Key Takeaways
1. Importance isn't absolute, it's tethered to the valuer.
Things are important to creatures; the creatures themselves do not stand in some absolute rank ordering of importance.
Value is relational. Importance and value are not free-floating concepts; they are always tethered to a valuer, a creature for whom things can be good or bad. This perspective challenges the notion of a universal hierarchy where humans are inherently more important than other animals.
No objective ranking. There is no neutral standpoint from which to objectively rank the importance of different creatures. Each being's value is intrinsically linked to its own experience and perspective.
- A human's life is important to the human.
- A dog's life is important to the dog.
- A tree's life is important to the tree.
Absolute importance is universal relativity. The closest we can get to absolute importance is something that is important to everyone, to every sentient creature. This perspective shifts the focus from ranking beings to ensuring that every creature has the opportunity to pursue its own good.
2. Animals have a final good: conscious well-functioning.
The final good came into the world with animals, for an animal is, pretty much by definition, the kind of thing that has a final good—a good, in the sense that might matter morally.
Functional vs. final good. "Good" has two senses: evaluative (functional) and final. The functional good refers to something's ability to perform its purpose, while the final good is worth having for its own sake.
Animals as agents. Animals are unique because they function by representing their environment and acting in light of those representations. This agency is guided by valenced experiences, making them beings for whom things can be good or bad.
- Animals seek things that are good for them.
- Animals avoid things that are bad for them.
- Animals experience their own condition as good or bad.
Life as a good. For most animals, life itself is a good, a state worth having and maintaining. This is because to be well-functioning is to be alive and in reasonably good health, making existence a positive value for them.
3. Rationality distinguishes humans through normative self-governance.
I fully subscribe to the judgment of those writers who maintain that of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important.
Rationality vs. intelligence. While intelligence involves problem-solving and learning, rationality is the capacity for normative self-governance. It's the ability to evaluate reasons for beliefs and actions and to act accordingly.
Teleological perception. Non-rational animals perceive the world teleologically, with everything having a place in a purposive order determined by their instincts. Rational beings, however, can question these instinctive responses.
- Animals see a lion as danger.
- Humans can evaluate whether fear of the lion is a good reason to run.
Autonomy and moral law. Rationality allows humans to be governed by laws they give themselves, rather than being controlled by instinct. This autonomy is the foundation of morality, enabling us to make choices based on principles rather than mere impulse.
4. Human superiority is a nearly incoherent comparison.
I have not exactly been arguing that animals are just as important as people. I have been arguing that the comparison is nearly incoherent.
Evaluative vs. final good. "Good" can mean excellent (evaluative) or desirable (final). The question of human superiority involves both: Are humans more excellent? Is human life more desirable?
Morality doesn't confer superiority. The capacity for moral action doesn't make humans superior, as moral standards don't apply to animals. It's an internal standard for human action, not a universal measure.
- Knives should be sharp because they are for cutting.
- Human actions should be moral because they are for reasons.
Cognitive sophistication and the self. The degree of psychological unity in a creature's self may influence how deeply affected they are by certain goods and evils. However, this doesn't make them more important, just differently affected.
5. Moral standing is atemporal, not a temporary state.
The fact that man can have the idea “I” raises him infinitely above all the other beings living on earth.
Rationality and moral standing. Kant associates moral standing with rationality, but this raises questions about infants, the demented, and animals. Are they excluded?
Moral standing as a life-long attribute. Moral standing should be assigned to persons and animals considered as the subjects of their whole lives, not just particular life stages. This ongoing self is the proper unit of moral concern.
- A human infant is not a particular kind of creature, but a human creature at a particular life stage.
- Moral standing does not belong to particular life stages or to particular conditions, but to the subjects of whole lives.
Atemporal existence. Moral standing is atemporal, meaning it's not acquired or lost over time. Once a life begins, moral standing exists, allowing for actions before or after that life to be morally relevant.
6. Kant's indirect duty view is almost incoherent.
Any action whereby we may torment animals, or let them suffer distress, or otherwise treat them without love, is demeaning to ourselves.
Animals as mere means. Kant argues that animals, lacking reason, are mere means to human ends. However, he also insists on treating them with kindness and avoiding cruelty.
The indirect duty view. This view combines two theses:
- Duties to animals are owed to ourselves, not the animals.
- The ground of these duties is the effect of our treatment on our own characters.
Incoherence of the indirect duty view. The attitudes it invites are almost incoherent. It's difficult to genuinely love animals while simultaneously seeing that love as a means to improve our own moral character.
7. The animal antinomy reveals conflicting duties.
We are all of us born in moral stupidity, taking the world as an udder to feed our supreme selves.
The animal antinomy. This is a practical problem where two reasonable-sounding arguments lead to opposite conclusions.
- Duty to protect animals implies making them all domestic.
- Duty not to harm animals implies making them all wild.
The source of the conflict. The disturbance comes from a conflict between our moral standards and the way that nature works. The natural world staunchly resists moral reorganization.
The need for special principles. The animal antinomy shows why animal ethics is a special subject requiring principles for dealing with the special problems that it generates.
8. Creation ethics raises questions of intervention.
Assume a human being who honors the moral law, and who allows himself to think (as he can hardly avoid doing) what sort of a world he would create, were this in his power, under the guidance of practical reason.
McMahan's proposal. Jeff McMahan suggests eliminating carnivorous species and replacing them with herbivorous ones to reduce suffering. This raises questions about the extent of human intervention in nature.
The problem of "playing God." Intervening in nature to eliminate predation raises concerns about human hubris and the potential for unintended consequences. Are we justified in altering the natural order?
- What if we create a Malthusian dystopia?
- What if we eliminate the predators, or redirect their predatory tendencies into harmless play?
The question of for whom. Any intervention must be evaluated in terms of its impact on the well-being of the animals themselves, not just abstract notions of a "better" world.
9. Species are both populations and types, but not generic organisms.
Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is is still desired.
Species as populations and types. A species can be viewed as both a population of interbreeding individuals and a type characterized by certain traits. This dual nature complicates discussions about their value.
The generic organism fallacy. It's tempting to think of species as generic organisms, leading to the idea that what's good for the species is necessarily good for its members. This overlooks the individual experiences and needs of animals.
- The wolf has gone extinct in England.
- The wolf is hungry.
- The wolf is injured.
- The wolf is endangered.
The importance of individual lives. Every sentient animal is a real individual with a center of subjectivity of her own, with experiences that matter to her. It is the individual, not the species, that has moral significance.
10. Abolitionism and apartheid are two sides of the same coin.
We are all of us born in moral stupidity, taking the world as an udder to feed our supreme selves.
Abolitionism's goal. Abolitionists seek to abolish all human uses of animals, viewing them as inherently exploitative. This leads to a separation between humans and animals.
The problem of apartheid. By advocating for a complete separation, abolitionism risks creating a kind of moral apartheid, where animals are excluded from human society and their needs are ignored.
- Humans and animals must be separate but equal.
- Humans and animals must live on the opposite sides of a great divide.
The need for ethical interaction. A more nuanced approach involves finding ways to interact with animals that respect their autonomy and promote their well-being, rather than simply avoiding them altogether.
11. Pleasure and pain are perceptions of the good.
Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is is still desired.
Two views of pleasure and pain.
- Benthamite: Pleasure and pain are particular sensations with measurable intensity and duration.
- Aristotelian: Pleasure and pain are reflexive reactions to experiences, indicating whether they are welcome or unwelcome.
Pleasure and pain as perceptions. Pleasure and pain are not merely sensations, but perceptions of the good or bad condition of the animal. They are the animal's way of experiencing its own well-functioning.
- An animal experiences her own condition, and the things that affect it, as good- and bad-for her.
- An animal functions, in part, by making her own well-functioning, the things that are good for her in the functional sense, an end of action, a thing to go for, a final good.
Conscious life as the good. The final good for a creature is conscious well-functioning. Pleasure is the awareness of that good, and pain is the awareness of threats to it.
12. Ethical action requires empathy and reason.
I want to describe a way of looking at the world and living in it that is suitable for complex beings without a naturally unified standpoint.
The limits of reason. Reason alone cannot provide all the answers in ethical dilemmas. Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, is also essential.
The importance of empathy. Empathy allows us to appreciate the significance of things from another's point of view, even if their experiences are different from our own. This is crucial for extending moral consideration to animals.
- It is the perpetual temptation, especially of the safe and the privileged, to harbor the thought that those less fortunate than ourselves are also simpler beings to whom misfortune probably does not matter as much, or in the same vivid way, as it would if the same things were happening to us.
- It is particularly easy to harbor such thoughts if the unfortunate ones are illiterate or inarticulate or unsophisticated, and if they are in some other way alien, like being of another race.
The need for both. Ethical action requires both empathy and reason. Empathy provides the motivation to care, while reason guides us in determining the best course of action.
Last updated:
Review Summary
Fellow Creatures receives largely positive reviews for its philosophical approach to animal ethics. Readers appreciate Korsgaard's unique Kantian perspective and her arguments for treating animals as ends in themselves. Many find the book intellectually stimulating, though some note its academic complexity. Reviewers commend Korsgaard's exploration of practical implications and her challenge to human superiority. While some disagree with certain arguments, most consider the book a valuable contribution to animal ethics discourse, praising its depth, clarity, and ability to reshape thinking about human-animal relationships.
