Anthropocentrism vs Sentientism

“Humans are the most intelligent beings on this planet, and therefore we have the right to exploit our natural resources and other species for our own advancement.”

As a species, we’ve no doubt had the most impact on this planet. We have shaped and conquered the world to suit our needs and desires. We have done this because our intelligence and capabilities make us the mightiest beings, allowing us to dominate the other species and the environment itself. With this power we hold, we are trying (and failing) to ensure rights for all of humanity. Most of us do look out for the wellbeing and safety of our own kind, even if it’s half-way on the other side of the globe (Free Palestine 🇵🇸). I believe this is the bare minimum moral consideration we owe to each other.

But animals can suck it, I guess?

If humans exceptionalism is true then that’s my ticket back to eating meat! Let’s see if it holds up.

Might makes right

This kind of thinking about how we’re the best and have the right to rule kinda sorta boils down to the “might makes right” argument. This is the idea that if you have the power to do something, then you automatically have the right to do it.

The problem is that if we look at any oppression, injustice, or exploitation that happened in the past (or even happening now!), it also relies on the same “might makes right” logic. It’s so messed up to keep people down just because one side has more power and believes they have the right to do so.

My personal belief is that power should be used to protect and uplift those who are vulnerable (comes with risks of being taken advantage of but contributes to my core values)

So then why do we use our power to exploit animals and not protect them? Just because they’re not human?

Welcome to a new gameshow Name that Trait!

If we believe that humans deserve moral consideration but animals do not, there must be a specific trait that justifies this massive divide. What is that trait?

• Is it intelligence?: As we covered in the article about animals not having morals, we don’t disregard babies, elderly, or cognitively impaired humans just because they lack intelligence.
• Is it some sort of physical trait?: Again, we don’t disregard people who are physically disabled, blind, or just plain fugly. Physical traits should not determine moral worth.
• Is it the ability to contribute to society?: There are plenty of people who don’t contribute to society in any meaningful way, like billionaires, billionaires, and billionaires. Yet, we still wouldn’t deny them moral consideration or basic human rights (for now)
• Is it just being human?: So if we only value humans just because they are human, then that is speciesism. No big deal right? (Well actually 🤓) it is the same kind of discrimination as racism or sexism. If you’re in a good position in life, high chances are you were just lucky to be born to the right family (and species).

The thing is, I would still save a human over an animal in a burning building. So doesn’t that mean I still value humans more and should therefore disregard the moral consideration of animals as I value them less?

Enter Sentientism: Pain === Pain

Even if I inherently value humans more than animals, that doesn’t matter. They may not be as capable or impactful as humans, but none of that matters. What matters and is undeniable for why they deserve moral consideration is that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering

This led me to the logical alternative to anthropocentrism: Sentientism.

Sentientism is the idea that moral consideration shouldn’t be based on your species, your intelligence, or your ability to contribute to society. It should be based entirely on sentience: the capacity to have subjective experiences, to feel joy, and most importantly, to feel pain.

I already believed this even before being vegan, but just never really thought about it step by step. If I really thought about it though, I only care about homeless people, starving children, war refugees, not because of anything they have, or what they can do for me in return, but simply because they are suffering. I care about them because I understand pain is wrong and unjust, and if I can help alleviate it in any practical way, shouldn’t I try?

Veganism is simply taking that exact same logic and extending it to the animals we share our planet with. However, with animals, if I pay to eat them, I am literally funding and actively causing their suffering.

“So then Aloo’s life is equal to a human’s?”

I don’t all of a sudden believe that animal life is equal to human life in any way. If a stranger and Aloo were both in a burning building, I would still save the human first (I would live with sadness in my heart forever though).

But just because I would save the human first, it doesn’t mean I then have the right to set Aloo on fire.

The pain we feel is fundamentally the same as the pain they feel. I agree with sentientism when it asks us to give equal consideration to that pain, regardless of the species experiencing it.