Volume II · Considering Sentient Beings · chapter 8
If We Reject Speciesism, How Will We Decide Questions of Priority?
Before you read study layer, not part of the original text
Giving equal consideration to all sentient beings doesn't leave us without guidance for setting priorities: there are several criteria compatible with it, such as prioritizing those who are worse off, the greater number, the greater benefit, or the greater future impact.
If everyone matters equally, how do we choose whom to help first? We can think: who's worse off? How many need help? Where does my help make the most difference? None of that depends on species.
In an emergency room, everyone matters equally, and there's still triage: whoever is in the most serious condition is seen first. Equality doesn't stop us from choosing; it only stops us from choosing by an unfair criterion.
- P1 In most situations we can't help everyone.
- P2 There are priority criteria that don't depend on species: how serious the situation is, the number of victims, the size of the benefit, and future impact.
- P3 These criteria are compatible with equal consideration.
- C Therefore, it's false that, without species hierarchies, we'd have no guidance for deciding.
The chapter’s central argument in logical form. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. To disagree, you have to show which premise is false.
They say “If everyone counts equally, how will you decide whom to save?”
Answer The same way we do among humans: by severity, by the number of victims, by the size of the benefit. None of these criteria needs species.
More objections and answers in Debunking objections.
Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume II, p. 30 of the PDF edition · English translation
In the vast majority of situations, we will be unable to avoid harming every individual, nor will we be able to help everyone in need. Given this, someone might think that, if we give to all beings, we will have no guide for deciding: if everyone counts equally, how will we decide on priority34? Wouldn't it be necessary to build hierarchies of ? For example, if someone assigns a higher status to humans, or to the most intelligent beings, they will have a criterion for deciding in cases of conflict.
However, equal consideration is fully compatible with priority criteria. The difference, compared with hierarchical views, is the following. In views that build hierarchies of moral status, priority always goes to members of the privileged group. The priority criteria that could be adopted by views that accept equal consideration, by contrast, are interchangeable (that is, anyone could come to occupy the position that deserves priority). Consider, for example, the criterion "priority goes to whoever is worst off." This criterion is interchangeable because priority would go to anyone who was in the worst situation, regardless of their species, size, age, gender, capacities, and so on.
There are various priority criteria compatible with the principle of equal consideration. Below is a list of four examples (although there may be many others35):
(1) Severity: the worse the individual's situation, the higher their priority. (2) Number: the greater the number of individuals in a bad situation, the higher the priority. (3) Benefit: the greater the size of the benefit that can be provided to those in a bad situation, the higher the priority. (4) Long-term impact: The greater the positive impact that one or more individuals would have from then on if they are helped, the higher their priority.
Sometimes two or more criteria point in the same direction, and at other times they conflict with one another. Deciding questions of priority is not an easy task. There are many possible ways of establishing which criterion weighs more and whether that weight is fixed or variable. However, what we have seen above is enough to show that equal consideration is compatible with priority criteria. Therefore, it is false that, in order to decide questions of priority, we have to subscribe to a view that builds hierarchies of moral status.
Practice
Study layer. The answers are based on the chapter’s text.
Which of these is NOT one of the priority criteria mentioned?
Do the priority criteria always point in the same direction?
Food for thought
Think of a triage system you know (a hospital, emergency services). What criteria does it use? Does any of them depend on species?
Author’s notes 2
- 34 On how each theory of normative ethics that accepts the principle of equal consideration approaches questions concerning priority criteria, see (2022b). On applications of priority criteria to cause selection, see Cunha (2023). ↩
- 35 On how to decide priority taking levels of inequality into account, see (2014). ↩
Sources cited in this text 3
The full list for the volume is in the Volume II references.
- CUNHA, L. C. A igualdade, suas várias interpretações, e a ética interespécies. In: BARBOSA-FOHRMANN, A. P.; LOURENÇO, D. B.; AUBERT, A. C. P. (orgs.). Estudos e direitos dos animais: teorias e desafios. Porto Alegre: Editora Fi, 2022b, p. 104-128.
- CUNHA, L. C. Especismo e priorização de causas. In: ROSARIO, M. C.; PEREIRA, F. S.; AZEVEDO, M. A. O. Anais do Simpósio Ética Animal em Ação. São José dos Campos: Entrementes Editorial, 2023, p. 33-45
- FARIA, C. Equality, priority and nonhuman animals. Dilemata, v. 14, p. 225-236, 2014.
This chapter in Volume XII
How the author sums up this debate in The Essentials of Animal Ethics.
If we give equal consideration, how do we decide questions of priority? (II, ch. 8).
Recommended texts
Keep exploring Considering Sentient Beings.
But Aren't Humans Capable of Suffering to a Greater Degree?
More complex cognition doesn't always mean suffering more: sometimes it increases suffering…
What Would We Decide Under Conditions of Impartiality?
A decision is fair if it's the one we would choose without knowing which position we'd occupy among those…
Testing Whether an Attitude Is Speciesist
An attitude is speciesist if it's unfair to sentient beings because of their species; we can test it by…