Product Code Database
Sentientism (or sentiocentrism) is an ethical view that places sentience individuals at the center of moral concern. It holds that both humans and other sentient individuals have interests that must be considered. Gradualist sentientism attributes moral consideration relatively to the degree of sentience.
Sentientists consider that arbitrarily giving different moral weight to sentient beings based solely on their species membership is a form of unjustified discrimination known as speciesism. Many self-described humanism see themselves as "sentientists" where the term humanism contrasts with theism and does not describe the sole focus of humanist concerns. Sentientism stands in opposition to the philosophy of anthropocentrism. (2025). 9780262527224, MIT Press. ISBN 9780262527224
The late 19th- and early 20th-century American philosopher J. Howard Moore, in Better-World Philosophy (1899), described every sentient being as existing in a constant state of struggle. He argued that what aids them in their struggle can be called good and what opposes them can be called bad. Moore believed that only sentient beings can make such moral judgements because they are the only parts of the universe which can experience pleasure and suffering. As a result, he argued that sentience and ethics are inseparable and therefore every sentient piece of the universe has an intrinsic ethical relationship to every other sentient part, but not the insentient parts. Moore used the term "zoocentricism" to describe the belief that universal consideration and care should be given to all sentient beings; he believed that this was too difficult for humans to comprehend in their current stage of development.
Other prominent philosophers discussing or defending sentientism include Joel Feinberg, Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and Mary Anne Warren.
There are sources that consider sentientism as a modification of traditional ethic, which holds that moral concern must be extended to sentient animals. (1998). 9781135930028, Routledge. ISBN 9781135930028
Peter Singer provides the following justification of sentientism: Utilitarian philosophers such as Singer care about the well-being of sentient non-human animals as well as humans. They reject speciesism, defined by Singer as a "prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species". Singer considers speciesism to be a form of arbitrary discrimination similar to racism or sexism.
Gradualist sentientism proposes that the value of sentient beings is relative to their degree of sentience, which is assumed to increase with the cognitive, emotional and social complexity.
Some philosophers argue that sentientism's rejection of speciesism is not merely about equal consideration, but about radically expanding the moral circle to all sentient life, potentially using biotechnology to eliminate suffering altogether. This perspective is articulated by thinkers like David Pearce, who contends that species-based boundaries of moral concern reflect a narrow self-interest that must be overcome. He argues that just as past moral revolutions challenged discrimination based on race or sex, future ethical progress will involve transcending speciesism by recognizing the moral urgency of alleviating suffering in all beings capable of experience, including non-human animals. Pearce envisions a future where advances in biotechnology make the abolition of suffering technically feasible, reinforcing the ethical imperative to include all sentient beings in the moral community.
The sentientism of Peter Singer and others has been criticized for holding the view that only sentient creatures have moral standing because they have interests. A human corpse for example may deserve respect and proper treatment even though it lacks sentience and can no longer be harmed. The claim that only sentient beings have interests has also been questioned as a person in a coma is not sentient but is still being cared for. Philosopher Gregory Bassham has written that "many environmentalists today reject sentientism and claim instead that all living things, both plants and animals, have moral standing".
A biocentrist may argue that valuing lifeforms that have sentience more than other lifeforms is just as arbitrary as doing the same with any other trait.
|
|
