I don’t believe that there is something intrinsically valuable based upon a being qualifying as a certain species. For example, I don’t think humans have intrinsic value based upon their being human. That’s circular and like if I said, “A dog is inherently valuable because they’re a dog.” What exactly does that mean? Don’t you think that we respect others on a far deeper level than speciesism?  Personal connection to others is not the same as moral worth. As a society, we shouldn’t have a hierarchy of sentient beings, period, and definitely not because of personal connection. Are we as a society measuring the values of others via quid pro quo’s?

I also believe that ultimately, sentient beings matter most, but so do the environments they live in. This is an effective way to hold a consistent worldview while still wanting to protect the Earth. If you think about it, we can claim that we care about nonhuman sentient animals only so much if we don’t actually strive to protect the habitats that they live in. Everyone deserves to live in a safe and clean environment. That’s why we should discourage deforestation, cut back on greenhouse gas emissions that poison the animals and the things they rely upon in the sea, and scale back on the plastic that is harming the animals.

Is the worldview shaped by sentientism inspiring others to feel insulted? Or is such a feeling the fault of an anthropocentric society making people believe that nonhuman animals are somehow inferior? A sentientistic society would never take harmonious moral consideration between humans and sentient nonhumans as insulting. The implications of sentientism being perceived as degrading is only a result of a human-centered philosophy.

As a community, we have to emphasize why sentientism is better, more beneficial, more just, less arbitrary, less exclusive, more inclusive, more universal, more caring. We have to gain the trust of others, to say that they can dip their toe in the water and we won’t bite. We can do this.