Defenders of speciesism argue that humans have a special rational nature that sets them apart from animals, but the problem is where that leaves infants and the profoundly intellectually disabled. Instead of defending the idea that all humans have rights but no animals do, we should recognise that many things we do to animals cause so much pain and yet are so inessential to us that we ought to refrain. We can be against speciesism and still favour beings with higher cognitive capacities, which most humans have – but that is drawing a line for a different reason.

Theories of Moral Considerability: Who and What Matters Morally?

• She compares her interaction with Peter Singer to “rape”, not because he forcibly held her down but because of the sway he held over her, which interfered with her power to refuse him.
• Such organisms are described as “having subjective experiences”.
• At the same time, it has the implausible implication that neither infants nor people with severe mental disabilities deserve moral consideration (since they aren’t rational, i.e., they don’t act on reasons).
• Although this line of thinking is both useful and persuasive it does lead to one rather unpleasant conclusion.
• Finally, according to ecocentrism, what deserves moral consideration isn’t individual beings but collectives or groups, specifically those that promote the flourishing of ecosystems (e.g., wolf packs and aspen groves).
• Its contours are defined by who’s in power, as is the very definition of what counts as progress.

What progress have we made in our treatment of animals since the original book? There have been some improvements in factory farming practices in some regions of the world, but in others we have hit new lows. China now has enormous factory farms and lacks any national standards for raising animals for food.

Sentientism

What is missing from Peter Singer’s New York Times op-ed, and from too much of our activism lately, is the willingness to boldly and lovingly assert that the lives of animals matter. It is time to stop cloaking our cause in other causes we believe to be more popular. As Marianne explains it, once one person acts from an awakened heart, others will follow. Right now it seems many of us are trying to hide our hearts and hide our love for animals. And that pushes other activists to shout it in a tone that larabet casino doesn’t sound like love at all.
Everyone reading this sentence likely (hopefully!) agrees that women deserve the same rights as men. But just a couple of centuries ago, that idea would’ve been dismissed as absurd. Organisms that don’t have subjective experiences don’t experience events as good or bad, and so, in moral terms, it doesn’t matter what happens to them.

A critical perspective on the idea of the moral circle

During our recent health crisis Peter Singer wrote that hospital beds should be denied to those who chose not to get a certain shot. While one can reasonably argue that people should accept the consequences of their choices, everybody knows that a fast-food diet leads to heart disease and diabetes. Yet Singer never suggested that those whose diets had led to those comorbidities should be denied hospital beds, even though such a policy might have encouraged millions to go vegan.

Rights and permissions

Abraham Maslow famously illustrated this basic concept with his image of a pyramid representing our hierarchy of needs. This is speciesism, which, despite much criticism, is a perfectly coherent moral position to take. Most people would regard this as a totally immoral idea, and would want to reject the theory that leads to this conclusion. There is a serious difficulty with using self-awareness and the preference to stay alive as criteria for full moral status.

This site has been viewed this many times:

In Thanking the Monkey, I acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree on whether it’s ever okay to experiment on animals to save human life. I suggest we focus instead on the vast majority of animal experiments, which bring us better oven cleaner, or drugs that work for an extra hour or two. Let’s tackle the issues on which every decent person would agree. In our tribal society, people may not appreciate the nuance involved in accepting that something might be a reasonable view, while not personally supporting that view.

More in Future Perfect

• Using this criterion leads to a conclusion that would shock most people.
• The Effective Altruism movement urges funders to donate to charities that can prove how many animals they help.
• She was accused by numerous plaintiffs of bias in favor of “well connected and well-funded” men against the women they battled in court.
• They have worth and wonder of their own, which is becoming more frequently acknowledged in human society.
• DawnWatch is entirely focused on encouraging serious and positive coverage of animal issues in mainstream media, so that consumers can make informed choices in line with their own true values.
• Lake Erie won legal personhood status in February, and recent years have seen rights granted to rivers and forests in New Zealand, India, and Colombia.
• Surely because of his position in Hollywood, and women’s wish to stay on his good side, he was so oblivious to the pain and long-standing ill-will his sexual dealings had evoked, that he spoke out publicly against Harvey Weinstein.

A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to help all life which he is able to succor, and when he goes out of his way to avoid injuring anything living. He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy as valuable in itself, nor how far it is capable of feeling. How we’re going to discover whether a robot is sentient is still open for debate, but to Singer it’s obvious that whenever the answer turns out to be yes, inclusion in the moral circle must follow. Now it’s cropping up more often in activist circles as new social movements use it to make the case for granting rights to more and more entities. For example, you have the right not to be unjustly imprisoned (liberty) and the right not to be experimented on (bodily integrity). Biocentrism can explain some intuitions that other theories cannot.
And this means that these ‘marginal’ human beings deserve less moral consideration than other human beings, and even than some non-human animals. Some writers argue that “only organisms that have subjective experiences deserve moral consideration.” This article discusses which animals deserve moral consideration, and whether some species are more deserving than others. A colleague and I published our first paper on this last year. ChatGPT refuses to give recipes for cooking dogs on the grounds that it is unethical but readily provides recipes for cooking chickens.
It is not unreasonable to value one’s own species above others; almost everybody does it. What is unreasonable is to hold that value while holding yourself up as the foremost representative for those who you judge less worthy of life. Meanwhile, psychologists are conducting empirical research to understand what motivates people to expand the moral circle.