Arguments Against Sentientism

1147 Words3 Pages

Do all beings who can feel or suffer have moral value? Should the ecosystem be at the center of every decision and life today? These are the brief questions that characterize sentientism from eco-centrism.
Sentientism can be described as all individual beings who can feel or suffer have a moral value. Tom Regan’s argument that being a “subject of a life” is really the key factor in determining moral rights, as opposed to being a person with a level of intelligence above non-human animals. Eco-centrism can be described as the ecosystem is at the center of all decisions and life. Eco-centrism is a refusal to use human beings as the measure by which to value others. An individual human has no more individual value than any other animal or that of nature.
Sentientism incorporates strengths into its argument. Immanuel Kant states, “Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties toward humanity. Animal nature has analogies to human nature, and by doing our duties to animals in respect of manifestations of human nature, we indirectly do our duty toward humanity.” Another famous argument for sentientism is Peter Singer. Singer illustrates his argument by depicting the history of the women’s rights movement demonstrated, stating at one point …show more content…

Eco-centrism is viewed by many as radical, sentientism is viewed as the “middle ground” between anthropocentrism and eco-centrism. Anthropocentrism views humans as the center of all decisions. Weak anthropocentrism views human preferences as important, but considered preferences. Strong anthropocentrism views any preferences of humans’ trump animal preferences. Many individuals perform sentientism through vegetarianism or veganism. Ecocentrism has a mistaken pre-supposition, about the ego centered society of western culture. This is why I find sentientism to be more adequate, it is easier for society to conduct these

Open Document