PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Moral Status [HD]

Summary

In this lecture, Jeff Sebo from New York University explores the concept of moral status, questioning why humans are traditionally considered to have it while non-human entities are not. He challenges the historical belief that only humans possess moral status by highlighting cognitive capacities shared by some animals and questioning the validity of speciesism. Sebo discusses alternative views, such as attributing moral status to sentience or life itself, and the implications these theories have for our treatment of animals, plants, and the environment. He encourages viewers to consider which theory of moral status they find most plausible and how it might affect their daily behavior.

Takeaways

• 🧸 The concept of moral status is about who we have moral obligations to and why.
• 🤔 The difference in moral status between humans and inanimate objects like a teddy bear is explored through the example of damaging a teddy bear and the moral implications.
• 🧐 Historically, philosophers have considered humans as the only beings with moral status, often attributed to human-specific cognitive capacities.
• 🕵️‍♂️ Rene Descartes and others believed that rationality, language, or self-awareness are what make humans special and confer moral status.
• 🤨 Peter Singer challenges the idea that only humans possess advanced cognitive capacities, pointing out that some nonhuman animals may possess these more than some humans.
• 🌟 The notion that all and only humans have moral status due to species membership is likened to racism or sexism, suggesting speciesism is a form of prejudice.
• 🌱 Philosophers like Richard Ryder, Peter Singer, and Tom Regan argue against speciesism, advocating for a broader moral circle.
• 🐭 Sentience, or the capacity for conscious experiences, is proposed as a more inclusive criterion for moral status, extending it to many humans and nonhuman animals.
• 🌿 Some philosophers suggest that life itself, rather than just sentience, should be the basis for moral status, which would include plants and possibly ecosystems.
• 🔍 The implications of different theories of moral status are profound, affecting how we interact with the environment and other living beings.
• 🛑 Acceptance of a theory of moral status should be based on its plausibility rather than convenience, implying that morality may demand more from us than we initially expect.

Q & A

What is moral status according to Jeff Sebo?

Moral status refers to who we have moral obligations to and why. It is the concept that distinguishes between entities that deserve moral consideration and those that do not.

Why did Jeff Sebo use the example of a teddy bear to illustrate moral status?

The teddy bear example was used to demonstrate that moral wrongs are not committed against inanimate objects but against individuals who have a connection or care for those objects, thus highlighting the concept of moral obligations.

What is the historical view on what grants moral status?

Historically, most philosophers believed that being a human being is what grants moral status, suggesting that all and only human beings possess this status.

What qualities have been traditionally associated with human beings to justify their moral status?

Qualities such as rationality, language, self-awareness, and other sophisticated cognitive capacities have been traditionally associated with human beings to justify their moral status.

Who is Peter Singer, and what argument does he make regarding moral status?

Peter Singer is a philosopher who argues that the capacities traditionally attributed to human beings to justify their moral status can also be found in some nonhuman animals, challenging the idea that only human beings possess these capacities.

What is speciesism, and why do philosophers like Richard Ryder and Peter Singer argue against it?

Speciesism is the discrimination in favor of one's own species (humans) over others based solely on membership in a particular biological category. Philosophers like Richard Ryder and Peter Singer argue against it because it is a form of prejudice similar to racism and sexism.

What is the alternate history scenario Dale Jamieson presents to argue against speciesism?

Dale Jamieson presents a scenario where Neanderthals survived as a distinct species, living alongside humans. The argument is that if one discovers a close friend is a Neanderthal, it should not negate the moral obligations towards them, suggesting that species membership alone should not determine moral status.

What alternative criteria for moral status are proposed in the script?

The script proposes sentience (the capacity for conscious experiences like pleasure and pain) and life itself as alternative criteria for moral status, which would include a broader range of beings, including nonhuman animals and possibly plants or ecosystems.

Why does Kenneth Goodpaster argue that sentience should not be the sole criterion for moral status?

Kenneth Goodpaster argues that sentience is just one tool evolution gave us for survival and reproduction, and morality should not privilege those who experience pleasure and pain over other living organisms that survive and reproduce in different ways.

What are the implications of accepting different theories of moral status on everyday life?

Accepting different theories of moral status can have profound implications on everyday life, such as reconsidering the morality of actions like consuming animals for food, using animals for research, or treating plants and ecosystems with more respect.

How does Jeff Sebo encourage the audience to reflect on their own beliefs about moral status?

Jeff Sebo encourages the audience to reflect on their beliefs by asking them to consider which theory of moral status seems most plausible to them and how they would need to change their everyday behavior based on their accepted theory.

Outlines

00:00

🧐 The Question of Moral Status

In the first paragraph, Jeff Sebo introduces the concept of moral status, which is about who we have moral obligations to and why. He uses the example of a teddy bear to illustrate that moral obligations are not owed to the bear itself, but to the person who cares for it. The historical view is that only humans possess moral status, often attributed to cognitive capacities like rationality or self-awareness. However, philosophers like Peter Singer challenge this view by pointing out that nonhuman animals can possess these capacities to a greater extent than some humans, such as infants or severely disabled individuals. Sebo raises the question of what truly grants moral status, questioning the basis of speciesism and comparing it to racism and sexism, which are forms of prejudice based on biological categories.

05:00

🌱 Expanding Moral Consideration Beyond Sentience

The second paragraph delves into the implications of different theories of moral status on our daily lives. Sebo discusses the possibility that sentience, the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, is what grants moral status, which would include both humans and many nonhuman animals. He contrasts this with the idea that life itself, not just sentience, could be the basis for moral status, which would extend moral consideration to all living organisms, including plants and possibly even ecosystems. The paragraph highlights the ethical challenges posed by our current practices, such as the mass killing of animals for food, and the need to reassess these actions based on our understanding of moral status. Sebo encourages the audience to consider which theory of moral status they find most plausible and how it would affect their behavior, drawing parallels to historical prejudices and the importance of adhering to the most reasonable theory, regardless of convenience.

Keywords

💡Moral Status

Moral status refers to the quality of being deserving of moral consideration or the capacity to hold moral rights. In the video, Jeff Sebo discusses the concept of moral status to explore who we have moral obligations to and why. The script uses the example of a teddy bear to illustrate that moral status is not about physical properties but about the capacity to be wronged or to suffer, which is a central theme of the video.

💡Rationality

Rationality is the ability to reason, think abstractly, and make decisions based on logic. In the context of the video, it is mentioned as one of the sophisticated cognitive capacities that historically have been thought to confer moral status upon humans. However, the script challenges this notion by suggesting that other animals may also possess rationality, thus questioning the exclusivity of humans in holding moral status.

💡Self-Awareness

Self-awareness is the consciousness of one's own identity, thoughts, and feelings. The video script brings up self-awareness as a trait that has traditionally been used to differentiate humans from other beings and to justify their moral status. However, it is also one of the capacities that the video challenges as a unique human characteristic, suggesting that other animals might also possess self-awareness.

💡Speciesism

Speciesism is the discrimination against individuals based on their species membership. In the video, philosophers like Richard Ryder and Peter Singer are cited as critics of speciesism, arguing that it is morally wrong, similar to racism and sexism. The script uses the concept of speciesism to challenge the traditional belief that only humans have moral status.

💡Sentience

Sentience refers to the capacity to have subjective experiences, particularly the ability to feel pleasure and pain. In the video, sentience is proposed as a more inclusive criterion for moral status than rationality or self-awareness. The script suggests that recognizing sentience as the basis for moral status would imply that many nonhuman animals, as well as humans, deserve moral consideration.

💡Moral Obligations

Moral obligations are duties or responsibilities that individuals or groups have towards others, based on ethical principles. The video script uses the concept of moral obligations to discuss the implications of recognizing different entities as having moral status. For example, if animals or plants have moral status, it would mean that our current practices, such as killing animals for food, may be morally problematic.

💡Neanderthal

In the video, the hypothetical scenario of Neanderthals coexisting with humans is used to illustrate the arbitrariness of species membership as a basis for moral status. Dale Jamieson's point is that if Neanderthals were alive today and indistinguishable from humans in every way except species, it would be morally wrong to treat them differently, suggesting that species alone should not determine moral status.

💡Life

The concept of 'life' is discussed in the video as a potential basis for moral status that extends beyond sentient beings to include all living organisms. This view would imply that plants, and possibly even species or ecosystems, have moral status. The script uses this concept to challenge the narrower view of moral status and to suggest a more expansive circle of moral concern.

💡Prejudice

Prejudice is a preconceived opinion or judgment that is not based on reason or actual experience. In the video, prejudice is used to describe the bias in favor of one group over another based on membership in a particular biological category, such as species, race, or sex. The script argues that speciesism, like racism and sexism, is a form of prejudice that is morally wrong.

💡Conscious Experiences

Conscious experiences refer to the subjective awareness and perception of one's surroundings, thoughts, and feelings. The video script discusses conscious experiences as a criterion for moral status, suggesting that the capacity to have such experiences is what makes an entity morally considerable. The example of kicking a rock versus a mouse is used to illustrate the difference between entities that can and cannot experience suffering.

Highlights

Jeff Sebo introduces the topic of moral status and its implications on our moral obligations.

The example of a teddy bear is used to illustrate the concept of moral status and who is wronged when it's damaged.

Traditional philosophical view is that only humans have moral status based on being a member of Homo sapiens.

Rene Descartes' argument that rationality, language, and self-awareness are what give humans moral status.

Peter Singer challenges the exclusivity of human cognitive capacities by comparing them to those of nonhuman animals.

The concept of speciesism is likened to racism and sexism as a form of prejudice based on biological membership.

Dale Jamieson's hypothetical scenario of Neanderthals to question the basis of moral status on species membership.

The potential exclusion of infants and severely disabled individuals from moral status if based solely on rationality or self-awareness.

The proposition to expand moral concern based on sentience, the capacity for conscious experiences.

Peter Singer's example contrasting kicking a rock versus a mouse to illustrate the importance of sentience in moral obligations.

Some philosophers argue for an even broader moral status that includes all living organisms, not just sentient beings.

Kenneth Goodpaster's argument questioning why morality should privilege sentient beings over other forms of life.

The profound implications of different theories of moral status on everyday life, including our treatment of animals and the environment.

The moral dilemma of continuing current practices such as animal agriculture if animals have moral status.

The challenge to consider which theory of moral status is most plausible rather than which is most convenient.

The ethical consideration that morality may be more demanding than we initially hoped.

Invitation for the audience to reflect on their own beliefs about moral status and how it would affect their behavior.

Transcripts

(intro music)

My name is Jeff Sebo,

and I teach animal and[br]environmental studies

at New York University.

Today, I'm going to talk[br]to you about moral status.

In other words, I'm going[br]to talk to you about

who we have moral obligations to, and why.

Let me start with a quick example

to show you what I mean.

Imagine that you broke into my room

and you ripped the head off my teddy bear.

Most people would think[br]that you acted wrongly.

But why?

Who did you wrong?

Not my teddy bear, right?

My teddy bear is a bunch of cloth.

Instead, most people would[br]say that you acted wrongly

because you wronged me, as somebody

who cares about this teddy bear.

So the question is, what[br]marks the difference

between me and my teddy bear?

What makes it the case that you have

moral obligations to me,[br]but not to my teddy bear?

This is the question of moral status.

Now historically, most[br]philosophers have thought

that the difference between[br]me and my teddy bear

is that I am a human being[br]and my teddy bear is not.

In other words, most[br]philosophers have thought

that all and only human[br]beings have moral status.

But why?

What makes us so special?

Well many people, like Rene Descartes,

answered this question by saying

that we have rationality, or language,

or self-awareness, or some other

very sophisticated cognitive capacity.

This is what makes us special,

and this is what gives us moral status.

But recently, many people[br]have started to question

the idea that all and only human beings

have these capacities.

For example, Peter Singer argues

that no matter which capacity we pick,

we can always find some nonhuman animal,

like say a chimpanzee,[br]who has that capacity

more than some human being,

like say an infant or a[br]severely disabled human being.

In fact, it turns out[br]that the only property

that all and only humans seem to have

is membership in the species Homo sapien.

But if we say that all[br]and only human beings

have moral status for that reason,

then how are we any different at all

from racists or sexists or anybody else

who discriminate against others

solely on the basis of membership

in a particular biological category.

For that reason, Richard[br]Ryder, Peter Singer,

Tom Regan, and many other philosophers

have argued that speciesism is wrong

for the same reason that[br]racism and sexism are.

They are all forms of prejudice,

in favor of one group over another group,

solely on the basis of membership

in a particular biological category.

Dale Jamieson puts the point this way,

to see why speciesism is wrong,

imagine an alternate history,

where Neanderthal survived as a distinct,

reproductively isolated species.

So in this world, human[br]beings and Neanderthals

live together, and work together,

and play together, and are[br]exactly alike in every respect,

except that they happen[br]to be different species.

Now imagine that in this world,

you discover that your roommate,

or your best friend, is a Neanderthal

instead of a human being.

Would this mean that you lose

all of your moral[br]obligations to this person?

Would you now be morally permitted

to use them for food, or clothing,

or research, or whatever[br]purpose you had in mind?

Intuitively, the answer is "No."

You would still have moral obligations

to your roommate or best friend.

And what this shows is that membership

in the species Homo sapien

is not in and of itself[br]what gives us moral status.

So then what is?

What does give us moral status?

Well, one option is to[br]say that rationality,

or language, or self awareness[br]gives us moral status.

But this view would imply[br]that many human beings,

like infants and severely[br]disabled human beings,

lack moral status because[br]they lack these capacities,

and that view seems deeply[br]implausible to many people.

So for that reason, many[br]philosophers have argued

that we should expand the[br]circle of moral concern

by saying that sentience,[br]or in other words,

the capacity for conscious experiences

like pleasure and pain, is[br]what gives us moral status.

This view would imply[br]that the vast majority

of human beings, and[br]many nonhuman animals,

have moral status.

And many people find this view plausible

because they say you need to be sentient

in order for it to matter to you

how your life goes for you.

So Peter Singer uses the example

of kicking a rock versus[br]kicking a mouse down the street.

He says a rock is not sentient,

and so a rock will not suffer

if you kick it down the street.

So you have no moral obligation at all

not to kick a rock down the street.

On the other hand, a mouse is sentient.

So a mouse will suffer if you[br]kick them down the street,

and so you do have a moral obligation

not to kick the mouse down the street.

Other philosophers think that we should

expand the circle of[br]moral concern even farther

by saying that life itself[br]is what gives us moral status.

So this view would imply[br]that all living organisms

have moral status.

That includes human[br]beings, nonhuman animals,

plants, even maybe species or ecosystems,

if we decide that those things are alive.

And many people think that[br]this view is plausible,

because they say that our[br]preference for sentience

is no different from a[br]preference for human beings,

or say white people, or men.

These are all forms of prejudice

for one group over another[br]based solely on membership

in a particular biological category.

As Kenneth Goodpaster puts the point,

"Sentience, or the capacity[br]to have conscious experiences,

"is only one tool that evolution

"gave us in order to survive and reproduce.

"So why should morality[br]privilege those of us

"who happened to survive and reproduce

"by experiencing pleasures and pains,

"over other living organisms[br]who happen to survive

"and reproduce in other ways."

Now obviously, which of these[br]theories of moral status

we accept is going to[br]have profound implications

for how we live our lives.

For example, if we decide[br]that animals or plants

have moral status, then[br]it will turn out that

a lot of what we currently[br]do in everyday life

is deeply morally problematic,

including, but not remotely[br]limited to, the fact

that we currently kill over sixty billion

nonhuman animals a year for food alone.

Now at this point, it might[br]be very tempting to say,

"OK, maybe all and only humans[br]have a moral status after all,

"because our lives would be[br]much easier if this were true."

But keep in mind that[br]a hundred years ago

or two hundred years ago, it might[br]have been very tempting

for white men to say,[br]"OK, maybe all and only

white men have moral status after all,

"because their lives would be[br]much easier if that were true."

And what that shows is that[br]which theory of moral status

we accept has to depend on which theory

of moral status seems most plausible,

and not on which theory of[br]moral status happens to be

most convenient for us.

It may be that we end up deciding that

morality is much more demanding[br]than we might have hoped.

But, as my college ethics professor

Richard Galvin used to say,

no one ever said this stuff was easy.

So, what do you think?

Which theory of moral status[br]seems most plausible to you?

Do you think that all[br]and only human beings

have moral status, and we can[br]kick animals down the street

if we want to?

Do you think that all sentient[br]animals have moral status,

so at least we can kick plants

down the street if we want to?

Or do you think that all living[br]organisms have moral status,

so you can kick rocks, but pretty much

nothing else, down the street?

And finally, and most importantly,

how would you have to change[br]your everyday behavior,

based on which of these theories[br]of moral status you accept?

Subtitles by the Amara.org community