Three standards
Compare three rules about who deserves consideration:
- Anthropocentric: only humans.
- Sentience: all beings who feel.
- Biocentric: everything that's alive, whether it feels or not, like plants and fungi.
The argument
Someone says: "The sentience standard is better than the anthropocentric one because it includes more beings. So the biocentric one is even better, because it includes even more."
The mistake
Including more beings doesn't automatically make a standard better. What matters is why beings are included.
- The sentience standard is better than the anthropocentric one because it includes beings who would be harmed if left out: animals who suffer.
- The biocentric one adds beings who can't be harmed, like plants, which don't feel anything.
A comparison: a theory that also included tables and chairs would include even more things. That wouldn't make it better.
Does biocentrism really include more?
The author also questions this. If in the future there are beings who feel but aren't alive in the biological sense, like digital minds, the sentience standard would include them and the biocentric one wouldn't.
In short
- Including more beings doesn't make a standard better on its own.
- Biocentrism adds beings who can't be harmed.
- The sentience standard might even include beings biocentrism leaves out.