Editing Speciesism (section)

=== Preceding ideas ===

==== Early perspectives on animal sensation and kinship ====
[[Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon|Buffon]], a French naturalist, writing in ''[[Histoire Naturelle]]'', published in 1753, questioned whether it could be doubted that animals "whose organization is similar to ours, must experience similar sensations", and that "those sensations must be proportioned to the activity and perfection of their senses".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Buffon |first=Georges Louis Leclerc |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4HhGAQAAMAAJ |title=Natural History: Containing a Theory of the Earth, a General History of Man, of the Brute Creation, and of Vegetables, Minerals, &c. &c. &c |publisher=H. D. Symonds |year=1807 |location=London |pages=120 |language=en}}</ref> Despite these assertions, he insisted that there exists a gap between humans and other animals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Caponi |first=Gustavo |date=2016-12-08 |title=La discontinuidad entre lo humano y lo animal en la Historia natural de Buffon |trans-title=The discontinuity between humans and animals in Buffon's Natural history |journal=História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos |language=es |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=59–74 |doi=10.1590/s0104-59702016005000030 |pmid=27982279 |issn=1678-4758 |doi-access=free}}</ref> In the poem "[[Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne]]", [[Voltaire]] described a kinship between all sentient beings, humans and animals alike, stating: "All sentient things, born by the same stern law, / Suffer like me, and like me also die."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Voltaire |url=https://archive.org/details/tolerationother00volt |title=Toleration and Other Essays |publisher=G.P. Putnam's sons |year=1912 |editor-last=MacCabe |editor-first=Joseph |location=New York; London |page=[[iarchive:tolerationother00volt/page/258/mode/1up|258]]}}</ref>

==== Jeremy Bentham ====
[[Jeremy Bentham]] was the first Western philosopher to advocate for animals' [[Equal consideration of interests|equal consideration]] within a comprehensive, secular moral framework.<ref name=":0" /> He argued that species membership is morally irrelevant and that any being capable of suffering has [[Intrinsic value (ethics)|intrinsic value]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Sebo |first=Jeff |author-link=Jeff Sebo |url=https://utilitarianism.net/textbook/ |title=Introduction to Utilitarianism |year=2023 |editor-last=Chappell |editor-first=Richard Yetter |chapter=Utilitarianism and Nonhuman Animals |editor-last2=Meissner |editor-first2=Darius |editor-last3=MacAskill |editor-first3=William |editor-link3=William MacAskill |chapter-url=https://utilitarianism.net/guest-essays/utilitarianism-and-nonhuman-animals/}}</ref> In his 1789 book, ''[[An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation]]'', he wrote:<ref name=":1" /><blockquote>The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withheld from them but by the hand of tyranny.… [T]he question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?  </blockquote>Additionally, he was a strong proponent of animal welfare laws. However, he also accepted the killing and use of animals, provided that unnecessary cruelty was avoided.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Kniess |first=Johannes |date=2019-05-04 |title=Bentham on animal welfare |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09608788.2018.1524746 |journal=British Journal for the History of Philosophy |language=en |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=556–572 |doi=10.1080/09608788.2018.1524746 |issn=0960-8788}}</ref>

==== Lewis Gompertz ====
[[File:Portrait of Lewis Gompertz.png|thumb|[[Lewis Gompertz]] emphasized shared human-animal feelings, sensations, needs, and physiological characteristics.|243x243px]]
In his 1824 work ''[[Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes]]'', English writer and early animal rights advocate [[Lewis Gompertz]] argued for [[egalitarianism]], extending it to nonhuman animals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Horta |first=Oscar |date=2014-11-25 |title=Egalitarianism and Animals |url=https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/vol19/iss1/5 |journal=Between the Species |volume=19 |issue=1}}</ref> He stated that humans and animals have highly similar feelings and sensations, noting that experiences like hunger, desire, fear, and anger affect both in similar ways. Gompertz also pointed out shared physiological characteristics between humans and animals, suggesting a similarity in sensation.<ref name="Gompertz 1992">{{Cite book |last=Gompertz |first=Lewis |url=https://archive.org/details/moralinquiriesonthesituationofmanandofbrutes-lewisgompertz |title=Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes |publisher=Centaur Press |year=1992 |editor-last=Singer |editor-first=Peter |location=Fontwell |pages= |orig-year=1824}}</ref>{{Rp|41–42}} He criticized the use of animals by humans, highlighting the disregard for their feelings, needs, and desires.<ref name="Gompertz 1992" />{{Rp|27}}

==== Charles Darwin ====

English naturalist [[Charles Darwin]], writing in his notebook in 1838, asserted that man thinks of himself as a masterpiece produced by a deity, but that he thought it "truer to consider him created from animals."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rachels |first=James |date=1987 |editor-last=Sugden |editor-first=Sherwood J. B. |title=Darwin, Species, and Morality |url=https://academic.oup.com/monist/article-lookup/doi/10.5840/monist19877014 |journal=Monist |volume=70 |issue=1 |pages=98–113 |doi=10.5840/monist19877014 |issn=0026-9662}}</ref> In his 1871 book [[The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex|''The Descent of Man'']], Darwin argued:<ref>{{Cite book |last=Darwin |first=Charles |url=https://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-descent-of-man/ |title=The Descent of Man |publisher= |year=1874 |isbn= |edition=2nd |pages=[https://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-descent-of-man/ebook-page-45.asp 45], [https://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-descent-of-man/ebook-page-85.asp 85] |language=en}}</ref><blockquote>There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties&nbsp;... [t]he difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, etc., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals.</blockquote>

==== Arthur Schopenhauer ====
{{Main article|Arthur Schopenhauer's view on animal rights}}
German philosopher [[Arthur Schopenhauer]] asserted that [[anthropocentrism]] was a fundamental defect of [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], arguing that these religions have been a source of immense suffering for sentient beings because they separate man from the world of animals, leading to the treatment of animals as only things. Schopenhauer praised [[Brahmanism]] and [[Buddhism]] for their focus on kinship between humans and other animals, as well as their emphasis on the connection between them through [[metempsychosis]].<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Evans |first=E. P. |date=September 1894 |title=Ethical Relations Between Man and Beast |url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_45/September_1894/Ethical_Relations_Between_Man_and_Beast |magazine=Popular Science Monthly |volume=45 |access-date=2021-10-03}}</ref>

==== Secular and utilitarian animal advocacy ====
[[File:Henry Stephens Salt.jpg|thumb|292x292px|[[Henry S. Salt]] criticized the idea that there exists a "great gulf" between humans and other animals.]]

[[Secularist]]s in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, advocated for animals based their stance on [[Utilitarianism|utilitarian]] principles and evolutionary kinship, critiquing the Christian church's neglect of social justice and acceptance of suffering as divinely ordained. They sought a morality free from religious influence, initially supporting vivisection for human benefit but later questioning its necessity. Figures like [[G. W. Foote]] argued for broader utility, focusing on long-term moral principles rather than immediate gains. Embracing evolutionary theories, secularists highlighted the common origins and similarities between humans and animals, arguing that morality should extend to animals as they too experience pain and pleasure. They rejected the Christian theological gap between humans and animals, promoting scientific theories to support animal rights and welfare.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Li |first=Chien-Hui |date=March 2012 |title=An Unnatural Alliance? Political Radicalism and the Animal Defence Movement in Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain |url=https://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/eu_file/133240337814.pdf |journal=EurAmerica: A Journal of European and American Studies |volume=42 |issue=1 |pages=14–15 |via=Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica}}</ref>

English writer and animal rights advocate [[Henry S. Salt]], in his 1892 book ''[[Animals' Rights]],'' argued that for humans to do justice to other animals, they must look beyond the conception of a "great gulf" between them, claiming instead that we should recognize the "common bond of humanity that unites all living beings in one universal brotherhood".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Salt |first=Henry S. |url=http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt01.htm |title=Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress |publisher=Macmillan & Co. |year=1894 |location=New York |chapter=The Principle of Animals' Rights |access-date=2020-07-14}}</ref>

[[Edward Payson Evans]], an American scholar and animal rights advocate, criticized anthropocentric psychology and ethics in his 1897 work ''[[Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology]]''. He argued that these views wrongfully treat humans as fundamentally different from other sentient beings, disregarding any moral obligations towards them.<ref name="Evans 1898">{{Cite book |last=Evans |first=E. P. |url=https://archive.org/details/cu31924014058709 |title=Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology |publisher=D. Appleton & Company |year=1898 |location=New York |pages= |orig-year=1897}}</ref>{{Rp|83}} Evans believed that [[Darwin's theory of evolution]] implied moral duties not only towards enslaved humans but also towards nonhuman animals. He asserted that beyond kind treatment, animals need enforceable rights to protect them from cruelty.<ref name="Evans 1898" />{{Rp|14}} Evans contended that recognizing the kinship between humans and all sentient beings would make it impossible to mistreat them.<ref name="Evans 1898" />{{Rp|135}}

An 1898 article in ''[[The Zoophilist (magazine)|The Zoophilist]]'', titled "Anthropocentric Ethics", argued that early civilizations, before Christianity, viewed tenderness and mercy towards sentient beings as a law. It highlighted that [[Zarathustra]], [[Buddha]], and early Greek philosophers, who practiced [[vegetarianism]], espoused this philosophy. The article claimed that this understanding of human-animal kinship persisted into early Christianity but was challenged by figures like [[Origen]], who saw animals as mere [[Automaton|automata]] for human use. It concluded that the relationship between [[animal psychology]] and evolutionary ethics is gaining scientific and moral attention and can no longer be ignored.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=1898-10-01 |title=Anthropocentric Ethics |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3j0TAAAAYAAJ |journal=The Zoophilist |publisher=[[National Anti-Vivisection Society]] |volume=18 |issue=6 |pages=108}}</ref>

In 1895, American zoologist, philosopher, and animal rights advocate [[J. Howard Moore]] described [[vegetarianism]] as the ethical result of recognizing the evolutionary kinship of all creatures, aligning with Darwin's insights. He criticized the "pre-Darwinian delusion" that nonhuman animals were created for human use.<ref name="Moore 1895">{{Cite book |last=Moore |first=J. Howard |url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_I_Am_a_Vegetarian |title=Why I Am a Vegetarian |year=1895 |pages=[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AWhyIamAVegetarian.pdf/21 19]–20}}</ref> In his 1899 book ''[[Better-World Philosophy]]'', Moore argued that human ethics were still anthropocentric, evolving to include various human groups but not animals. He proposed "zoocentricism" as the next stage, considering the entire sentient universe.<ref name="Moore 1899">{{Cite book |last=Moore |first=John Howard |url=https://archive.org/details/betterworldphilo00mooruoft |title=Better-World Philosophy: A Sociological Synthesis |publisher=The Ward Waugh Company |year=1899 |location=Chicago |pages=[https://archive.org/details/betterworldphilo00mooruoft/page/143/mode/1up 143]–144}}</ref> In his 1906 book ''[[The Universal Kinship]]'', Moore criticized the "provincialist" attitude leading to animal mistreatment, comparing it to denying ethical relations among human groups.<ref name="Moore 1906">{{Cite book |last=Moore |first=J. Howard |url=https://archive.org/details/universalkinship00moor |title=The Universal Kinship |publisher=Charles H. Kerr & Co. |year=1906 |location=Chicago |pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|276}} He condemned the human-centric perspective and urged consideration of victims' viewpoints,<ref name="Moore 1906" />{{Rp|304}} concluding that the [[Golden Rule]] should apply to all sentient beings, advocating equal ethical consideration for animals and humans:<ref name="Moore 1906" />{{Rp|327|quote=}} <blockquote>[D]o as you would be done by—and ''not'' to the dark man and the white woman alone, but to the sorrel horse and the gray squirrel as well; ''not'' to creatures of your own anatomy only, but to ''all'' creatures.</blockquote>