holistic approach to the metaphysics of experience. Philosophical Papers, 44(3), 389–417.       
https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2015.1106709
Shepherd, J. (2018). Consciousness and moral status. Routledge.
Shepherd, J. (2021). The moral status of conscious subjects. In S. Clarke, H. Zohny & J. Savulescu (Eds.), Rethinking moral status (pp. 57–73). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192894076.003.0004
Siewert, C. (1998). The significance of consciousness. Princeton University Press.
Siewert, C. (2021). Consciousness: value, concern, respect. In U. Kriegel (Ed.), Oxford studies in philosophy of mind (vol. 1, pp. 3-40). Oxford University Press.
Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Singer, P. (2002). Animal liberation (1st Ecco paperback ed.). Ecco.
Skrbina, D. (2020). God as world-mind: some theological implications of panpsychism. In Bruntrup, Gocke & Jaskolla, (Eds.), Panentheism and panpsychism: philosophy of religion meets philosophy of mind (pp. 91-106). Brill U Mentis.
Skrbina, D. (Ed.). (2009). Mind that abides: panpsychism in the new millennium. Benjamins.
Tooley, M. (1972). Abortion and infanticide. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2(1),
37–65.
Warren, M. A. (1997). Moral status: obligations to persons and other living things. Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
 
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
CAPTCHA Image
پژوهش‌های فلسفی -کلامی
دوره 26، شماره 1
فروردین 1403
صفحه 85-106

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار