The idea being debated
We've already seen that not all humans have reason or language. Some writers respond like this: "Humans who don't have these abilities deserve respect because they belong to the same group, the human species, as those who normally have these abilities."
This is called an appeal to the group. The idea is: what's true for most of the group is true for everyone in the group.
Problem 1: the argument goes in a circle
The argument was supposed to explain why species matters. But to do that, it starts from the idea that belonging to the right species is what matters. It's the same begging the question we saw before: using the conclusion as proof.
Problems 2 and 3: the abilities don't explain anything
Just like in the earlier chapters, it never shows why having reason or language would change how much a pain counts. And there are good reasons to think it doesn't: what counts is being able to suffer.
Problem 4: it's an unfair standard
Look at what the argument does:
- it includes humans who don't have the abilities, just because they're human;
- it leaves out animals, even if some animal did have those abilities.
In other words, in the end it's species that decides, not abilities. That's biased.
What if you combine the two standards?
Some people try another way out: "To matter, you just need to either be human or have certain abilities." It seems fairer, because a very smart animal would get in too.
But it still has problems: it still goes in a circle, it still doesn't explain why the abilities would matter, and it's still biased. Nothing is asked of humans. Animals are asked to prove they have special abilities.
In short
- The appeal to the group uses the conclusion as proof.
- It includes humans without the abilities and leaves out animals that have them: species is what decides.
- Combining species and abilities is still biased.