Volume II · Considering Sentient Beings · chapter 12
How Much Importance Should We Give to the Situation of Animals?
Before you read study layer, not part of the original text
Faced with “why worry about animals when so many humans need help?”, the chapter shows that, by severity, number of victims, and neglect, the animal cause would deserve very high priority under conditions of impartiality.
Lots of people say: “humans first.” But the animals who suffer are far, far more numerous, they suffer a lot, and almost nobody helps them. If we chose without knowing whether we'd be a person or an animal, we'd think they need a lot of attention too.
If a city has one neighborhood with thousands of injured people and almost no rescuers, and another with a few injured and many rescuers, sending more help to the second one “because it's our neighborhood” would be unfair to the first.
- P1 A cause's priority depends on severity, the number of victims, and the degree of neglect.
- P2 Nonhuman victims are vastly more numerous, in a very serious situation, and much more neglected.
- P3 The view that humans should always come first only seems reasonable because of speciesism.
- C Therefore, under impartiality, the animal cause should receive very high priority.
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 “Why worry about animals when there are so many humans who need help?”
Answer Nobody says the reverse (“why help humans when so many animals are suffering?”) because speciesism is the norm. And helping animals doesn't stop anyone from helping humans: many actions, like changing what we consume, barely compete with other causes.
More objections and answers in Debunking objections.
Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume II, p. 41 of the PDF edition · English translation
Anyone who advocates for animals has very likely come across this objection: "why worry about nonhuman animals while there are still so many humans in need of help?"
Animal advocates usually reply that helping animals does not prevent anyone from helping humans. This is true, but it does not touch the main problem with the objection, which is that it assumes that the good of humans is more important. This assumption is highly questionable, for several reasons. One is that it seems it would be widely rejected if we were under conditions of impartiality49 (that is, if we were under conditions that prevented us from being biased). Let us see why:
A common view is that, even if nonhuman animals are usually in a much worse situation than humans, even if the total number of nonhuman victims is enormously greater than that of human victims, and even if there is a much larger number of people already investing in helping humans, we should nonetheless prioritize helping humans.
However, we would never say this if we did not know the species of the victims in each case. Much less would we say the same thing if the roles were reversed. Imagine, for example, that humans were in a worse situation than nonhuman animals, that there were a larger number of human victims, and that there were a larger number of people already investing in helping nonhuman animals. In this scenario, the claim that we should nonetheless prioritize helping nonhuman animals would be seen as absurd.
The reverse is not seen as absurd only because of the predominance of , which is itself a violation of . Indeed, if we were under conditions of impartiality, given the number of victims, the severity of their situation, and the degree to which they are , we would conclude that the animal cause should receive a very high priority50.
Practice
Study layer. The answers are based on the chapter’s text.
What factors does the chapter use to assess the importance of the animal cause?
Why does the reverse (“why help humans when so many animals are suffering?”) seem absurd to many people?
Food for thought
How much of your time or money today goes to causes involving animals? Does the proportion match how serious the problem is?
Author’s notes 2
Sources cited in this text 5
The full list for the volume is in the Volume II references.
- 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
- CUNHA, L. C. Uma breve introdução à ética animal: desde as questões clássicas até o que vem sendo discutido atualmente. Curitiba: Appris, 2021.
- ÉTICA ANIMAL. Contratualismo. Ética Animal: ativismo e investigação em defesa dos animais, 24 dez. 2015g.
- ÉTICA ANIMAL. Justiça plena: o que o véu da ignorância nos mostra sobre uma sociedade justa. Ética Animal: ativismo e investigação em defesa dos animais, 31 dez. 2016f.
- ÉTICA ANIMAL. O argumento da imparcialidade. Ética Animal: ativismo e investigação em defesa dos animais, 24 dez. 2015h.
Recommended texts
Keep exploring Considering Sentient Beings.
Uncertainty About Sentience and the Benefit of the Doubt
When we're uncertain whether a being is sentient, we should give it the benefit of the doubt: err on the…
What Is Relevant to Knowing to Whom We Owe Consideration?
What matters in deciding whom we owe consideration is who can be harmed or benefited by our decisions; the…
What Is the Argument from Species Overlap?
If the lack of certain abilities and relationships in some humans doesn't justify treating them worse, the…