Post

Nattily dressed anarchists on bicycles wrote:

We might be talking past each other, but I wouldn't attribute human motivations etc. to non-humans either. I'd simply posit that recognizing that non-humans can have their own motivations and cognitions does not mean we are "anthropomorphizing" so much as we are simply recognizing animal behavior.

If that behavior includes the ability to hold preferences and suffer for their loss, then concluding that non-humans are due ethical consideration is not that great a leap.

I think we're in agreement here. My point is just that we don't live in an ideal world and research shows that due ethical consideration isn't handed out on a scientific basis but on a basis that's tainted with human prejudice. For example, giving dogs human characteristics (like "he/she is a good listener") makes people more invested in the dogs' safety and welfare compared to when the dogs' behaviour is described accurately. This might be beneficial because it tells us how we can encourage people to care for animals but it also shows that if we can't see a particular animal's behaviour through a human lens then our bias denies that animal due ethical consideration for no legitimate reason.