Two names, one idea
Sentientism holds that what matters morally is the capacity to be harmed or benefited, present in any sentient being, human or not. Antispeciesism is the consequence: giving similar weight to similar harms, whatever the species.
That is why the discussion does not end at the plate. If we accept the criterion, it also applies to what we do by omission, to animals no one exploits and to beings that may come to exist.
Four competing criteria
| Criterion | What it puts at the center | The problem |
|---|---|---|
| Anthropocentrism | Human interests, above all | Narrows the circle with no justification for stopping at the species |
| Environmentalism, as a moral view | Ecosystems, biodiversity and species, valuable in themselves | Treats individuals capable of suffering as means to an end |
| Biocentrism | Every living being, sentient or not | Confuses biological function with interest: without subjective experience there is no possible victim, only a process |
| Sentientism | Whoever can have good or bad experiences | The criterion this guide adopts |
What is not speciesism
Recognizing real differences is not discrimination. Saying an animal does not need to vote is an observation. Saying it can suffer without that mattering, because it is not very intelligent, is speciesism. The line between recognizing a difference and using it to discard interests is where the debate should happen.
Hierarchies that survive among vegans
People who have already rejected exploitation for food can keep speciesism in other forms:
- Humans above animals in any conflict of interests, accepting experimentation or ritual sacrifice.
- Pets above farmed animals.
- Mammals and birds above fish, who are numerically the largest victims of exploitation.
- Vertebrates above invertebrates, dismissing insects and decapods without examination.
- Exploited animals above wild ones, which reveals an omission bias: who caused the harm matters more than who suffers it.
- Abstract concepts above individuals, such as biodiversity or ecosystem balance.
- Those who exist now above those yet to come, a time discount that disregards future suffering.
The test is the veil of ignorance: would you accept the hierarchy without knowing in which position you would be born? There are billions of humans and quintillions of animals, counting invertebrates. No one who took that ratio seriously would bet on a hierarchy with humans systematically on top.
Humanism taken all the way
This is not anti-humanism. Humanism brought universality and impartiality, which helped overcome hierarchies between human groups, but those principles stopped at the species line without justification. Posthumanism keeps the commitment to evidence, equality and individual freedom, and corrects that failure.
Sources and further reading
- Veganismo Baseado em EvidĂȘncias (Evidence-Based Veganism, in Portuguese), chapters 7, 9 and 11
- The argument from relevance
- Animal Rights: A Philosophical Defence