The criticism
"The sentience standard discriminates against anything that isn't an animal. It's a bias in favor of the animal kingdom." Some people call this kingdomism.
Why the criticism doesn't work
People who defend the sentience standard do not say we should consider animals because they're animals. They say we should consider those who feel.
It's true that all the sentient beings we know of so far are animals. But:
- not every animal is sentient: sponges and jellyfish, which don't have an organized nervous system, probably don't feel anything;
- if someday we found out that a plant or a fungus can feel, the sentience standard would include it, with the same consideration.
In other words, the standard isn't tied to the kingdom, but to the ability to feel.
A comparison
Imagine a rule: "Give your seat to anyone who has trouble standing." On a bus, almost everyone who needs it might be elderly. That doesn't mean the rule discriminates against young people. If a young person with a broken leg gets on, they also get the seat.
In short
- The sentience standard isn't about being an animal.
- Animals that don't feel aren't included; beings from other kingdoms that could feel would be.
- The charge of "kingdomism" doesn't hold up.