Is the Rejection of Speciesism Compatible with Only One View of Ethics?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume II, p. 27 of the PDF edition · English translation

7.1. To reject speciesism, is it necessary to subscribe to a specific ethical theory?

A common mistake is to think that, to reject speciesism, one must accept a specific view of ethics, such as utilitarianism. Thus, opponents of respect for nonhuman animals sometimes try to argue against utilitarianism with the aim of concluding that speciesism is justified.

7.2. The rejection of speciesism is compatible with various views of ethics

However, to recognize that the defenses of speciesism have problems, it is not necessary to assume a specific theory of ethics. Moreover, the principle of equal consideration is compatible with any unbiased view of ethics³². This is because it is a formal principle. That is, it does not itself prescribe what the right action is (that is done by the various substantive normative principles of each ethical theory). What the principle of equal consideration says is that, whatever substantive principle we adopt to determine what the right action is, there is no justification for being biased in its application.

As we will see below, utilitarianism certainly must give equal consideration to all sentient beings and, therefore, must reject speciesism. However, the moral consideration of all sentient beings and the rejection of speciesism have been defended from the most varied theories of normative ethics³³. Below, we will look at an example with three different ethical theories.

7.3. An example with three different ethical theories

Imagine that we have rescued two animals, and that there are two ways in which we can house them. In the first, one of the animals will be in a much better condition than the other, although both will be in a positive condition. In the second, the first animal will not be as well off as it would be in the first option, but the second will be better off than it would be in the first option.

These options are laid out in the following table, where S1 and S2 are the possible situations for individuals A and B, and the numbers represent their levels of well-being.

Now let us take as an example three views of ethics that accept equal consideration but have different goals: utilitarianism, maximin, and egalitarianism.

Utilitarians would say that S1 is better, since their goal is to maximize the aggregate total. Proponents of maximin, on the other hand, would say that S2 is better, since their goal is for the minimum level of well-being to be as high as possible. Egalitarians, in turn, would also agree that S2 is better, but because the level of inequality in it is lower.

So in what sense do all these views of ethics accept equal consideration? In the following sense: if the individuals switched places, these views would maintain the same decision. The following table illustrates this switch:

In this case, utilitarians would still maintain that we should choose S1, and proponents of maximin and egalitarians would still maintain that we should choose S2.

If someone refuses to defend the same decision when the individuals switch places (for example, because they are speciesist and always want to prioritize A or B), then they will no longer achieve the goal that the ethical theory in question aims to achieve. Thus, any unbiased view of ethics gives equal consideration to all sentient beings. Therefore, it is false that, to reject speciesism, one must assume a specific ethical theory.

That any plausible ethical theory must reject speciesism (and, consequently, advocate the abolition of speciesist practices, such as animal exploitation) is something that is increasingly being recognized. For example, on October 4, 2022, the Montreal Declaration on Animal Exploitation was signed. More than 500 specialists in ethics and political philosophy from more than 40 countries signed it, declaring the following:

"...We rarely agree with one another. We do agree, however, on the need for a profound transformation in our relationships with other animals. We condemn practices that involve treating animals as objects or commodities."