Editing Speciesism (section)

==== 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>