Thanks for describing your reasons. My criterion for moral patienthood is described by this Brian Tomasik quote:
When I realize that an organism feels happiness and suffering, at that point I realize that the organism matters and deserves care and kindness. In this sense, you could say the only âconditionâ of my love is sentience.
Many other criteria for moral patienthood which exclude animals have been proposed. These criteria always suffer from some combination of the following:
Arbitrariness. For example, âhuman DNA is the criterion for moral patienthoodâ is just as arbitrary as âEuropean DNA is the criterion for moral patienthoodâ.
Exclusion of some humans. For example, âhigh intelligence is the criterion for moral patienthoodâ excludes people who have severe mental disabilities.
Exclusion of hypothetical beings. For example, âhuman DNA is the criterion for moral patienthoodâ would exclude superintelligent aliens and intelligent conscious AI. Also, if some people you know were unknowingly members of a species which looked/âacted much like humans but had very different DNA, they would suddenly become morally valueless.
Collapsing to sociopathy or nihilism. For example, âanimals donât have moral patienthood because we have power over themâ is just nihilism, and if a person used that justification to act the way we do towards farmed animals towards other humans, theyâd be locked up.
The most parsimonious definition of moral patient Iâve seen proposed is just âa sentient beingâ. I donât see any reason why I should add complexity to that definition in order to exclude nonhuman animals. The only motivation I can think of for doing this would be to compromise on my moral principles for the sake of the pleasure associated with eating meat, which is untenable to a mind wired the way mine is.
Thanks for describing your reasons. My criterion for moral patienthood is described by this Brian Tomasik quote:
Many other criteria for moral patienthood which exclude animals have been proposed. These criteria always suffer from some combination of the following:
Arbitrariness. For example, âhuman DNA is the criterion for moral patienthoodâ is just as arbitrary as âEuropean DNA is the criterion for moral patienthoodâ.
Exclusion of some humans. For example, âhigh intelligence is the criterion for moral patienthoodâ excludes people who have severe mental disabilities.
Exclusion of hypothetical beings. For example, âhuman DNA is the criterion for moral patienthoodâ would exclude superintelligent aliens and intelligent conscious AI. Also, if some people you know were unknowingly members of a species which looked/âacted much like humans but had very different DNA, they would suddenly become morally valueless.
Collapsing to sociopathy or nihilism. For example, âanimals donât have moral patienthood because we have power over themâ is just nihilism, and if a person used that justification to act the way we do towards farmed animals towards other humans, theyâd be locked up.
The most parsimonious definition of moral patient Iâve seen proposed is just âa sentient beingâ. I donât see any reason why I should add complexity to that definition in order to exclude nonhuman animals. The only motivation I can think of for doing this would be to compromise on my moral principles for the sake of the pleasure associated with eating meat, which is untenable to a mind wired the way mine is.