I want to propose a new ethics, that combines animal rights with deep ecology.
Patho-biocentrism states that 'life' (bios) and 'sentience' (feelings, pathos) are the two central (most important) criteria for a being to claim rights.
Let's start with the formulation of the basic right: the right not to be treated as merely means to our ends. I.e. the right not to be harmed while treating a being as if it were a tool or a property.
This basic right, like all rights, is a protection of interests. The question is: what kind of beings have interests? Perhaps a table as an interest not to be broken, but that is a very trivial interest. On the other hand, living beings have complex interests, as they have a metabolism and a complex self-organizing activity. Living beings have to actively search for food to sustain themselves. In the set of the living beings, there are the sentient beings. They do not only have complex interests, but they can also feel their interests. they have a subjective experience of their needs. Fear means that the interest of safety is not met, pain indicates a violation of the interest of physical integrity,...
So, living beings have complex interests and sentient beings have a complex relation with their interests. Therefore, a relation between those two criteria (life and sentience) and the concept of rights makes sense.
But there's more. The basic right also refers to 'our ends. Now, who are 'we'? The basic right not only refers to the moral patient (the being who gets the right), but also to the moral agent (the being who gives the right). And it is this moral agent that should not treat moral patients as means to his ends. These moral agents have a duty to respect the rights of moral patients.
So who are the moral agents? Moral agents are the beings that feel concern and empathy for others, and can reflect on that, and they have to be able to understand the notion of rights. So, adult human beings without severe brain damage are moral agents. Now we can feel concern for vulnerable beings, and typically living beings are vulnerable. And we can only feel empathy with sentient beings. Here we see again living and sentient beings appear. Coincidence? It means that it does make sense that moral agents give (or have to give) the basic right to living and sentient beings.
So to conclude: life and sentience are the two major criteria to grant rights. Other criteria (social intelligence, self-consciousness,...) are not relevant, because babies and mentally disabled persons also have the basic right.
The basic right refers also to 'ends' or needs. We have to make a distinction between essential (or basic) needs (including vital needs, but also the need for friendship, knowledge, meaning, communication, creativity,...) and trivial (or luxury) needs. Typically, these luxury needs have a high ecological impact. Luxury needs can often be recognized by their socio-cultural dependence (manipulability). We think of (sexual or social) status, cultural habits, traditions, advertising, fashion,... These needs are created, relative, changeable,...
In summary: we have two criteria: life and sentience, and two kinds of needs: essential and trivial. They can be linked in a consistent way, leading to two ethical principles.
Principle 1: all living beings (living cells) have the basic right not to be killed for our trivial needs. In this sense, all living cells are equal (in moral terms).
Principle 2: all sentient beings (conscious subjects) have the basic right not to be used (killed, harmed, locked up) for neither essential nor trivial means. In this sense, all sentient beings are equal. (We can make one further nuance: perhaps one might kill a sentient being for vital/survival needs. We can think of the Inuit who have to survive on fishing and hunting.)
Although all living cells are equal, when they belong to a sentient being, they inherit a stronger basic right.
The above two principles represent biocentrism and pathocentrism, as can be seen in the deep ecology and animal rights movements. This unified pathobiocentrism requires a sober and vegan lifestyle: A life in voluntary simplicity, and without using animals nor animal products.
Patho-biocentrism states that 'life' (bios) and 'sentience' (feelings, pathos) are the two central (most important) criteria for a being to claim rights.
Let's start with the formulation of the basic right: the right not to be treated as merely means to our ends. I.e. the right not to be harmed while treating a being as if it were a tool or a property.
This basic right, like all rights, is a protection of interests. The question is: what kind of beings have interests? Perhaps a table as an interest not to be broken, but that is a very trivial interest. On the other hand, living beings have complex interests, as they have a metabolism and a complex self-organizing activity. Living beings have to actively search for food to sustain themselves. In the set of the living beings, there are the sentient beings. They do not only have complex interests, but they can also feel their interests. they have a subjective experience of their needs. Fear means that the interest of safety is not met, pain indicates a violation of the interest of physical integrity,...
So, living beings have complex interests and sentient beings have a complex relation with their interests. Therefore, a relation between those two criteria (life and sentience) and the concept of rights makes sense.
But there's more. The basic right also refers to 'our ends. Now, who are 'we'? The basic right not only refers to the moral patient (the being who gets the right), but also to the moral agent (the being who gives the right). And it is this moral agent that should not treat moral patients as means to his ends. These moral agents have a duty to respect the rights of moral patients.
So who are the moral agents? Moral agents are the beings that feel concern and empathy for others, and can reflect on that, and they have to be able to understand the notion of rights. So, adult human beings without severe brain damage are moral agents. Now we can feel concern for vulnerable beings, and typically living beings are vulnerable. And we can only feel empathy with sentient beings. Here we see again living and sentient beings appear. Coincidence? It means that it does make sense that moral agents give (or have to give) the basic right to living and sentient beings.
So to conclude: life and sentience are the two major criteria to grant rights. Other criteria (social intelligence, self-consciousness,...) are not relevant, because babies and mentally disabled persons also have the basic right.
The basic right refers also to 'ends' or needs. We have to make a distinction between essential (or basic) needs (including vital needs, but also the need for friendship, knowledge, meaning, communication, creativity,...) and trivial (or luxury) needs. Typically, these luxury needs have a high ecological impact. Luxury needs can often be recognized by their socio-cultural dependence (manipulability). We think of (sexual or social) status, cultural habits, traditions, advertising, fashion,... These needs are created, relative, changeable,...
In summary: we have two criteria: life and sentience, and two kinds of needs: essential and trivial. They can be linked in a consistent way, leading to two ethical principles.
Principle 1: all living beings (living cells) have the basic right not to be killed for our trivial needs. In this sense, all living cells are equal (in moral terms).
Principle 2: all sentient beings (conscious subjects) have the basic right not to be used (killed, harmed, locked up) for neither essential nor trivial means. In this sense, all sentient beings are equal. (We can make one further nuance: perhaps one might kill a sentient being for vital/survival needs. We can think of the Inuit who have to survive on fishing and hunting.)
Although all living cells are equal, when they belong to a sentient being, they inherit a stronger basic right.
The above two principles represent biocentrism and pathocentrism, as can be seen in the deep ecology and animal rights movements. This unified pathobiocentrism requires a sober and vegan lifestyle: A life in voluntary simplicity, and without using animals nor animal products.
