A (Moral) Philosophy to End Them All

Written by Bradley Dorfan

"When I'm not enjoying sunsets and long walks on the beach, I spend my free time lying to people about what I enjoy doing."

August 6, 2021

Introduction

It has been one of my greatest aspirations to adopt a moral philosophy and life stance that would clarify and ground my personal ethics; a doctrine I could live in accordance with and turn to in order to live the life of excellence I had envisioned for myself.

To me, morality requires the bringing together of many various concepts, not the least of which being justice, fairness, and wellbeing.

A life stance, in my opinion, is a worldview and perspective that helps us evaluate our actions within the context of a shared reality; something which influences our experiences, beliefs, opinions, and attitudes and is subject to change as our understanding evolves and knowledge-base grows.

Following John Rawls, and given the task of building an entirely new society behind a veil of ignorance — whereby we are not privy to our gender, race, nationality, status, intelligence, preferences, or even species until such is allocated to us as randomly as a roll of the dice — how would the world in which we would like to live look?

For instance, given the possibility that we could be born impoverished, be mentally handicapped or even be a chicken, how could we set up society so as to reduce suffering and increase wellbeing as much as possible (given certain constraints outside our control)?

In my opinion, this society would require a base level of moral consideration — a minimum viable moral consideration we extend to others — meaning that, at the very least, nobody should EVER be subjected to unnecessary and intentional pain, suffering, and exploitation or have their wellbeing unnecessarily and intentionally diminished… especially when such is avoidable, the benefit/harm ratio is unjustifiably disproportionate and/or the increase in suffering or reduction in wellbeing is particularly excessive.

So essentially, at this time, my moral philosophy is one whereby we extend our moral consideration to include all individuals by, at the very least and insofar as it is practical and possible, refraining from participating in the intentional and unnecessary subjugation, exploitation, manipulation, and oppression of others.

Theoretically, and on the surface, one could say that I’m a utilitarian following the doctrine of Rule Utilitarianism which states:

We ought to live by the rules that, in general, are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number” — taken from CrashCourse

But, perhaps, it is more accurate to say that Negative Utilitarianism influences my moral compass, since I place more emphasis on reducing suffering than I do on increasing wellbeing… but more on that later.

(I haven’t completely fleshed out everything just yet, so please bear with me and stay tuned. However, I will attempt to unpack my position in more detail throughout this article.)

The Nature of Morality

Having applied significant thought to the issue, I have reached the conclusion that the concept of morality is, in fact, subjective.

For the longest time I was convinced that morality had to be objective; that the only variable was our understanding of morality, whereas morality itself was fixed and absolute.

But, the way I understand and see things now, morality is a subjective concept that evolves with us and needs to be reasoned into. I believe morality is influenced (but not determined) by public opinion, while also recognising that just because something is popular doesn’t make it right. It is still a very personal (hence subjective) concept but, when developing a firm moral position, it must necessarily conform with reason, rationality, and reality.

As Alex O’Connor of CosmicSkeptic explains in the video I will include hereunder, morality is the conception that ‘we ought to do that which is good, and ought not do that which is bad’ (i.e., it is a subjective philosophy); subjective because ‘why ought we do anything’?

However, conceding that this is logically the case (however subjective it may be; because most would rightly agree that we ought to do that which is good, and ought not do that which is bad), right acts and wrong acts should still be objective, right? Murder is objectively immoral because we ought not do that which is bad… and the intentional killing of another person (sentient being?) without reasonable justification is bad, no?

See CosmicSkeptic explain this more succinctly in:

Morality Can’t Be Objective, Even If God Exists (Morality p.1)


He goes on to clarify things in making his case for subjective morality by comparing morality to the colour blue being the best colour. At this moment, I think it is a fair and helpful analogy (i.e., I can’t currently find any flaws with it). Just like colour, perhaps morality isn’t capable of being objective. Even if everyone in the world preferred blue over every other colour (i.e., everybody thinks that the statement ‘one ought to use blue as the first option in anything they do involving colour’ should be ‘blue is the first option one considers when doing anything involving colour’), blue being the best colour still wouldn’t be an objective fact. It would just be objectively true that everyone subjectively believes blue to be the best colour. Same with morality. It is objectively the case that everyone subjectively feels as though we ought do that which is good and ought not to do that which is bad. And, I again argue that what is good and bad, perhaps can be arrived at objectively (based on circumstance, context, and definition etc.)

See CosmicSkeptic again explain this more succinctly in:

Sam Harris is Wrong About Morality (It Can’t Be Objective)


Moreover, it seems logical that morality is a relative construct, in that it must abide by our current understanding of reality, informed (in part) by the scientific method. (This must be contrasted with Cultural Relativism, which is deeply flawed).

Morality — and philosophy in general — can be complex and complicated, but I hope to distill in this post what is, I believe to be, the philosophical framework to end them all.

I’m going to argue for a foundational morality, establishing a basic framework from which humanity should operate (expanding on and determining exceptions as we go along).

Essentially, this moral framework argues for a “bare-minimum” of moral consideration that moral agents ought to extend to moral patients as well as strive to uphold as they go about their lives (explained further below).

As I maintain, morality can be summed up pretty nicely as follows:

  1. A particular action or choice is moral or right when it somehow promotes happiness, wellbeing, or health AND/OR somehow minimises unnecessary harm or suffering; and
  2. A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong when it somehow diminishes happiness, wellbeing, or health AND/OR promotes or causes unnecessary harm or suffering.

Please also note that, when I refer to flourishing, I define this word to mean: ‘the experience of joy in such a way that wellbeing is improved, heightened or maximised’. And, when I refer to suffering, I define this word to mean: ‘the experience of pain in such a way that wellbeing is diminished, damaged or destroyed’.

I’m not certain that I’ll ever truly fully understand morality. However, after watching some videos, listening to some audio and reading some material, I think I finally somewhat understand the ‘is-ought conundrum‘.

Okay, so accepting that we can never get an ‘ought‘ from an ‘is‘, we ought to (see what I did there?) agree that ‘ought‘ statements will always be subjective, while ‘is‘ statements will always be objective.

The rule here is that what ‘isdescribes a fact (i.e., the actual state of affairs), whereas what ‘ought to beprescribes an outlook (i.e., the idyllic state of affairs).

Sentience: What is it & Why is it So Important?

Briefly, sentience refers to a living organism’s consciousness and ability to have a subjective experience of the world such that said organism (specifically a human or non-human animal) is objectively capable of suffering and flourishing.

Sentience is, I will argue, a crucial component to the concept of morality. Morality (what is right or wrong, good or bad) only makes sense through the lens of sentience (see ‘My Thoughts on Sentientism: As a Moral Framework’ below) because only those who can enjoy a conscious, subjective experience of reality, pursue pleasure as well as avoid pain, are affected by moral matters.

Us humans could dispense with the whole concept of morality entirely if we weren’t sentient because nothing would matter (neither pleasure nor pain), and we could simply embrace nihilism wholeheartedly.

This means that, since sentience is an important factor — if not the most important factor — in what behaviour humans consider moral or immoral (i.e., how does the behaviour of one affect the wellbeing of another, such that the latter’s subjective experience is either impaired or improved as a result) in the human context, it follows that anyone regarded as sentient (human or not) should receive moral consideration from anyone considered a moral agent.

If we take wellbeing as the primary goal morality seeks to uphold, then anything capable of experiencing happiness, pleasure, pain, and suffering — at the very least — should be granted moral worth.

Therefore, anything that is sentient — is conscious, has self-awareness and is capable of feeling pleasure and pain — should be granted moral worth.

There is a wealth of science on the issue of sentience, and it has been overwhelmingly shown that both human and non-human animals are sentient.

We can draw inspiration from Secular Humanism or expand it to include all sentient life, a task which cannot be undertaken when using religion as our basis for morality.

Moral Agents + Moral Patients

Moral agency is an individual’s ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is “a being who is capable of acting in accordance with right and wrong.

Moral patients are those that are deserving of moral consideration (i.e., individuals inherently possessing moral worth). Moral patients are entities towards which moral agents incur a moral responsibility. Only moral agents can function as the bearers of moral obligations towards others, while moral patients are the objects of the moral obligations of others, but need not themselves be capable of moral agency.

Ergo, both moral agents and moral patients possess moral worth, but not all moral patients possess moral agency.

Moral agents are pretty easy to identify, but who should be considered a moral patient?

Again, no other moral framework can lock down the necessary trait that objectively imbues an individual/organism/entity with moral worth, that isn’t unhelpfully arbitrary or clouded in mysticism, than Sentientism.

Following reason, rationality and a critical understanding of reality, Sentientism states that sentience prescribes moral worth. Therefore, anyone with sentience is deserving of moral worth and can, thus, be considered a moral patient.

Insentient entities may be allocated some moral worth, but such will be limited by the extent to which same requires protection for the benefit of sentient beings.

The Minimum Viable Moral Consideration Framework

This bare-minimum of moral consideration is what I like to call “THE MINIMUM VIABLE MORAL CONSIDERATION FRAMEWORK” or “MVMC” for short. I establish this framework upfront because I disagree with hard anti-speciesism which argues for the equal moral consideration of all species, ignoring the fact that sentience lies on a spectrum as well as the fact that this stance would lead to absurd conclusions whereby the interests of non-humans could usurp human interests.

I’m going to make a concession upfront — I believe in what I’m just going to call soft-speciesism (or soft anti-speciesism, depending on your mood for the day).

This means that I think it’s perfectly acceptable to prioritise the interests of humans over other sentient life. Being a member of this particular species, I believe this is a rational position to hold.

This will make a lot more sense in the context of competing rights.

Sure, ‘competing rights’ is a legal construct but, from what I can tell, it still makes for the best exception to this notion that ‘we ought to treat all sentient life equally‘.

However, I would just like to point out that the last line above is somewhat of a misnomer in Sentientism. All Sentientism calls for is ‘equal moral consideration of all sentient life‘. This just means that sentience is an important enough trait to be included in human’s moral concern… and not that all sentient life is deserving of, or ought to receive, equal moral treatment in all contexts.

Logically, as a species, humans would have to prioritise their own interests and wellbeing over that of other species’, whilst not intentionally and unnecessarily undermining the latter’s wellbeing or going out of the way to inflict pain and suffering in the process.

MVMC suggests that it is entirely possible to live in harmony with other sentient life on this planet by merely giving other species the benefit of the doubt enough to leave them alone, insofar as same is practical and possible.

A good argument can be made for veganism in this instance, in that:

Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans, and the environment. In dietary terms, it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.” — The Vegan Society1

Following the definition above, especially considered in the context of MVMC, we can hopefully recognise the difference between granting special rights to other sentient organisms (wherein human utility is lost) and merely expanding our moral scope because we are able to appreciate that the benefit humans gain at the expense of other sentient life is unnecessary and simply cannot be morally justified.

Welcome to Sentientism

A moral philosophy that encompasses secular morality, humanism and veganism, at least as starting points. It is an ethical viewpoint which places sentient individuals (i.e., — conscious life) at the centre of moral concern and is grounded in the principle of wellbeing.

It draws from secular humanism, but goes even further by grounding moral consideration in ‘sentience’ (defined and discussed above), in addition to wellbeing.

As with humanism, Sentientism embraces reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while rejecting dogma, the supernatural and superstitious belief.

It also holds that moral agents are capable of reasoning into ethics and morality, as well as live an ethical and moral life sans religion or a god-belief.

I Am a Secular Sentiocentrist (AKA a Sentientist)

I am not a Secular Humanist, but rather a Secular Sentiocentrist (or Sentientist), as secular humanism is a bit too anthropocentric for my taste.

Not only that, but I think sentientist is a more accurate description of my identity than merely an atheist or a humanist or a vegan, as Sentientism is a philosophy that encompasses all of these (and more) and (almost) completely explains my entire worldview.

I was introduced to Sentientism in my efforts to discover a secular moral philosophy that was more inclusive of our non-human neighbours and, in so doing, what I found was something that went so much deeper than that.

I first read the Wikipedia article, which gave me a great overview of what Sentientism is, but it was this article by Jamie Woodhouse that helped me fully understand Sentientism in the context of relevant or related philosophies.

Furthermore, I now wish to reconcile Sentientism with my current belief system and show how closely it aligns with the worldview I already do my best to live in accordance with.

I aim to explain myself as succinctly as possible by discussing the following topics:

  1. Atheism & Scepticism;
  2. Veganism & Speciesism;
  3. Human Rights & Humanity; and
  4. Extraterrestrials & Artificial Intelligence.

If most of what I cover below resonates with you at all, it might be time to consider whether you, too, are a Sentientist.

Atheism & Scepticism

Like Humanism, Sentientism embraces a naturalistic worldview.

There is no place within reason and rationality for faith in the supernatural.

The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence to warrant conviction.

And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In light of the above, the major claims being made by theists need to be supported by a preponderance of evidence, for which they have submitted nothing of import.

The natural is all we know, with a significant degree of certainty, to be true and is grounded firmly in reality; it is the only trustworthy source of data we have, explained to great effect through reason, rationality, and science.

So, when it comes to morality, we can safely throw God right out the window.

I mean, how on God’s green earth (pun very much intended) can morality manifest from something that cannot be shown to even exist? It’s absurd!

This is a great thing for non-human sentient creatures, since theists believe that humans are God’s gift to the universe and that Earth (along with any other place we are able to appropriate) is ours to do with as we please.

Humans are the only people2 who God graced with a soul, therefore that means anything other than human (even if it is sentient) is insignificant and unworthy of moral consideration.

Theism is grossly anthropocentric and speciesist (with God being the only thing granted more consideration than our own species3)

Veganism & Speciesism

As stated, Sentientism is practically Humanism expanded to include sentient life.

In a way, it is a philosophy that embraces veganism.

However, I would just like to add the caveat that, although the major principles of veganism are covered under Sentientism, Sentientism could be seen as an attempt to restrain as well as expand upon veganism (because veganism grants all non-human animals moral worth, regardless of sentience, but wouldn’t necessarily advocate for the rights of sentient creatures who aren’t members of the animal kingdom).

Additionally, Sentientism reigns in the vegans themselves — the humans who have adopted veganism — by requiring that they live their lives in accordance with rationality and reason, apply healthy doses of scepticism to their thoughts and opinions and reject supernatural claims, superstitious beliefs and unsubstantiated nonsense etc.

I’d like to borrow from The Vegan Society’s definition of veganism to formulate a secular moral philosophy for the twenty-first century, as follows:

All moral agents ought to adopt a way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, all sentient life — whether for food, labour, clothing, entertainment or any other purpose — by virtue of their inherent moral worth; and, by extension, only engage in that behaviour which either promotes wellbeing, minimises unnecessary harm, doesn’t diminish wellbeing and/or doesn’t promote / cause unnecessary harm.

Human Rights & Humanity

Something all sane people accept (I hope) is a version of my MVMC framework (above) in relation to humans, in that we should grant everyone certain inviolable rights, such as life, freedom, respect, decency, and dignity.

Even though young children and the mentally handicapped have limited rights (e.g., they cannot legally drive, vote or hold office — unless specifically granted any of these rights via court order) society has placed an even greater obligation on everyone else to take particular care when interacting with these individuals, due to their vulnerable status, and ensure their basic rights are not unfairly violated.

This is what Humanism advocates for, and it is these rights which sentientists wish to extend to sentient beings.

We are not asking for special rights or privileges, but just that we recognise certain vulnerabilities enough to, at the very least, refrain from the subjugation, manipulation, and exploitation of sentient life.

Kindly note that I will be discussing the moral implications of abortion, antinatalism, suicide and euthanasia elsewhere.

Extraterrestrials & Artificial Intelligence

I’m not going to go into much detail on this topic.

The logical conclusion of Sentientism is that, in the event we find ourselves in the situation where the sentience of AI and aliens is called into question, those that are shown to possess sentience should be extended our moral consideration.

Practically, Sentientism leaves the door open for the inclusivity of anyone (not limited to species or some other arbitrary feature) who is shown to be sentient.

My Thoughts on Sentientism

As a Moral Framework


Given that sentience ought to be positioned at the centre of moral concern, Sentientism is a philosophy and school of thought that completes one’s ethical and moral framework.

Sentientism, I believe, takes morality to its natural conclusion. No other system makes such a logical case for what should be included in our (humans) moral consideration.

Through reason, rationality, and science (as opposed to the supernatural, religion, and faith), Sentientism draws hard moral lines uncorrupted by the unjustifiable prejudice that afflicts other moral positions.

It recognises that morality is subjective, but that this fact does not mean anything goes when it comes to questions of right and wrong. Sentientism merely provides the most reasonable (in my mind) framework against which we can assess whether we are acting morally in any given situation.

Sentientism is an argument for addressing moral questions through the application of reason, rather than by way of some arbitrary or mystical mechanism.

Sentientism proposes that all sentient creatures are different (and within each subgroup of sentient life there are differences) and that all such differences are vast and profound… but that no amount of difference, which separates one sentient organism from the next, is morally relevant.

Given our subjective agreement that ‘we ought to do that which is good and ought not do that which is bad’ (see ‘The Nature of Morality’ above), can that which we consider ‘good’ or ‘bad’ be objective facts? Can we say that something is good or is bad? I argue that this is true and that Sentientism provides the best mechanism at our disposal to prove whether something is objectively good or bad.

If you somehow disagree with the above, I subjectively consider you to have a skewed moral belief system (as I believe most people would), are an immoral person, will likely act immorally as a result and, consequently, should be separated from civilised society.

What ‘is’ morality if not ‘for’ those who can suffer and flourish?

In my mind, the entire concept of ‘what is right and what is wrong’ requires a consideration of ‘who’ might or will be affected by another’s actions; and Sentientism takes direct aim at humanity’s antiquated assumption that the ‘who’ in this equation is obviously reference to humans only and that we need not consider anything or anyone else.

Yet, isn’t this conflating the ‘by whom’ with the ‘for whom’, as if only those who can reason into a moral position ought to benefit from it (see moral agents versus moral patients above).

Morality, then, is determined by the consequences of one’s actions on all those BESIDES the individual taking — or refraining from taking — a positive step.

It is not a moral matter if the only person being adversely affected or benefitting from our conduct is us personally. It is also not a moral matter if our actions cannot cause an entity, which is being ACTED UPON by us (either positively or negatively), to either suffer or flourish as a result, since the consequences (if isolated to said unaffected entity) are necessarily neutral.

So, the questions become threefold:

  1. Can an entity (besides ourselves) be affected — positively or negatively — by our actions in such a way that it could be said to either suffer or flourish as a result?
  2. And, if the answer to (1) above is no, would ACTING DIRECTLY UPON that same entity — either positively or negatively — indirectly affect another entity in such a way that the latter either suffers or flourishes as a result?
  3. And, furthermore, would ACTING UPON OURSELVES — either positively or negatively — indirectly affect another entity in such a way that the latter either suffers or flourishes as a result?

If the answer to ANY ONE question above is a ‘YES’, then how we act in a given scenario becomes subject to moral scrutiny.

If the answer to ALL questions is a ‘NO’, then how we act in a given scenario is morally neutral.

Sentientism states that any sentient living individual (i.e., a conscious being), by definition, is capable of suffering and flourishing and, therefore, any action which, either directly or indirectly and either positively or negatively, affects this sentient entity must be subjected to moral enquiry and the sentient entity in question should, likewise, receive our moral consideration.

Ergo:

  1. A particular action or choice IS, objectively, moral or right when it somehow promotes the happiness, wellbeing, or health of a sentient being AND/OR somehow minimises the unnecessary harm or suffering of a sentient being; and
  2. A particular action or choice IS, objectively, immoral or wrong when it somehow diminishes the happiness, wellbeing, or health of a sentient being AND/OR promotes or causes the unnecessary harm or suffering of a sentient being.

Consequently, and as a quick side-note, only the acts and omissions of moral agents fall within the moral domain and are subject to moral scrutiny; the thoughts and feelings etc. of moral agents being immune from moral enquiry. Adversely, moral patients (since they lack agency) are completely immune from moral enquiry and scrutiny.

The Fundamental Tenets of (my) Sentientism

If I had to distill (my understanding of) Sentientism into a paragraph, I would say:

“Sentientism is a secular, naturalistic ethical philosophy placing sentience at the centre of moral concern. It is a worldview which rejects the supernatural in favour of reason, rationality and a critical understanding regarding the nature of reality. Moreover, it regards those who are capable of suffering and flourishing as worthy of moral consideration by those whom possess the capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, as well as act in accordance with this understanding.”

However, in my mind, Sentientism means you (at the very least) hold the following beliefs, values, and attitudes:

  1. Only once one sufficiently demonstrates something to be true, should we be inclined to believe them. This doesn’t mean that we need to be 100% certain of something in order to believe it — or that we are even capable of 100% certainty of anything in life — or that every instance of existence must be personally rigorously scrutinised by each individual person before they accept something as an undeniable fact. The prudent thing to do is use reason, rationality, and reality to guide us in our decision-making. Additionally, the confidence we place in the veracity of a claim ought to scale with the nature of the assertion being made. In other words, we are perfectly justified in outright rejecting extraordinary claims made with little (to no) evidence in support of same, and we are, likewise, justified in accepting otherwise ordinary claims without necessarily requiring much (if any) evidence before accepting them.
  2. Speciesism, anthropocentrism and/or human supremacy is an irrational and arbitrary basis upon which to found morality. All sentient life is deserving of a baseline level of moral consideration (MVMC), requiring that all those with moral agency do whatever is practical and possible (i.e., whatever is within their power) to minimise the amount of harm and suffering they cause to anyone possessing moral worth.

“With great power comes great responsibility” — proverb popularised by the Spider-Man comic books written by Stan Lee

  1. All moral agents incur an inherent obligation towards society to live in accordance with rational thought, cause the least amount of harm while alive, and protect the most vulnerable among them. Furthermore, they have a duty to protect and care for those in respect of whom they are guardians (e.g., young children, non-human animals and the mentally handicapped in their care) and, although only a virtue, they ought to do their best to improve the wellbeing of anyone suffering as a result of circumstances beyond their control.

Perfection is Not the Goal

Obviously, the extent of moral consideration we extend should scale with the level of sentience displayed by a particular organism.

For instance, all vertebrates are undeniably sentient and should receive a higher degree of moral consideration than invertebrates. And, since the majority of non-human animals (including invertebrates) likely possess some degree of sentience, we should err on the side of caution before taking a course of action that could harm or damage an organism (particularly non-human animals) where sentience is unclear.

In other words, when dealing with invertebrates, we should still not go out of our way to cause them harm when same is easily avoidable, but they need not necessarily receive our moral concern if such would require that we go out of our way to ensure we cause them no harm.

This is why, I believe, killing insects as a result of going about our daily life is not morally wrong because to avoid doing so would place an unjustifiable burden on humanity that could impair the quality of our life. However, to hunt down a spider in our garden just so we can smash it with our shoe (perhaps because we don’t particularly enjoy the look of spiders) would be morally wrong. Because, even though the sentience of a spider might be considered ‘borderline insignificant’, the fact that it might possess a significant degree of sentience (of which we are just not yet aware) is reason enough to refrain from taking active steps to cause said spider harm.

And, finally, even though we could say that humans lead this ‘invisible hierarchy of sentience’, we still accept that some accidental (human) deaths are unavoidable (e.g., deaths in the construction industry, workplace accidents and car crashes etc.). The same goes for animals. Even if we know that a certain animal species displays significant markers of sentience (i.e., is sentient), we still appreciate that a certain number of accidental deaths will inevitably occur as a result of human activity.

For example, millions of small critters have been known to die in the process of crop harvesting (and, obviously, insects will be killed from pesticides), but we regard these incidents as a necessary evil since we need those crops. We ought to do our best to mitigate the damage we cause but, sometimes and despite our best efforts, accidents do happen.

Side-note: not only are these animals small and difficult to detect, but most agriculture is owned and operated by non-vegan companies who don’t really care about the lives of non-human animals at the best of times. Humans, at minimum, have to eat plants to survive so, until veganic farming becomes mainstream, we are left with little option but to buy our fruits & veg etc. from these non-vegan operations.

Nevertheless, it is extremely disingenuous to equate the death of animals (unintentionally killed as a result of harvesting crops) to the trillions of non-human animals we forcibly breed into existence, torture and murder, all so that we can use their bodies for our personal consumption.

Are You a Sentientist?

If you are an atheist, sceptic, or use reason and rationality to form your opinions, beliefs, attitudes and morality, you may also be a sentientist…


If you are a humanist and/or care about human rights, people who have been unfairly discriminated against or those who have been victims of violence/hate crimes, you may also be a sentientist…


If you are a vegan and/or care about animal rights, non-human animals who have been unfairly treated or those who have been abused, tortured and/or killed at the hands of humans who should know better, you may also be a sentientist…


If you care about justice, believe that the status quo is not necessarily always correct and/or that we ought to do everything in our power to stand up for ourselves and others, you may also be a sentientist…


If you are interested in finding out more about Sentientism, please visit the Sentientism Quora Space I set up for this purpose, and be sure to follow the links included therein.


.

  1. Notice that veganism doesn’t
    advocate for the impossible goal of eliminating all harm; just that we ought to live our lives in such a way that doesn’t perpetuate unnecessary violence. https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
  2. I just want to say, real quick, that I believe that we should be allowed to use the words ‘person’ and ‘people’ and ‘individuals’ and ‘someone’ etc. in reference to sentient beings and not just human beings.
  3. Isn’t that fucking funny?! An imaginary monster is given more decency and respect (by theists) than actual thinking, feeling, sentient beings who we absolutely know, without a doubt, exist in reality and suffer terribly to satiate our selfish desires. Isn’t that the fucking joke of the century?!

You May Also Like…

Under the Radar

Under the Radar

I am talking to the person who is not letting themselves be open, honest and authentic, afraid that who they are is ‘not good enough’, is an imposter and a fraud; is unworthy of respect, dignity and love.

The 8 Sinister Lifestyle Traps Destroying Our Health

The 8 Sinister Lifestyle Traps Destroying Our Health

There are eight things we should all eliminate from our lives or simply avoid with our life. How many of these harmful habits do you engage in? And, more importantly, could you ever live without them?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback

[…] is an ethical position, okay! Just because it dictates what makes it past my lips and into my stomach is […]