Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Sexism and racism are unjustifiable. — Carmelics
    Home/Environmental Ethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Anthropocentric privileging of members of the species Homo sapiens is morally unjustifiable.

    Sexism and racism are unjustifiable.

    Environmental Ethics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Environmental Ethics

    Related

    Anthropocentric privileging of members of the species Homo sapiens is morally un...Privileging humans over other sentient beings solely on the basis of species mem...Privileging one group over others solely on the basis of group membership, witho...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Environmental Ethics
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Anthropocentric privileging of members of the species Homo sapiens is ...71%Privileging humans over other sentient beings solely on the basis of s...68%Privileging one group over others solely on the basis of group members...68%Other things being equal, outcomes that leave future people below a su...66%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: ethics-environmental
    View source passageHide passage
    As the utilitarian focus is the balance of pleasure and pain as such, the question of to whom a pleasure or pain belongs is irrelevant to the calculation and assessment of the rightness or wrongness of actions. Hence, the eighteenth century utilitarian Jeremy Bentham (1789), and later Peter Singer (1993), have argued that the interests of all the sentient beings (i.e., beings who are capable of experiencing pleasure or pain)—including non-human ones—affected by an action should be taken equally

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective