Criticisms of the sentience criterion
After looking at the arguments for considering all beings that can feel, this chapter sums up the most common criticisms of that criterion and the answers.
Some criticisms and answers
- "It's anthropocentrism in disguise." No: sentience was chosen because it's what makes it possible to be harmed, not because it's human.
- "It discriminates against those who aren't animals." No: if a plant or fungus could feel, it would be included too. Animals that can't feel aren't.
- "It only cares about pain." No: it also cares about all the good things someone can lose, as in a painless death.
- "It leaves insects out." No: when there's reasonable doubt, it gives the benefit of the doubt, and there's good evidence that many insects can feel.
- "Simple brains feel less." There's no basis for that; sometimes they might even feel more intensely.
- "All of nature deserves respect, because animals are part of it." A part deserving respect doesn't mean the whole does too.
- "Everything alive deserves consideration." Being alive isn't the same as being able to be harmed; plants can't feel.
In short
- The sentience criterion gets a lot of criticism.
- Each criticism has an answer.
- It's still the most consistent criterion: consider those who can be harmed.