Two different claims
Compare:
- Claim 1: it's more wrong to kill humans because they lose more by dying.
- Claim 2: it's more wrong to kill humans even when they lose less by dying.
The first one has already been discussed. This text deals with the second.
Direct and indirect reasons
There are two kinds of reasons against killing someone:
- Direct: the harm death causes the one who dies.
- Indirect: the harm that death causes others, like the family's grief.
The text focuses on the direct reasons.
Two theses
- Magnitude Thesis: how strong the reasons against killing are depends only on how much the victim loses by dying.
- Status Thesis: some individuals have a special status, and it's more wrong to kill them, even if they lose less.
The two-tier approach
One version of the Status Thesis says: for animals and humans without autonomy, how wrong killing is depends on how much they lose. But for autonomous agents (adult humans who can make choices) there would be an extra "trump card": a special dignity.
Even so, it doesn't justify exploitation
The author points out a common mistake: even if it were more wrong to kill adult humans, that doesn't mean it's not wrong to kill animals. This theory wouldn't justify animal experiments, let alone eating animals.
Does the theory hold up?
The author also criticizes the idea. It relies on intuitions, and intuitions can be wrong or come from biases. Besides, inventing a "dignity trump card" just to confirm what we already thought is going in a circle.
In short
- The Magnitude Thesis looks at how much is lost; the Status Thesis gives some individuals extra weight.
- Even the Status Thesis doesn't justify exploiting animals.
- And it depends on intuitions that may be wrong.