Agora: Red Deer Polytechnic Undergraduate Journal
Volume 14:1 2023 Agora Conference Proceedings

A Critique of the Sentience View of Personhood
Julian Morales
To anyone concerned with the field of ethics, the question of what deserves moral
consideration is an important one. Without a sufficient basis to which moral consideration can be
granted, how can anyone say for certain if something is wrong, or right? This question has, of
course, been tackled before, and has been answered with three general views on what beings fall
under moral consideration. Those being, The Humanist view, the Sentience view, and the
Cognitive view. The Humanist view takes only human beings into moral consideration, the
Sentience view takes any beings that can feel pain/pleasure into moral consideration, and the
Cognitive view only takes beings who have capable intellectual faculties into moral consideration.
The major moral systems out there, generally take one of these views. For example, Utilitarianism
is most likely to take the Sentience view, after all, this view seems to make the most sense to them.
Utilitarianism1 is a view which calculates the moral value of actions based on the amount of utility
(or happiness) the action produces. They are primarily concerned with the ability for beings to
suffer and feel pleasure, not of their species (as Humanists do), or their cognitive faculties (such
as with the Cognitive view). However, The Utilitarian (specifically Peter Singer) takes the
Sentience view to its absolute logical conclusion and surmises that not only do sentient beings
deserve moral consideration, but that they deserve equal consideration in relation to human beings
(Singer 119). What is interesting, is that the Utilitarian does not have to come to this conclusion,
nor must they take the sentience view of personhood. In fact, it is both fully logical, and intuitive
to not factor other sentient beings into the Utilitarian equation; and adopt a view that falls more in
line with a cognitive one.
Let’s first examine the currently accepted Utilitarian view of moral personhood. This view
was initially brought forth by Jeremy Bentham in his work: An Introduction to Morals and
Legislation: “The question is not Can they reason? or Can they talk? but Can they suffer?”
(Bentham 384). The view introduced by Bentham (and thus held by Singer) is the Sentience view,

1

As described by Mill, Utilitarianism states that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 160).

which is concerned with whether beings are sentient (sentience, in this case, is the ability for beings
to suffer, feel pleasure, and have preferences (Singer 50, 80)). Singer claims that “If a being suffers,
there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.” (50). He
then goes on to conclude that the Sentience view “is the only defensible boundary of concern for
the interests of others” (50). At first glance, he may seem correct, especially if one is a Utilitarian.
However, this logic ultimately leads to the cessation of the consumption of animals or the use of
animals in general. Granted, Singer is a Utilitarian and thus does not conclude that animal use
should always be out of the question, he just makes it clear that typically the amount of suffering
caused by animals to be used in food production and animal consumption is greater than the
suffering that we gain from those fields. Singer uses the term ‘Speciesism’ a lot in his book. This
term effectively means the valuing of our own species over another (Singer 49). Singer often likes
to equate speciesism with that of racism, claiming that humans valuing other humans’ interests
over that of animals is effectively equivalent from a moral stance to valuing white people over
blacks or valuing men over women. At first glance, this seems logical, but it is not intuitive.
Let us presume that speciesism is equivalent to racism and sexism. This would mean that
it would be morally wrong for someone to save five people from a burning building over ten cats.
It would be effectively the same as a white man saving five other white men in favour of ten black
women. Of course, when actually comparing these two scenarios, one seems perfectly justifiable,
whereas the other does not. Does this mean that human beings are intuitively speciesist? Yes, and
that is perfectly okay. Bonnie Steinbock makes the claim “We do not subject animals to different
moral treatment simply because they have fur and feathers, but because they are in fact different
from human beings in ways that could be morally relevant.” (247). An animal is indeed sentient,
but it is different enough from a human being for its interests to be unequally weighed. Of course,
people of other moral philosophies are already convinced of this. The Kantian would value humans
over animals due to their rational autonomy. The Contractarian does not value animal interests
because they are not moral agents. But how can the Utilitarian justify this? To the Utilitarian, the
degree of difference would seem to be arbitrary. After all, the animal can seemingly suffer, and
the animal seemingly has a preference not to suffer. So, what can the Utilitarian do?
John Stuart Mill has a potential solution to this problem. Mill claims firstly, that “Human
beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites,” (161). Mill believes that human
beings possess a certain type of ‘dignity’, an ability exclusive to human beings, that allows us to
92

enjoy higher pleasures than that of animals. He claims that “Few human creatures would consent
to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s
pleasures” (163). With this, he is effectively stating that human beings, because of their ability to
enjoy ‘higher’ pleasures, will thus not willingly live a life that animals live. This relates to the
argument at hand because according to Mill, animals are only able to experience these ‘lower’
pleasures (161). In a way, Mill’s argument is reminiscent of Kant’s views on humanity, it
effectively is taking a cognitive view and applies it to Utilitarianism. With that in mind, how should
animals thusly be treated under Mill’s view? By implying that animals are not capable of
experiencing any higher form of pleasure, their suffering is only to the extent of which they can
experience pleasure. For example, an animal (presumably) cannot have any hopes and dreams, nor
can they have any regrets, or knowledge of their impending death; therefore, they would ultimately
be suffering less than if a human were suffering in the exact same way. Say we are to hit a horse,
in a way that it would cause an equal amount of pain if we were to slap a human in the face. Even
if that horse is experiencing an equivalent amount of pain from that action, it would not be suffering
the same as a human who was hit in the exact same way. The horse may not question why it was
hit, the human would. The man may seek revenge, or seek justice for what had been done to him,
whereas the horse likely will not. There would be no reason behind its actions that are beyond that
of pure instinct. This could then technically justify the use of animals as food, as the suffering they
would endure by being killed would not be relevant, as we as humans still gain more from eating
them. For example, eating may be a lower pleasure, but a refined palate, which entails an
enjoyment of good food, may not be. Therefore, animals would be providing humans with both a
lower and higher pleasure by being used as food. The same could apply to using animals in science
experiments. The pain the animal goes through in the experiment is outweighed by the benefit it
would grant society.
A potential objection to this, would be supplementing animals for infants, or perhaps
people who have profound intellectual disabilities. These people can presumably not experience
any sort of higher pleasure, at least in their current state. If this is true, then would that make it
morally acceptable to use infants and/or people with profound intellectual disabilities in scientific
experiments? Intuitively, it may seem like the answer is no, but logically it may seem that it may
be the conclusion. However, there is a way that the Utilitarian can exit this troubling implication.
It is easy to opt the infant out of this, one could simply say that the infant will be capable of
93

experiencing higher pleasures once they get older2. As for the person with severe intellectual
disabilities, it could be argued that one could possibly end up in such a state later in life, so they
could have a preference to not be experimented on if they end up in such a state. This would imply
that someone who is born with a profound intellectual disability does not deserve equal moral
consideration, to that of other humans. While yes, this is possibly true, there is but one final way
the Utilitarian can justify not experimenting on them.
The way that this can be justified, is by appealing to collective utility. As utilitarianism is
focused on an equation that takes both suffering and utility into consideration; an experiment
involving someone who is born with a profound intellectual disability would not (in most
circumstances) be experimented on because it would be seen as appalling or monstrous to most
people. They (being the masses) would likely prefer that an animal be used for experimenting than
a person with a profound intellectual disability, therefore meaning that performing an experiment
on a person with a profound intellectual disability would not be the utility maximizing option.
These conclusions do not mean that animals should be treated with absolutely no regard.
In fact, I would argue that animals do deserve some moral consideration, though not to the extent
that Peter Singer has posed. Humans need not become vegans; however, we also need not become
animal abusers. The production of animal products produces utility for human beings, as does
animal experimentation. What utility does the pointless abuse of an animal produce? If someone
were to walk up to a cat, and for no reason other than they felt like it, decided to kick it, did they
do a good thing? Most would argue that they did not. On a surface level, kicking that cat gave
whoever kicked it a small (or even great) amount of pleasure. Had anyone else seen it, their feeling
of horror would probably outweigh the amount of utility produced by whoever kicked the cat. But
provided that this act happened in a place where no one was around to see, aside from the cat, and
the man kicking the cat, did he do anything wrong? Yes, but not because he hurt the cat3. The
reason why he did something wrong is not in the action in itself, but in the potential for this action
to be repeated towards actual persons. This is a Kantian argument, though I believe it can be

2

This has potentially troubling implications regarding abortions, though it can be opted out of using the Utilitarian
perspective. Utilitarians do not believe in inherent rights, so if the suffering the mother is going through outweighs
the fetus’ desire to not be killed (or the mother believes that the fetus will have a poor quality of life), then an
abortion would be permissible under those circumstances.
3
For the sake of this argument, I am presuming that animals do not count as moral ‘persons’ as they do not meet the
required cognitive faculties. Therefore, the pain they experience does not need to be accounted for in a Utilitarian
equation.

94

applied (with some stipulations) to a Utilitarian perspective. Kant famously claims that “he must
practise kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings
with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” (240). If this argument
were to be lifted from Kant at face value, then one would effectively have to adopt Kant’s entire
theory of reason and ethics and then would not be a Utilitarian. However, with some modifications,
the core of this argument can fit within a Utilitarian viewpoint.
On its own, this view takes intentions into consideration over the outcome, which of course,
is rooted in Deontology, not Consequentialism4. It presumes that if someone is cruel to animals,
they intend to be cruel to people. However, though a Utilitarian could argue it would be morally
permissible if someone is cruel to animals and never is cruel to people, it usually is not that way.
If most people who are cruel to animals also tend to do cruel things to people, then it would benefit
the greater good to persecute those who a cruel to animals as it could avoid potential suffering to
humans in the future. Though this argument is rooted within Kantianism, it can make perfect sense
to be applicable to Utilitarianism, as the consequences of letting people who are cruel to animals
roam free far outweigh the consequences of persecuting them. This conclusion would also apply
to human beings that do not have the cognitive faculties to experience true pleasure, such as infants
or people with intellectual disabilities.
In conclusion, animals are not moral ‘persons’ as Singer suggests. Though Utilitarians have
traditionally taken the Sentience view, it makes more sense to take the Cognitive view in regard to
moral personhood. With this view, animals still have some protection based on how those who
treat them could one day treat humans. Any sort of margins of the Cognitive view can be answered
logically. Though fetuses and infants do not technically have the faculties to experience true
pleasure, they are considered because they one day will gain those faculties. As for people who
become intellectually disabled, they once did have those faculties, and while they did, would
probably not wish that they were to be experimented on. Finally, as for people born that way, it is
better off to favour animals in experimentation as it ends up upsetting fewer people. As a final
remark, accepting this form of a Cognitive view is probably the only way that Utilitarianism cannot
be seen as requiring too much of people when regarding the moral consideration of other beings.

4

Deontological ethics determine an action to be morally good due to some aspect behind an action, rather than the
outcome of an action (Britannica “deontological ethics”). Consequentialist ethics determine that an action is right or
wrong based upon the outcomes (or consequences) of an action (Britannica “consequentialism”).

95

Works Cited

Bentham, Jeremy. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. 1789. Dover
Publications, 2012.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Deontological Ethics". Encyclopedia Britannica, 7
April 2023, www.britannica.com/topic/process-philosophy. Accessed 6 May 2023.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Consequentialism". Encyclopedia Britannica, 14
Dec. 2022, www.britannica.com/topic/process-philosophy. Accessed 6 May 2023.
Kant, Immanuel. Lectures on Ethics. Translated by Louis Infield. Methuen and Co Ltd., 1930.
Mill, John Stuart. On Utilitarianism. 1871. Bantam Classic ed., Bantam Dell, 2008.
Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, 21 Feb. 2011.
Steinbock, Bonnie. “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality.” Philosophy, vol. 53, no. 204, Apr.
1978, pp. 247–256 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100016582

96