Why consider animals
This chapter sums up the main arguments for giving animals moral consideration.
The argument from relevance
What matters for knowing whether we should take someone into account is whether they can be harmed or benefited. The ones who can are sentient beings, who feel good and bad things. Many animals are sentient. So we should consider them.
The argument from species overlap
Whatever ability is used to exclude animals (reason, language, a sense of justice), there are always humans who don't have it, like babies. If that doesn't justify mistreating those humans, it doesn't justify mistreating animals either.
Equal consideration
A pig's pain and a person's pain, if they're the same size, count the same.
The impartiality test
If we didn't know whether we'd be born human or animal, would we accept animal exploitation? Probably not. This shows it only seems acceptable because the people defending it know they won't be the victims.
The benefit of the doubt
When in doubt about whether a being can feel, we should treat it as someone who can, because the mistake of not doing so is much worse.
In short
- What matters is being able to be harmed or benefited.
- Lacking certain abilities doesn't justify disregarding anyone.
- Equal consideration, impartiality, and the benefit of the doubt all point in the same direction.