Anthropocentrism: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 50:

Anthropocentrism is closely related to the notion of [[Speciesism|speciecism]], defined by [[Richard D. Ryder]] as a "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |title=Animal liberation |date=2009 |publisher=Ecco Book/Harper Perennial |isbn=978-0-06-171130-5 |edition=4th |location= |pages=35}}</ref> One of the earliest of these critics was [[J. Howard Moore]], who in ''[[The Universal Kinship]]'' (1906) argued that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] ''[[On the Origin of Species]]'' (1859) "sealed the doom" of anthropocentrism.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Moore |first=J. Howard |url=http://archive.org/details/universalkinship00moor |title=The Universal Kinship |publisher=Charles H. Kerr & Co. |year=1906 |location=Chicago}}</ref>

While humans cognition is relatively advanced, many traits traditionally used to justify humanity exceptionalism (such as [[rationality]], emotional complexity and social bonds) are not unique to humans. Research in [[ethology]] has shown that non-human animals, such as [[Primate|primates]], [[Elephant|elephants]], and [[Cetacea|cetaceans]], also demonstrate complex [[Social structure|social structures]], emotional depth, and [[Problem solving|problem-solving]] abilities. This challenges the claim that humans possess qualities absent in other animals, and which would justify denying moral status to them.<ref name=":2" />

[[Animal welfare]] proponents attribute moral consideration to all [[Sentience|sentient]] animals, proportional to their ability to have positive or negative mental experiences. It is notably associated with the ethical theory of [[utilitarianism]], which aims to maximize [[well-being]]. It is notably defended [[Peter Singer]].<ref name=":2">{{Citation |last=Gruen |first=Lori |title=The Moral Status of Animals |date=2017 |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/moral-animal/ |access-date=2019-10-14 |edition=Fall 2017 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref> According to [[David Pearce (philosopher)|David Pearce]], "other things being equal, equally strong interests should count equally."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pearce |first=David |date=2013 |title=The Antispeciesist Revolution |url=https://www.hedweb.com/transhumanism/antispeciesist.html |access-date=2019-10-14 |website=www.hedweb.com}}</ref> Jeremy Bentham is also known for raising early the issue of animal welfare, arguing that "the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Further Animal Liberation |url=https://philosophynow.org/issues/142/Further_Animal_Liberation |access-date=2024-10-01 |website=Philosophy Now}}</ref> Animal welfare proponents can in theory accept animal exploitation if the benefits outweigh the harms. But in practice, they generally consider that [[intensive animal farming]] causes a massive amount of suffering that outweighs the relatively minor benefit that humans get from consuming animals.<ref name=":2" />