Why Equal Consideration?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume II, p. 20 of the PDF edition · English translation

5.1. Hierarchical views

A very common view is that we should give some consideration to nonhuman animals, but that we should give greater consideration to humans.

Another view, sometimes defended, is that beings with greater cognitive capacities should receive greater consideration than beings with lesser cognitive capacities (whether they are human or nonhuman). According to this view, normal adult humans should receive greater consideration than nonhuman animals, children, and humans with cognitive impairments. For the same reason, according to this view, animals such as mammals should receive greater consideration than, for example, fish or insects.

In short, these views build hierarchies of moral status.

5.2. The principle of equal consideration

There is, however, a principle, called the principle of equal consideration²¹, which suggests that the very idea of a hierarchy of moral status is biased. According to the principle of equal consideration, all morally considerable beings have the same moral standing. The principle of equal consideration is explained in more detail below.

The idea of equal consideration is already built into the argument from relevance. If we have reasons to give moral consideration to someone because that someone can be harmed and benefited, then the strength of those reasons depends on the magnitude of the harms and benefits at stake — and not on the species, race, or gender to which they belong, their capacities, the relationships they have with others, and so on. In short, in an unbiased approach, harms and benefits of similar magnitude receive the same weight, and greater harms and benefits receive greater weight than lesser harms and benefits. This is what it means to give equal consideration to those affected by a decision.

This suggests, then, that not only is there no justification for excluding nonhuman animals from the sphere of moral consideration: there is also no justification for giving them lesser consideration²². That is why speciesism²³ is analogous to racism: both violate this principle and are therefore forms of discrimination²⁴.

Note that the principle of equal consideration is compatible with (in fact, requires) prioritizing this or that individual depending on the circumstances. This is because the principle prescribes that greater harms receive greater weight. However, the principle requires that this be done in an unbiased way.

For example, if in a certain situation I prioritize A because he is more seriously injured, then if in another situation it is B who is more seriously injured, I should prioritize B. I would be discriminating against B if, in this second situation, I chose not to prioritize him because of his race, gender, species, and so on.

In short, according to the principle of equal consideration, although the good of each affected individual receives the same weight, the magnitude of the harms and benefits to which they would be subject may differ (and, therefore, the reasons for prioritizing this or that individual may vary).

5.3. Violations of the principle of equal consideration

The principle of equal consideration is routinely violated in practices that affect nonhuman animals. For example, if the experiments that are widely accepted when performed on nonhuman animals²⁵ were performed on humans, subjecting them to a similar harm (suffering of similar magnitude and harming them through death to the same extent, for example), they would be widely repudiated. This is an example of a case in which harms of similar magnitude receive different weight depending on whether the victim is human or nonhuman.

There are, moreover, more blatant violations of the principle of equal consideration, which occur not when similar harms receive different weight, but when lesser harms receive greater weight than greater harms. These violations are extremely common. The very use of animals for food production is an example. If humans stop eating animals, they do not suffer a great harm. They just have to eat plant-based food. But if humans choose to eat them, the animals, in addition to usually living a life full of suffering, also lose their lives²⁶.

5.4. Speciesism is not limited to exploitation

As we have seen, animal exploitation is one form of violation of the principle of equal consideration. However, nonhuman animals are also disadvantaged in a biased way even in situations in which they are not exploited. An example is the claim that nonhuman animals, when they are victims of natural processes²⁷ such as disease, thirst, hunger, and natural disasters, should be left to their fate, but that humans in similar situations should be rescued.

5.5. Speciesism is not limited to total disregard

One of the main implications of the principle of equal consideration is that an individual is discriminated against (that is, receives unjust unfavorable treatment) not only when their good is completely disregarded, but also when, for unjust reasons, their good receives less weight compared with the good of other individuals. That is why giving lesser consideration to the good of nonhuman animals is also unjustly disadvantaging them, even if some consideration is given to their good.

5.6. Speciesism is not limited to anthropocentric speciesism

There are also non-anthropocentric forms of speciesism, which rank the degree of moral consideration given to different nonhuman animals. For example, animals

such as dogs and cats generally receive greater consideration than fish, chickens, pigs, and cows. It is also common for animals considered more intelligent to receive greater consideration than animals considered less intelligent; for large animals to receive greater consideration than very small ones, such as insects; and so on. As should be clear by now, all of this violates the principle of equal consideration.

In what we have seen above, we focused mainly on examining anthropocentrism. There were three reasons for this. The first is that anthropocentrism is by far the most prevalent of all forms of speciesism. The second is that humans are usually placed at the top of the hierarchy. Even the animals favored by non-anthropocentric forms of speciesism typically receive far less consideration than humans do, and things are done to them that would never be considered acceptable if done to humans. Finally, the third reason is that what explains why anthropocentrism is unjustifiable (violating the principle of equal consideration) implies that any other form of speciesism is unjustifiable.

In fact, the principle of equal consideration explains the moral irrelevance of the species criterion in general, regardless of whether hierarchies are drawn among members of different species. For example, it is sometimes said that using animals in experiments is right as long as it benefits other animals of the same species. To see the problem with this argument, consider that in the past human victims were used in experiments aimed at benefiting other humans. The fact that the victims and the beneficiaries belong to the same species does not seem to make such practices justifiable. They equally violate the principle of equal consideration by assigning different weight to the good of the affected individuals.

5.7. Other little-noticed forms of discrimination

Another important implication of the principle of equal consideration is that it rejects hierarchies of moral standing based not only on race, gender, and species, but also on size, degrees of cognitive capacity, and the type of substrate that makes up the sentient being's body (that is, whether or not it is organic).

For example, if non-organic sentient beings come to exist in the future (for example, in digital media), according to the principle of equal consideration the good of these beings should receive the same weight as the good of organic sentient beings²⁸. In short, according to the principle of equal consideration, all sentient beings count equally²⁹.