A common mistake
Many people think that to be against speciesism, you have to accept one specific ethical theory, like utilitarianism.
The text shows that this is false. Rejecting speciesism fits with many different theories.
An example with three theories
Imagine we rescue two animals, A and B, and there are two possible shelters. In each shelter, each animal's well-being would be different:
- Option 1: A does very well and B does so-so. The total is higher.
- Option 2: both do fairly well, in a more similar way. The total is a bit lower.
Three theories would answer differently:
- utilitarianism picks the option with the highest total;
- maximin picks the option where whoever is worst off does better;
- egalitarianism picks the option with less inequality.
Where's equal consideration?
Now imagine A and B switch places. Each theory would keep picking the same option for the same reason. None of them cares about who A or B is; only about the well-being numbers.
If someone changed their choice just because A is one species and B is another, they wouldn't be following the theory anymore. That's why all these theories have to reject speciesism.
Growing recognition
The text shows that more and more philosophers recognize this. People who disagree about almost everything agree that speciesism doesn't hold up.
In short
- You don't have to be a utilitarian to reject speciesism.
- Utilitarianism, maximin, and egalitarianism have different goals, but all of them require impartiality.
- Any reasonable ethical theory has to reject speciesism.