The studies demonstrate that species-absolutism (speciesism) plays a central role in explaining moral anthropocentrism. While differences in mental capacity, and partiality to group members, can arguably justify prioritizing humans in at least some contexts, many regard individual humans as absolutely morally more important simply in virtue of being humans, and individual animals as absolutely morally inferior simply in virtue of being animals.
GUY KAHANE: People routinely give humans moral priority over other animals. Is such moral anthropocentrism based in perceived differences in mental capacity between humans and non-humans or merely because humans favor other members of their own species? We investigated this question in six studies (N = 2,217). We found that most participants prioritized humans over animals even when the animals were described as having equal or more advanced mental capacities than the humans. This applied to both mental capacity at the level of specific individuals (Studies 1a-b) and at the level typical for the respective species (Study 2).
The key driver behind moral anthropocentrism was thus mere species-membership (speciesism).However, all else equal, participants still gave more moral weight to individuals with higher mental capacities (individual mental capacity principle), suggesting that the belief that humans have higher mental capacities than animals is part of the reason that they give humans moral priority. Notably, participants found mental capacity more important for animals than for humans — a tendency which can itself be regarded speciesist. We also explored possible sub-factors driving speciesism. We found that many participants judged that all individuals (not only humans) should prioritize members of their own species over members of other species (species-relativism; Studies 3a-b). However, some participants also exhibited a tendency to see humans as having superior value in an absolute sense (pro-human species-absolutism, Studies 3-4). Overall, our work demonstrates that speciesism plays a central role in explaining moral anthropocentrism and may be itself divided in multiple sub-factors…
We found that people prioritize humans over non-humans for multiple reasons. First, many people value animals less than humans in part because individual animals have lower mental capacities than individual humans (individual mental capacity principle). However this alone cannot fully explain moral anthropocentrism, since most people continue to prioritize humans over animals even in cases when the animals have the same or even higher mental capacities the humans. Instead, the most central factor explaining anthropocentrism is speciesism, which itself has multiple sub-factors.
We found that many people believe that individuals should prioritize members of their owns species over others (species-relativism), and that some people consider humans to be of superior value in an absolute sense (pro-human species-absolutism). We also found evidence suggesting that, in addition, there might also be a specific bias against animals, a bias that people don’t manifest towards non-humans with equivalent mental capacities (anti-animal species-absolutism). As we show, these four factors can come apart in hypothetical scenarios. However, since all of them apply to all actual animals, it is not surprising that moral anthropocentrism is such a robust and pervasive attitude.
Attempts to show that we routinely underestimate the mental capacities of animals, or that we are linked with them by relations of similarity or fellowship, can influence only some aspects of moral anthropocentrism. Moreover, while differences in mental capacity, and partiality to group members, can arguably justify prioritizing humans in at least some contexts, species-absolutism — regarding individual humans as absolutely morally more important simply in virtue of being humans (pro-human species-absolutism), and individual animals as absolutely morally inferior simply in virtue of being animals (anti-animal species-absolutism) — clearly seems like a bias. Our studies thus demonstrate that moral anthropocentrism is partly driven by prejudice. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: