Can They Suffer? Bentham’s Revolutionary Question
The pain that binds humans and cracks open centuries of moral dogma.
Jeremy Bentham posed a question that shocked 1789—and still resonates today: “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” This radical insight shifted the ethical spotlight from intellect or speech to the universal experience of suffering, laying groundwork for modern animal welfare.
Bentham, utilitarianism’s “father,” argued that suffering—not reason or language—is the only just criterion for legal protection. As he dissected societal prejudices (slavery, colonialism, animal cruelty), he demanded equal treatment for beings who feel, dismissing irrelevant traits like skin color or species as immoral gatekeepers. His words became a rallying cry for animal rights movements, yet critics note he never championed “natural rights,” calling such ideas “nonsense on stilts.”
His focus on suffering remains vital. Surveys confirm cruelty thrives when humans overlook animal pain. Yet Bentham’s view is criticized as too narrow. Can painless killing still be wrong? Must indifference to extinction or reducing pets to “inconvenience” be acceptable?
A truly moral relationship extends beyond suffering minimization. Like a father nurturing a child’s growth or a dog owner fostering companionship, ethics requires seeing animals as whole beings—social, communicative, intrinsically valuable. Modern ethics risks reducing relationships to principles, forgetting ethics is lived, not just theorized. As David E. Cooper suggests, we need moral phenomenology: truly seeing creatures—the fox’s familial ties, the dog’s joy—not merely acknowledging abstract truths about their pain.
Bentham’s question ignited progress, but compassion flourishes only when we look beyond suffering to perceive the vibrant lives animals live. Our moral task isn’t just to alleviate pain, but to honor the beings who experience the world alongside us.
No Comments