Ladders of importance
Many people think like this: "Animals matter, but humans matter more." Others say: "Whoever is smarter matters more, human or not." Both ideas build a ladder, with some above others.
The principle of equal consideration
The text presents a principle that shows this ladder is unfair: the principle of equal consideration.
If a pig's pain is equal to a person's pain, both count the same. This idea is already in the argument from relevance: if what matters is being able to be harmed, then equal pains matter equally.
Equal consideration isn't treating everyone the same
This principle does not say we should treat everyone exactly the same. It even requires us, sometimes, to put someone first.
Example: if A and B are both hurt, but A is much worse off, we should help A first. If the next day B is the one who's worse off, we should help B. The standard is how big the problem is, not who the person is.
How the principle gets broken
- When pains of the same size are given different weights because of species.
- Even worse, when a small harm to humans counts more than a huge harm to animals. For example, the pleasure of a flavor against an animal's whole life.
Speciesism goes beyond exploitation
Speciesism doesn't only show up when we exploit animals. It also shows up when we fail to help them because they're a different species. And it's not just about ignoring animals completely: giving them less weight for the same harms is also discrimination.
In short
- Ladders of importance based on species are biased.
- Harms of the same size should count the same.
- Putting whoever is worse off first fits with equal consideration; putting someone first because of species doesn't.