Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:10:38
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 15:33:11
Singer maintains that if pain matters morally then it matters wherever it occurs. Therefore any sentient creature who has an interest in avoiding such pain should have its interest taken into account. He then discounts such properties as intelligence, moral capacity, race, gender etc as being relevant and he maintains that sentience is the only defensible boundary for having ones interests taken into account.
Sentient beings of differing degrees of intelligence should thus have their equal interests considered equally.
Sentient beings of differing races should thus have their equal interests considered equally.
Likewise, he considers that sentient beings regardless of species should have their equal interests considered equallyTo discriminate on the basis of intelligence, race, etc is wrong because these differences are irrelevant to whether something has interests or not.
To discriminate on the basis of species is wrong because this difference is irrelevant to whether something has interests. To disregard the interests of animals simply because they are of a different species is morally unjustifiable (speciest). It is comparable to racism, sexism, etc.He considers that speciesism may be the last form of discrimination that we routinely practice without being aware of it.
To change our lifestyles so that we do not condone the exploitation of animals is hard. But we should consider how hard it would have been for slave owners to change their lifestyles so as not to condone the exploitation of people.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/464530.html