In the second half, which is paywalled if you don't request a free subscription, Sam takes issue with Nussbaum's assertion that there can be no hierarchy between living creatures, and that one should care as much about the killing of a mouse as the killing of a human. When pressed, she admitted that she wouldn't feel the same in both scenarios, but only because she is imperfect.
This may have been the most important question raised in the discussion: is it only "speciesism" that leads us to value complex life more than "less complex" life, or is there actually a rational basis from which to ask the question of which animals' lives are more important? To what degree are all creatures conscious, and what level of consciousness is deemed "conscious enough" for us to feel empathy? What kind of world would we be living in if we actually cared less about four homeless people than about five squirrels?
This touched on some of the same ideas that Sam has discussed with Peter Singer, Uma Valeti (Memphis Meats), and others, as well as one of his hobby horses, consciousness.
>This may have been the most important question raised in the discussion: is it only "speciesism" that leads us to value complex life more than "less complex" life, or is there actually a rational basis from which to ask the question of which animals' lives are more important?
I mean, "important" is a value judgement, and so the question becomes "important to whom and for what". Animals are super important to me, for instance, because they provide me with a lot of different food products. I suppose the term "specieism" is an attempt to try to draw parallels with the notion of "racism", and to transfer the current moral outrage over the latter to the former, but if you ignore the emotional elements, the parallel isn't particularly helpful.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments