Philosopher Peter Singer: Theres no reason to say humans have more worth or moral status than animals Animal welfare

“We’re finding evidence that there was more momentum than complacency,” Reese said. The easy way to solve the problem is to cheat and put human beings in an even higher moral category, and simply state that even human beings who aren’t self-aware and have no preference to go on living should be regarded as deserving full moral consideration. This awareness and preference to go on living, makes them deserve greater moral consideration than the first group. These organisms have an ‘interest’ in avoiding painful experiences and an ‘interest’ in seeking out pleasurable experiences. Organisms can be arranged in a moral hierarchy in which the lowest group deserves no moral consideration at all, and the top group deserves more moral consideration than the second group.
I have seen men who have devoted their lives to our movement virtually kicked out of it for allegations of misdeeds no greater than Peter Singer’s. I saw a friend whose contributions to our movement have been stunning, who has no sexual harassment allegations against him, deprived of a speaking spot at the Animal & Vegan Advocacy Summit due to a suggestion that he had enabled an offender. No matter how one views those circumstances, one must see the bitter irony in Peter Singer delivering the 2022 keynote address at that conference.

More on Animals

You have provoked the ire of the disability rights advocates over the years, including by arguing that parents should have the right the end the lives of severely disabled newborns. This has been criticised as an ableist view that could lead to other disabled people being less valued. In general, I think it is better to have abilities than not to have them. Obviously, there are forms of discrimination against disabled people that we should firmly reject. Ableism has a sound purpose when it calls out discrimination against disabled people on grounds not related to their disability.

Should animals, plants, and robots have the same rights as you?

It might not work so well with, say, chickens, so it doesn’t make sense to rely exclusively on this strategy if you want to reduce high-impact animal suffering. But it’s one useful tool in the arsenal, and you can already see it at work in the legal campaigns seeking personhood status for animals. Some people think sentience is the wrong litmus test; they argue we should include anything that’s alive or that supports living things. Maybe you think we should secure rights for natural ecosystems, as the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is doing. 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. Young babies, people in comas and people with certain types of brain defect do not show these characteristics.
When we look at human history, we see not linear progress but a messy squiggle. Its contours are defined by who’s in power, as is the very definition of what counts as progress. One marginal case not tested for in the moral expansiveness scale is artificial intelligence. For Singer, the question of whether future robots will belong in our circle is straightforward. “The rights of robots is still just a case of how you apply the boundary of sentience. If AI is sentient, then it’s definitely included, in my view.

A critical perspective on the idea of the moral circle

They have worth and wonder of their own, which is becoming more frequently acknowledged in human society. Let’s remember that almost two-thirds of Californians voted in favor of Prop 2 and Prop 12, which banned the most egregiously cruel housing for farm animals, despite agribusiness’ massive advertising effort to warn them that meat and egg prices would rise. A prime focus on climate also opens the door to suggestions that we should invest in ways to make meat production more efficient “by reducing cow’s methane emissions,” as was recommended in a recent Washington Post piece, or to calls for methane as a potential energy source. Here at Vox, we’re unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.

Insentient organisms

• Maybe you think we should secure legal rights for chimpanzees and elephants — as the Nonhuman Rights Project is aiming to do — but not for, say, shrimp.
• Because we are all products of our time, that intellectual humility is the healthiest posture we can adopt.
• Abraham Maslow famously illustrated this basic concept with his image of a pyramid representing our hierarchy of needs.
• Peter Singer, in his lack of wisdom, weighed in with a column criticizing the effort because all that money could do far more good than helping just one animal.
• And that pushes other activists to shout it in a tone that doesn’t sound like love at all.
• My guess is that if all and only humans have the feature (e.g., human DNA), then it probably isn’t morally relevant.

Plus, just as importantly, welfare campaigns show the shocking suffering caused by our food system; they wake people up. But seeing the bulk of animal advocacy funding flowing in that direction is distressing, and ironically we have the author of Animal Liberation Now to thank for much of that flow. This isn’t to say we should adopt a technologically deterministic view. Tech innovation isn’t necessarily the primary factor allowing the moral circle to expand (and in fact, it can often cause a lot of harm). But it’s one of several factors that can make a larger moral circle more likely.

Can you explain your position against speciesism, the belief most humans hold that we are superior to other animals? Just as we accept that race or sex isn’t a reason for a person counting more, I don’t think the species of a being is a reason for counting more than another being. What is important is the capacity to suffer and to enjoy life. We should give equal consideration to the similar interests of all sentient beings.
Members of the second, self-aware group, which includes human beings, are aware of their own existence and concerned about what will happen to them in the future. Such organisms are described as “having subjective experiences”. Sentient organisms are creatures larabet casino that have subjective experiences.
I know all too well that he relies on the professional talents of the women in his life. Effective Altruism starves out the activists creating the sparks, and Peter Singer wonders why our movement isn’t lighting up the world. I argued that point at the very end of my book Thanking the Monkey, in a section entitled “Talk the Walk,” which shared Marianne Williamson’s inspiring take on a Dateline segment.

Sentientism

Because we are all products of our time, that intellectual humility is the healthiest posture we can adopt. Not having simple answers may make us uncomfortable, but I tend to think it’s a productive discomfort. Psychologists have shown that we tend to feel more capable of extending moral concern to others if we’re not competing with them for scarce resources and if our own needs are already taken care of.

• I send out DawnWatch media alerts, aimed at encouraging activists to encourage the media to give animal issues better coverage, so that people can make informed choices in line with their own values.
• This was despite my asking for the extension at a hearing at which Singer’s lawyer was supposed to have appeared online, but had failed to, though I had showed up in court.
• We should think about the long-term future and we ought to try to reduce risks of extinction.
• Anybody tempted to agree with Singer that oysters, and other mollusks he eats (he once wrote me that he had ordered mussels rather than be “stuck” with bread and salad) should read Ed Yong’s extraordinary book, An Immense World, which I mentioned above.
• What is important is the capacity to suffer and to enjoy life.
• You have provoked the ire of the disability rights advocates over the years, including by arguing that parents should have the right the end the lives of severely disabled newborns.

I have done that now and should let other women know that it has significantly eased the rage that was eating away at me. That ruling reflected the effect of my having no legal counsel in confronting Singer’s law firm. Importantly, my amended complaint did not refer to brand new case law, Judd vs Weinstein (2020), which is invaluable to my claim because it discusses the “retaliation” elements of a sexual harassment suit. Though my follow-up argument against Singer’s move to dismiss the claim did indeed include that case law, the judge’s decision missed it entirely. For advocates, this could suggest that anthropomorphizing animals is a highly worthwhile strategy — when you can pull it off.