Close

Sentientism in action

From Human Rights to Sentient Rights: the next generation of rights thinking

If we grant rights in order to reduce suffering, shouldn't we grant rights to everyone that can suffer?

The granting of rights has been an important marker of humanity’s bumpy, uncertain progress. The question of who, and even what deserves rights, has a history just as long.

While many, sadly, still argue over which humans deserve rights, others have moved on to grant rights to all humans, most notably in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many are also debating which other entities should be given rights, including non-human animals, aspects of the natural environment, and even future artificial general intelligences. I propose we resolve these debates by focusing on the characteristic of sentience.

Primarily, sentience is the capacity to experience subjectively. It’s the ability to suffer, to feel pleasure, to experience flourishing or well-being. In that sense, it is the morally salient component of consciousness.

If our main objective in granting rights is to reduce suffering and enhance flourishing, using sentience as our main characteristic makes sense. Why grant rights to something that cannot suffer? Why not grant rights to something that can? As Jeremy Bentham wrote in 1879, “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

Some argue that we need a higher bar. Anthropocentric humanists suggest that rights should be restricted to members of the human species. Cruelty prevention organisations such as the RSPCA grant rights to pets and charismatic wild animals but fewer rights to farm animals. Other activists focus on "fully conscious", autonomous, self-determining moral objects that warrant “personhood”. I argue that if granting rights is about reducing suffering, we should grant them to anything, so any being, capable of suffering.

If we accept that argument, the next question is “What things are sentient?” To start, we are all confident of our own sentience. The sentience of others may seem more philosophically tricky, but we can confidently infer sentience from analysing evolutionary history, observing behaviour and assessing architecture and function (for example, via FMRI scans and anatomy). Given that humans behave in similar ways and have roughly the same neural hardware, it seems reasonable to assume we are all sentient.

The same approach leads us to the conclusion that many non-human animals are sentient. We need more research in this area, but current science indicates that mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and many insects are sentient. For some of the simplest animal species, we’re less confident, but given the potential suffering at risk it makes sense to be prudent. Interestingly, given the role of animal farming in accelerating the climate emergency, the interests of human and non-human animals are rapidly converging.

Human and non-human animals are the clear priority for this next generation of rights thinking given they exist today and suffer in enormous numbers. However, we may also eventually create or encounter other forms of sentient beings. This may happen soon, or never, but our rights frameworks and philosophies should be future-proofed just in case. A focus on sentience helps us to do this without being locked into arbitrary species definitions or even a particular type of biology, hardware or software. Sentience seems to be an advanced class of information processing that could conceivably run on a range of substrates. Non-biological suffering would be no less genuine. We might also come to hope that future artificial or alien intelligences themselves subscribe to Sentientist ethics – for our own sakes. Humanist ethics alone are unlikely to be persuasive to non-humans.

Why grant rights to something that cannot suffer? Why not grant rights to someone that can?

Using sentience as our determining characteristic also helps us clarify entities that don’t warrant direct moral consideration. These include corporations, plants, species, rivers, mountains, ecosystems, habitats or other aspects of the natural environment. These things, systems, concepts and categories may well be important to the experiences and survival of sentient beings and hence need protection – but they cannot suffer themselves. Some feel that granting rights is the best way of extending protections to these non-sentient entities. Others feel this is inappropriate, particularly when many of those pushing for non-sentient rights still don't grant rights to all sentient beings.

This Sentientist approach has far-reaching implications, particularly for how we treat animals. As with humans, causing suffering and even death is sometimes justified, but the reason needs to be powerful and robust. Using animals for our food, drink and in products is not sufficient justification. We need to think of causing suffering and death to farm animals in the same way as we think of causing suffering and death to pets or charismatic wild animals. Farmed animals are just as sentient. Granting even basic rights of physical security and life to sentient animals requires an end to animal farming and fishing and a complete transition to arable agriculture. This would avoid the suffering and death of over 100 billion sentient land animals and trillions of fish every year, would radically reduce our climate impact, and might even help to save the rainforest while freeing vast expanses of land for tree planting or re-wilding. This may seem a radical change given the scale of animal farming and its traditional and cultural importance, but the benefits are clear. Serious work has already been done to show how we can make this transition work, including this UK-focused analysis by the New Economics Foundation and the Vegan Society. The process includes re-orienting government subsidies, providing support for farming communities as they transition and managing the animals themselves during the process.

As we broaden our moral scope, within and beyond the human species, we all benefit.

Sentientism also reinforces the human rights agenda. In addition to being motivated by species solidarity and our shared humanity, we can consider our shared sentience. This approach may help refine some of our human rights thinking. For example, on the topic of abortion, Sentientism doesn’t resolve questions about how we balance the rights of the mother and the embryo or foetus, but it does help to focus on what moral consideration we should grant the foetus at different stages of development. Sentience doesn’t start at conception, but it is present in a newborn baby. Science can help us judge where in that development process sentience begins and how it develops over time. Then we can do the ethical work of balancing interests and rights on a sound foundation, grounded in reality.

Given the sometimes radical implications for both humans and animals, moving to a concept of sentient rights would present different challenges across cultures, nations, and regions. Many would resist granting rights to women, apostates, LGBTQ+ communities, other ethnic groups or to sentient non-human animals – whether because of supernatural beliefs, deep-rooted traditions or more modern dogmas.  Despite those challenges, proponents of sentient rights should not be afraid of taking a universalist approach, as we have done with human rights. All sentient beings can suffer and flourish. We all share the same physical reality. Hence, we’re justified in suggesting a universal focus on using evidence, applying reason, and extending moral consideration to all sentient beings.

Extending rights to all sentient beings presents other challenges, of course. How can we reconcile conflicts between rights? How should rights differ for beings with different interests and capabilities? Does granting broader rights spread our priorities too thinly? Does granting rights to new groups undermine the rights of those that already have them? Do we need a Universal Declaration of Sentient Rights?

On reflection, all of those challenges also confront the universal granting of human rights, yet we persist, for good reason. As we broaden our moral scope, within and beyond the human species, we all benefit.


Acknowledgments from the author: Thank you to Beornn McCarthy, co-founder of OpenForAnimals and to the members of our Sentientism Community for their input on this article. Thank you also to Alasdair Cochrane for coining the term “sentient rights” and for allowing me to re-use the title of his paper for this article. Any errors remain my own.

Sentientism is a simple, potentially unifying moral philosophy that commits to using evidence, applying reason and granting moral consideration to all sentient beings. People from over 90 countries are working to build a global community around sentientism. You can find our groups on Facebook (public)Facebook (private)TwitterRedditGoodReadsLinkedIn, and Instagram. The term Sentientism was originally developed by philosophers including Richard D. Ryder and Peter Singer.

Versions of this article have been kindly published by OpenGlobalRights, where Arabic and Spanish translations are available, and by SentientMedia.

Latest work

Sentientism Updates: New web site, Peter Singer & other new episodes, Sentientism talks and interviews!

June 2023 Sentientism Updates: New web site, Peter Singer & other Sentientism episodes, talks and interviews about Sentientism.
More

Sentientism Updates: New web site, Peter Singer & other new episodes, Sentientism talks and interviews!

This page will let you know what we’ve been up to but I wanted to share a few highlights:

Criticism, suggestions, offers of help and amplification / sharing are always welcome. Thanks so much for all the help so far and to those who’ve been doing their own things to develop our collective Sentientism project – working to normalise “evidence, reason and compassion for all sentient beings”. A special thanks to Denise and Tarabella who have found our Patreon page and are contributing to our production costs.

The numbers below should give some indication of how many of the remaining ~7.7 billion humans (let alone the powerful AIs) we have yet to persuade 😊. As ever, you and friends are very welcome in any of our online groups. They’re open to anyone interested, not just sentients who have a Sentientist worldview:

Raising Awareness:

  • Sentientism Podcast: 41k downloads, 50 ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 5-star ratings and appearances in the philosophy podcast charts of ~34 countries (often still way behind Russell Brand and Deepak Chopra ☹)
  • Sentientism YouTube:  65k views, 10k hours watch time, 1,584 subscribers
  • Sentientism.info: 13k visitors and 132k page views in last year
  • Twitter: 4,817 followers, well over 1,000 people on our various Twitter Lists; Instagram: 635 followers; TikTok (don’t tell my kids!); experimental Substack

Communities (a big thank you to the volunteers that set up and run each of these):

Walls:

  • Self-declared Sentientists (including many of you!) - 353
  • Suspected Celebrity Sentientists (including many of you!) – added Kate Nash, Max Tegmark, Douglas Hofstadter, Brian Greene, Otep Shamaya, Nicky Campbell, Sara Pascoe, Tania Lombrozo (future guest) – 224.

Please forward this on to others who might find the Sentientism worldview interesting! They can sign up for updates at the bottom of Sentientism.info.

I hope you and yours are well. Here’s to a more compassionate, thoughtful world,

Jamie.

More
Head shot of Peter Singer speaking to a audience using a microphone

"Animal Liberation Now!" - Peter Singer - Sentientism Episode 156

Find our Sentientist conversation here on the Sentientism YouTube and here on the Sentientism Podcast.

Peter is often referred to as the “world’s most influential living philosopher.” He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching the subject from a secular, naturalistic, utilitarian perspective. He wrote the books "Animal Liberation", Why Vegan? and "Animal Liberation Now!" (launched on the same day as our Sentientism episode - join his speaking tour here!), in which he argues against speciesism and for a shift to plant-based food systems and veganism. He also wrote the essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" and the books "The Life You Can Save" & "The Most Good You Can Do" which argue for effective altruism - using evidence & reasoning to do the most good we can for all sentient beings both human and not.

In 2004 Peter was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. In 2005, the Sydney Morning Herald placed him among Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals. Singer is a cofounder of Animals Australia & the founder of The Life You Can Save. In 2021 he received the Berggruen Prize for Philosophy and Culture. Peter donated the $1 million prize money to the most effective organizations working to assist people in extreme poverty and to reduce the suffering of animals in factory farms.

In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the two most important questions: “what’s real?” & “what matters?”

Sentientism is “evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” The audio is on our Podcast here on Apple & here on all the other platforms.

We discuss:
00:00 Welcome

  • Animal Liberation Now! – why now?
  • Sentientism's links to ancient naturalistic and sentiocentric themes of thought & Peter's work
  • Sentientism's 1) naturalism, 2) sentiocentrism & ethical pluralism, 3) implications of not needlessly harming or killing
  • "What needlessly killing amounts to… is a question… that could have a lot of discussion"
  • "In terms of what really matters in itself I agree that Sentientism is the right view"
  • The challenges of the words speciesism & sentientism - too many syllables!
  • Peter's entry on our "I'm a Sentientist" wall

06:12 What's Real?

  • Non-religious Jewish parents "they came to Australia as refugees from the Nazis, leaving Austria"
  • Mother "a fervent agnostic… there isn't reason to believe in a god or a supernatural being or life after death"
  • "In some parts of the United States it's almost necessary to belong to a religion to have a community"
  • Rabbi cousin in Mobile, Alabama "When I say god I mean whatever it is in the universe that is a force for good… (e.g. some human beings)"
  • "I kind of thought of them as fairy stories"
  • Childhood meeting with Catholic kids "don't ask him any more questions - he'll only blacken his soul & go to hell… I wasn't in the least frightened"
  • Good aspects of religions: "they tend to promote charity to the poor" (zakat, tithing)
  • Negative aspects of religions: Religious wars & "very often a conservative force against what I see as progressive reforms"
  • "If there were no religious teachings against #abortion I don't think the US would be divided over the issue"
  • Voluntary assisted dying "fortunately that legislation is spreading"
  • Why religious organisations get social licence to continue #sexism , #homophobia , #transphobia
  • "[Religious] teachings about sex which have been a very negative influence… making people feel guilty"
  • "The highest rate of unwanted teenage pregnancies in the US is precisely in the most religous parts"… rejecting contraception ("that would be sinful" - sex outside of marriage), getting pregnant, then facing abortion prohibitions
  • #Descartes was a sentiocentrist (but thought only "ensouled" humans can suffer). That's why you need naturalism too!
  • "I think consequences matter" #consequentialism & #utilitarianism
  • "Perhaps you want to embrace people who are religious & who are sympathetic towards animals & bring them towards #sentientism ?" The work of Andrew Linzey, Charles Camosy, David Clough
  • Previous guest Lisa Kemmerer
  • #Sentiocentrism vs. #Sentientism as #Anthropocentrism vs. #Humanism
  • "I totally agree with you about the value of evidence & reason"… #effectivealtruism
  • Religious effective altruists use evidence & reasoning but "would leave evidence & reason at the door for some of their specifically religious beliefs"
  • JW: "If we acknowledge the validity of unfounded beliefs in some domains it can make it a little harder to push back on them in domains where we're really worried about the effects"
  • Postmodernism & standpoint epistemology
  • “I was certainly very hard on Christianity… Aquinas said… we do not have any direct duties to them [animals] because they do not have souls and are not made in the image of god” [in the 1975 Animal Liberation]. “I’ve taken a slightly softer line in Animal Liberation Now!”

26:25 What Matters?

  • Working with Peter’s father: honesty & reputation “In the long run it would have good consequences”
  • “Brought up with a sense of not inflicting suffering on sentient beings… although we were big meat eaters”
  • Being invited to go fishing with friends. Father: “Do you really want to catch these fish up and wash them slowly die in the air?”
  • “There was definitely a concern for non-human animals but not to the extend of enquiring too much about how they were reared & killed”
  • The badness of suffering vs. nihilism, relativism
  • Reading Bertrand Russell “Within humans he was clearly… concerned with minimising suffering and maximising happiness”
  • Criticisms of utilitarianism: JW: “A disconnection from the individuals concerned… containers of utility… replacement, aggregation, offsetting”?
  • “We do have to aggregate… but I don’t think that should prevent us from empathy with individuals”
  • “Utilitarianism does accept that sometimes you have to allow or even cause suffering to one person to prevent more suffering to others… but the idea that we don’t then have empathy for the people who suffer”
  • “…Utility is a liquid that we pour into more containers… that seems to me to be wrong… suffering & happiness always are instantiated in one sentient being… no such thing as pleasure & pain floating around the universe unattached to a sentient being.”
  • “Offset“ suffering still exists!
  • Some effective altruists “but why does it follow that I should be vegan… maybe it would be more effective… to give to an effective charity fighting for animals?”… “Well why not do both?”
  • Going vegan “not only reduces demand for meat… but it sets an example & it makes it more likely others will… as in fact I did by having lunch with one.”
  • Testing people’s animal ethics by applying them to human animals

38:58 Who Matters?

  • “Those initial seeds [of compassion for non-human sentients]… failed to germinate for a very long time… I’m not at all proud of that”
  • “I became a vegetarian after accidentally having lunch with a vegetarian… I was 24 at the time… I had never had a serious conversation with a vegetarian about why they were vegetarian”
  • “I don’t know that I’d even met a vegetarian… for young people today that is unthinkable… there are vegetarians everywhere… vegetarian options on the menu…”
  • “I was already studying ethics… I should have questioned the boundaries of moral concern many years earlier”
  • “It was a bit of a shock… I’d never seriously enquired into what animals are going through to be turned into meat.”
  • “I assumed the animals I was eating had generally had a reasonably natural, tranquil, protected life and then had one bad day”
  • “Eating meat every day… & not really enquiring what happens to the animals… looking back on it now it’s shocking but… it was the default”
  • Philosophy, psychology, sociology, politics: “There’s a long history of humans believing what’s convenient for them to believe” e.g. Jefferson and US enslavement
  • “We find it convenient… we don’t want to go against social norms…”
  • The “future generations will condemn us (but I’m still not going to change)”
  • Using reason & evidence to attribute sentience “it’s changing right now” e.g. UK legislation extending sentience attribution to invertebrate cephalopods (e.g. octopuses) & decapods (e.g. lobsters & crabs) based on Jonathan Birch’s LSE ASENT research
  • Bivalves, insects, even plant sentience? “I’ve taken the possibility of plant sentience more seriously in the new edition… I’m still guessing not because there isn’t a brain or a central nervous system… but I’m less certain”
  • Philosophy of mind: illusionism, panpsychism…
  • “I’ve not gone deeply into panpsychism… I see no reason for believing that electrons or quarks could be sentient”
  • “A reasonably complex organism… some kind of brain & nerve centres… the more complex it is the more likely it is that there’s sentience… correlates with more complex behaviours”
  • Insects: “Such a huge variety… it seems very unlikely the answer is yes or no” e.g. bees vs. mealworms
  • Previous guest Luke Roelofs - Could “micro-conscious” entities be insentient (no perceptions, sensations, thoughts…) – only “macro-conscious” entities are
  • The first uses of the word “Sentientism” by Rodman & Lewis to criticise sentiocentrism as another form of human discrimination
  • Biocentrism & ecocentrism. Arne Naess. “There are a lot of people who want to find intrinsic value in nature… I am somewhat uncomfortable… I really enjoy being in nature…”
  • The ethereal experience of walking in an ancient forest with family “It somehow strikes me that it would be a kind of vandalism to chop it down”
  • Wouldn’t a consistent ecocentrist care about a lifeless/sentientless planet as much as ours?
  • When environmentalism’s disregard for non-human sentients exposes underlying anthropocentrism
  • The environmental impact (emissions, pollution, energy, land use) of animal agriculture “environmental groups are now serving more vegan food when you go to their events”
  • “It’s a wasteful system because we have to grow so many crops to feed to these animals… and we get back… maybe 10%”
  • Considering agency, dignity as other characteristics beyond sentience?
  • “This idea that there’s some special dignity about human beings… that does not apply to any non-human animals - is really groundless”
  • “Some animals have agency in ways that some humans don’t”
  • Agency as a basis for blame, punishment, praise, encouragement “that works with those who are agents and especially with agents with whom we can communicate”
  • Agency “is relevant in that sense… but it’s a different question… from does this being have intrinsic value… and I don’t think you need agency for that… our own infants… it’s clear they don’t have agency – but does that mean that their suffering doesn’t matter?”
  • Future guest Nicolas Delon re: agency as a way of extending moral consideration beyond sentience

01:10:05 How Can We Make A Better Future?

  • The “Animal Liberation Now!” clarion call re: rejecting speciesism, recognising equal consideration of like interests, for “liberation” vs. ideas of “humane killing”, “conscientious omnivorism”, focusing on factory farming & suffering reduction
  • JW: The risk of an end state “where we’ve actually got a larger animal agriculture system… where more animals are being killed & exploited & imprisoned… but we’ve found some way to re-brand these exercises as humane, high-welfare, sustainable… and on we go!”
  • “My clarion call is really clear against suffering & exploitation – it’s not so clear… about death”
  • “Sometimes it’s good for someone to die… when for example they’re suffering & their suffering can’t be alleviated… With humans… we would generally ask for their consent… but parents should sometimes be able to make that choice on behalf of their child (euthanasia for profoundly disabled infants)”
  • Compassionate euthanasia without consent for non-humans (e.g. companion animals)
  • Free-ranging hens living happy lives: “Is it a bad thing to have hens who live for a certain number of years and are then killed? – I find that a difficult philosophical question…”
  • A positive life on condition you are killed vs. not existing at all?
  • Derek Parfit’s “Reasons and Persons” & population ethics
  • “I’m genuinely uncertain about those arguments in respect of issues about humans and I’m therefore equally uncertain about them in respect to non-human animals”
  • Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel “Never Let Me Go”
  • JW: “As soon as we have created it (them), I think we then have a moral obligation to that being as a moral patient which means that to kill them against their interests… their interests in continuing to live… is just a wrong thing… regardless of whatever deal we’ve done with ourselves in advance”
  • “But then of course we won’t have any more chickens” JW: “I’m totally comfortable with that… The chicken that doesn’t exist isn’t a sentient being so isn’t a moral patient so cannot be harmed.”
  • “We do have a genuine disagreement… I’m much more ambivalent on that question than you are”
  • Peter’s “One World” book re: global governance
  • “We have to try everything… using evidence & reason”
  • Peter’s study with Eric Schwitzgebel – student meal choices were affected by exposure to animal ethics
  • Alternative proteins at scale; plant-based or cellular
  • Campaigning for improved farmed animal conditions: “the evidence suggests that those countries that have the best animal welfare standards… also have the highest rates of vegan & vegetarian living… it will increase the price of meat… that will make it easier for these alternatives to compete with meat.”
  • Re-writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the SDGs from a Sentientist perspective: A Universal Declaration of Sentient Rights?
  • “We do need stronger global institutions… we seem to have moved away from stronger global institutions”
  • Effective Altruism: doing the most good possible using evidence & reason
  • Challenges to effective altruism (beyond do-gooder derogation): disconnection from the individual, demandingness & maximisation risks, ends/means, unintended consequences, neo-liberal / tech solution / NGO bias vs. state / democratic, corporatisation of philanthropy, eurocentrism, welfarism, the book “The Good It Promises, The Harm It Does”…?
  • “A lot of those challenges are based on misunderstandings of the movement… I think it’s very open to what is the best thing to do”
  • “They’re very open people – and if somebody comes out with a hypothesis… they will certainly look at that”
  • Poverty: “Just to say it’s global capitalism seems to me very simplistic – there’s been poverty long before there was global capitalism and there’s poverty in places where they’re not very much affected by global capitalism… and I haven’t seen anybody give any good accounts for how they’re going to get rid of global capitalism… but if somebody does come up with a plan… effective altruists will be very open to that.”
  • Europe/US/Global North/West: “That’s where a lot of the resources are… a lot of people that can help others in need. The largest numbers of people in extreme poverty are in the ‘south’”
  • “The groups that are supported by effective altruism don’t just march in to communities and say ‘this is what you need’… some of them, for example GiveDirectly, don’t even want to tell them how to spend them money… they want to increase their money” JW: “Trusting the people you’re trying to help”
  • “I reject the idea that this is… ‘a white saviour complex’… you ask the people in these impoverished villages whether they would like to have assistance and they say ‘yes’. If they didn’t say ‘yes’ then you wouldn’t do it.”
  • “I’ve met some truly wonderful people through effective altruism… they are both altruistic and often very thoughtful… it’s inspiring… donating money or time… donating a kidney to complete strangers!”
  • “During COVID it was effective altruists (One Day Sooner) who organised the volunteers for human challenge trials… if we get a vaccine one day sooner it will save lives… they were prepared to be infected with COVID… then they would get a candidate vaccine… in order to speed up vaccine development… There was a surprising amount of reluctance to… accept what they were asking to do for the world”
  • “It’s clear that philosophy can change the world”
  • People making positive changes after reading Animal Liberation & The Life You Can Save

Following Peter:

Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at Sentientism.info.

Join our “I’m a Sentientist” wall using this simple form.

Everyone, Sentientist or not, is welcome in our groups. The biggest so far is here on Facebook.

Thanks to Graham for the post-production and to Tarabella and Denise for helping to fund this episode via our Sentientism Patreon.

More
Headshot of MIchael Hauskeller

Dogs and pigs have meaningful lives! - Philosopher Michael Hauskeller - Sentientism Episode 155

Find our Sentientist Conversation here on the Sentientism podcast and here on the Sentientism YouTube.

Michael is head of philosophy at the University of Liverpool. His current work spans transhumanism, death and meaning. He has written on whether non-human animals can have meaningful lives and What It Is Like to Be a Bot. He says of his work: “As a philosopher, I am a generalist, which is a nice way of saying that I have done many different things and I am not really an expert on anything in particular. Most people would probably tag me as an ethicist, but this is only true in a very broad sense. Figuring out what is right and what is wrong, permissible or impermissible, does not hold much interest for me. It seems to me that when people are debating these questions they are actually arguing about something else, namely who we want to be and in what kind of world we want to live. For me, doing philosophy is ultimately a sustained attempt to get to grips with this “deeply puzzling world” (to borrow an expression of Mary Midgley’s), to understand it and to understand our place in it. Philosophy is not business; it’s personal, more akin to therapy than to science. It’s about finding out what is actually going on and what we are doing here. Can philosophy provide an answer to these questions? I don’t know. All we can do is keep on trying. Perhaps what matters is not that we find an answer, but that we keep the question alive.”

In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the two most important questions: “what’s real?” & “what matters?”

Sentientism is “evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” The audio is on our Podcast here on Apple & here on all the other platforms.

We discuss:

00:00 Welcome
01:42 Michael's Intro

  • What it means to be human, to live a good life, a meaningful life
  • Transhumanism & human enhancement
  • Meaning & life & death
  • When dealing with foundational, broad questions: "It is very difficult to be precise… I hardly ever feel that 'now I've got it'"

06:06 What's Real?

  • "It's much easier to point at something & disuss whether that is real"
  • "If you can name something then in some sense it must be real"
  • Raised #Christian & sent to Sunday school & Bible classes & regular confessions to the village priest
  • "I sort of believed there was a god when I was little"
  • A god watching me "a means of controlling me… Big Brother in heaven… it was just oppressive… a punishing god, a critical god"
  • "I didn't feel the presence… I just believed that there was something because I was told there was something"
  • "Very quickly I dropped my religious beliefs… as soon as I started to think for myself I became an #atheist"
  • "It just faded away… it was always superficial"
  • "Some people take me for a Christian because I share some of the intuitions religious believers have"
  • "I'm not entirely comfortable with calling myself a naturalist although I don't believe in anything supernatural"
  • "Naturalism is also very programmatic & ideological"
  • "There are a lot of things in this world that we cannot understand…& some naturalists are very confident that we can understand everything & that's there's no mystery… there is a lot of mystery."
  • Max More's #transhumanism … pits science vs. religion
  • Origins of the universe & life & consciousness "we don't know!" Science might figure it out - it might not
  • "… whatever there is is part of nature"
  • Over-confidence vs. humility
  • The subjective & the objective
  • Plato & Parmenides: "being is more real than becoming"… "but we live in a world of becoming… how can that be less real?"
  • The "normative use of reality"… to "declare something else as not real… a term to deny something else its reality"
  • The denial of animal suffering "not so common any more" & the #cartesian model
  • "If you see an animal in pain you know it is in pain… it takes a lot of willful blindness not to acknowledge…"
  • "One of the reasons… why animals could not possibly feel any pain… because it would then be far too horrible how we treat animals… god wouldn't allow it!"
  • "If we assume the world is good & we see all the apparent suffering… then it cannot be… A moral reason behind denying the suffering of animals"
  • JW "An echo of a religious mode of thought that's then re-built in a humanist mode of thought"
  • "If we have evolved naturally… there's no reason to assume our brains are capable of understanding the universe… what possible use can it have?"
  • "A naturalistic perspective should actually teach us humility"

29:03 What Matters?

  • "I don't think that my early Christian upbringing has shaped my morals ideas & values"
  • "Morally I've been shaped… mostly by watching certain TV shows like Lassie & The Waltons & Little House on The Prairie… taught me what it means to do something right & something wrong… People & animals being in certain relations with each other"
  • "Being nice to each other… being decent… qualities that do not play a major role in ethical discussions but I think they are foundational"
  • Vs. #nihilism, #divinecommandtheory, #relativism, #egoism, transactional…
  • "I find it very difficult to align myself with a particular ethical system… #utilitarian … #Kantian … whatever… those systems highlight different aspects… that are all important"
  • "It's a wrong approach to say 'if we have conflicting moral intuitions one of them must be false'"
  • "When philosophers try to tell you that there's one right answer… I'm always suspicious."
  • “To think that there must be a right answer somehow assumes that we can live a perfectly good life”
  • Writing “Biotechnology and the integrity of life” & dignity
  • Bernard Rollin and the challenges to utilitarianism: When suffering reduction seems wrong (e.g. genetically engineering chickens to suffer less in factory farms)
  • “There seems to be something wrong in creating a living being that isn’t able to feel anything” Would enslavement be OK if we created humans that couldn’t suffer – or enjoyed being enslaved?
  • “Integrity… a word you use in order to capture a certain intuition… perhaps in the hope that by giving an intuition a name it becomes more real”
  • Luna intervenes

45:35 Who Matters?

  • Reading Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” & going vegetarian “I didn’t want to participate in practices that caused so much animal suffering”
  • Later “I stopped being a vegetarian so I reverted to a morality, at least in practice, that was smaller, narrower in scope than what it used to be”
  • “I’m a bit reluctant to reconsider the theory just to match my behaviour… people’s theories are very much influenced by what they want to be true”
  • The hypocrisy of adapting theory to match behaviour vs. the hypocrisy of behaviour not matching theory
  • “Why did I stop? The cynical answer would be that I got tired of being good… it takes so much effort… socially… it became probably too inconvenient.”
  • “I still believe that, obviously, animals have moral status and that animal lives matters and that animal suffering matters”
  • “We cannot live without killing” (e.g. crop deaths)
  • “It is utopian to think we could all live peacefully together without hurting each other… that does not mean you cannot reduce the suffering that you cause… I don’t really have a justification for why I’m not doing that more than I’m currently doing”
  • Ivory tower vs. activist vs. ordinary people philosophers
  • Why moral philosophers don’t seem to behave better than other humans
  • Ethics, morality and meaning “Defending a subjectivist conception of meaning in life”
  • “I don’t think meaning is an objective quality of life… but rather it is an aspect of the experience”
  • Meaning doesn’t have to “serve a higher purpose… or connect to some objective values”
  • The problems of paradigmatic cases of meaningful lives… famous people like Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Picasso, Einstein… people who did important things
  • “If that is the paradigm that you use in order to understand what a meaningful life looks like – the result is that most lives look meaningless… it seems to me this is wrong.”
  • “Even thought it might not be important from the perspective of the world or of society… they might just live their lives… no one takes any notice of it… they will be completely forgotten… but that doesn’t mean they don’t live meaningful lives”
  • You don’t have to do “important things” to have a meaningful life
  • “Many people just live ordinary lives… that does not mean their lives are not meaningful… there are things in those lives that they follow with interest… that are important to them”
  • “Meaning being subjective… a quality of our experience”
  • “I just don’t get the notion of objective value”… things mattering to us is enough
  • “The very notion of objective value appears obscure to me… I don’t understand what it means to say that something is valuable if nobody values it!”
  • “Value that isn’t realised by anyone”?
  • “Things matter if they matter to someone”
  • Michael’s “Living Like A Dog” paper
  • William James’ “On a certain blindness in human beings” “We have to assume that there’s always more to the experience of someone that is different from ourselves than we can possibly understand… because the other is the other”
  • “It seems to me the same is the case with animals… it’s not even that difficult”
  • “Many philosophers… their theories clearly exclude animals from having meaningful lives… very anthropocentric… you have to do things like art or philosophy in order to have a meaningful life… not just eat and drink and sleep… what we share with other animals is not what makes our life meaningful… what goes beyond the animal… what surpasses the animal in us”
  • “To say that non-human animals do not have meaningful lives… we judge their lives as not worth living”
  • “In reality we very much associate a meaningless life with a life not worth living… or that has a very reduced value”
  • “A live that is meaningless… is not worth protecting… is not worth any moral consideration”
  • Michael’s dog companion “Whatever she does there is interest there… you can see that clearly her life… is meaningful for her in the sense of being significant”
  • “We have this idea that only human lives are truly worth living”
  • A transhumanist take on animal rights
  • Previous guest and co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association David Pearce
  • Human enhancement would “leave behind” non-human animals so “we also have an obligation to uplift animals to a human status and beyond… because the life of a non-human animal is ‘bad’ because it is the life of an animal… even the best animal life… is a bad life… they cannot do art, philosophy, politics…”
  • “For me that is so weird because it assumes that our lives are the best lives”
  • John Stuart Mill’s “Better to be an unhappy Socrates than an happy pig”… “what’s wrong with happy pigs?… for a pig to be a happy pig is the best you can ever be… It’s not the case that the pig would be better off if they were a human.”
  • The risks of transhumanist elitism even within the human species
  • Would re-engineering animals (human or not) so we cannot suffer be a good thing?
  • Eradicating or herbivorising predators?
  • “Again there is this unease about it… does the suffering also have a value?… what gets lost if we cannot suffer any more?”
  • “What happens to love?… If I cannot suffer when something bad happens to the one I love… I cannot suffer from the loss of the one I love… If I am indifferent… How can I say I love them?”
  • “If you remove suffering a lot of other things will also change… you cannot just isolate one thing and take it out… it will all be affected.”
  • “Even the word wrong seems wrong to me”… “Just because we cannot articulate it [what might be lost] with sufficient clarity doesn’t mean it isn’t there…”
  • The naturalistic fallacy: “I wouldn’t want to say that just because it’s natural it’s good but in natural things… there is horror… but there is also a lot of beauty… predators are beautiful too and that beauty should count for something”
  • Plotinus “beauty is the shine of the good”
  • “The beauty of the world is important… an indication of what is worth protecting”
  • Humility vs. “to think you can redesign the world… to create a world in which no one suffers… there’s no humility in there”
  • “Some who pursue those goals would deny precisely that [humility]”
  • John Harris: “Humility is not a virtue… you should be proud and ambitious”
  • “I don’t think there is an overall referee that could actually make the ultimate decision about who is right and who is wrong… it’s about us making certain decisions… creating the kind of world and also preserving the kind of world that we want to have”

01:26:44 How Can We Make a Better Future?

  • “My hope is somehow that we become more caring & less ideological & less self-destructive”
  • Politics: Brexit “and the willingness to commit economic suicide… the anti-immigration impulse”
  • “After 4 years of Trump being president more than 70 million Americans still want to have him again… should govern… one should emulate… the lack of decency”
  • “He’s the opposite of decency – he’s pure nastiness… that nastiness is not only being tolerated but admired and approved of… and he is just the tip of the iceberg”
  • Putin’s attack on Ukraine “It defies any reason”
  • “It’s not only that people are irrational… they seem to positively delight in destruction and chaos…"
  • “I’m a bit disillusioned… I assumed somehow that people are reasonable… to find a compromise… to get along with each other.”
  • “But the fact is we are a horrible species… we do things just for the sake of destruction and chaos”
  • “I only see it getting worse and worse – I’m quite pessimistic at the moment.”
  • JW “Philosophy can play an important role… but it can’t be disconnected… it has to be plugged into a realistic understanding of human psychology and social norms and political will”

Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at Sentientism.info.

Join our “I’m a Sentientist” wall using this simple form.

Everyone, Sentientist or not, is welcome in our groups. The biggest so far is here on Facebook.

Thanks to Graham for the post-production and to Tarabella and Denise for helping to fund this episode via our Sentientism Patreon.

More

Join our mailing list and stay up to date

Sentientism