While many humanists do extend their circles of concern more widely, the term humanism implies and encourages an anthropocentric focus on one species and gives us all excuses for cognitive dissonance and akrasia (not that we need any).
I’ve had some great conversations since my
first article on
Sentientism was published in Areo. As a reminder, Sentientism is an
ethical philosophy or worldview that applies evidence and reason and
extends moral consideration to all sentient beings. Sentient beings
have the ability to experience things – suffering or flourishing.
They include humans, non-human animals and potentially even
artificial or alien intelligences.
One recurring theme of those conversations, often with fellow
humanists, runs as follows…
“Humanism already does a good enough job. Most humanists do care
about non-human animals (anecdotally ~40% seem to be vegan or
vegetarian in some countries) and we can stretch the humanist
concept easily to sentient AIs. Humanists UK and the IHEU already
reference sentient non-human animals in their definitions.
The term humanism only applies to moral objects or agents – we can
and do extend our concern to non-human subjects. Humanism is already
a reasonably well organised movement via the IHEU and national
organisations. Humanism is a simpler term and is already widely
understood. It has a rich intellectual and cultural heritage.
Sentientism is a clunky term that might just confuse people and may
fragment an important progressive movement.”
I have some sympathy with these lines of argument. I see humanism as
a force for good that I don’t want to distract from or fragment.
That gave me pause for thought when deciding whether to put effort
into my rather amateur project to develop and popularise
Sentientism.
....
Read the ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE.
And more: