A volume about the sentience standard
This volume defends one central idea: we owe moral consideration to all sentient beings, meaning everyone who can feel. And it answers the most common criticisms of this idea. The first chapter goes back over why sentience is the right standard.
The double standard
Humans exploit animals every day and hardly care about the suffering of wild animals. If the victims were human, the reaction would be the opposite. It's a case of a double standard.
The excuses and the question that knocks them down
To justify this, people have said humans matter more because they're human, have a soul, reason, language, culture, social bonds, or because it's natural or traditional. For each excuse, you can ask: what does this have to do with being able to be harmed?
None of these things decides whether someone can suffer or be happy.
The argument from relevance
- To know who we owe consideration to, what matters is who can be harmed or helped.
- Those who can be harmed or helped are sentient beings.
- So we owe consideration to all sentient beings, of any species.
In short
- All the excuses for ignoring animals fail at the same point.
- What matters is being able to be harmed or helped.
- So the standard is sentience.