Jump to content

Talk:Sentientism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed Merger

[edit]
  • Don't merge – Hi. I'd suggest Sentiocentrism and Sentientism are not merged as they are distinct, but related, philosophies. Sentientism can be seen as an an extension of Humanism to cover all sentient beings. In common with Humanism, Sentientism explicitly commits to the use of evidence and reason when determining sentience and making moral decisions. Sentientism, like Humanism, therefore rejects supernatural beliefs and moral rationales. Sentiocentrism is silent on that front. Further thoughts very welcome. --JamieWoodhouse (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont merge. Sentientism is a modern unifying philosophy that takes the reason and evidence-based position that all sentient beings are worthy of moral consideration because they are sentient (conscious) beings with the capacity to have 'experiences'. A genuine conscious 'experiencer' is a moral subject regardless of species or substrate because of that fact. This does not limit other potential intrinsic values or moral concerns but provides the space for the most fundamental consideration, that of 'consciousness'. This is distinct from Sentiocentrism which could be classified as an older less well-defined branch of Sentientism. --Brendon Smale (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Merge - The association with humanism, naturalism, or atheism is not found in any of the references on Sentientism, except the one by JamieWoodhouse himself. Woodhouse has been promoting his conception of sentientism as an upgrade to humanism on various blogging platforms and social media (e.g., [1]), but the original conception of the word doesn't have that connotation, as far as I can tell. Until his version of Sentientism receives reliable, independent citations, it isn't notable enough for a separate article. In the philosophical literature, the terms sentientism and sentiocentrism appear to be synonyms. (In fact, even if there were a minor difference, this wouldn't necessarily justify having a separate article. However, there doesn't seem to be any substantial difference.) For example:
  • [2]: "Sentiocentrism, also known as sentientism, claims that all and only sentient beings can be morally concerned."
  • [3]: seems to regard them as synonyms
  • [4]: (p. 173) "Cette forme d'égalitarisme radical articulé autour du seul critère de la sensibilité justifie que l'on parle parfois de sentientism ([...]) ou sentiocentrism." (Translation: "This form of radical egalitarianism articulated around the sole criterion of sentience justifies that we sometimes speak of sentientism or sentiocentrism.")
  • [5]: "Det händer att det refereras till sentientism som sentiocentrism för att koppla termen till den centristiska terminologi." (Translation: "Sometimes sentientism is referred to as sentiocentrism to link it to the centrist terminology [such as ecocentrism, etc.]")
  • Don't merge – Can we reverse the merging until we've had a chance to discuss this further? The merge has removed all of the sentientism references (there are many more than for the term sentiocentrism). Sentiocentrism and Sentientism are distinct, but related, philosophies. Sentientism can be seen as an an extension of Humanism to cover all sentient beings. In common with Humanism, Sentientism explicitly commits to the use of evidence and reason when determining sentience and making moral decisions - this was the basis of the term when created by Richard Ryder and Peter Singer in the 1970s. Sentiocentrism is silent on that front so remains open to supernatural rationales. The term sentientism is not a neologism as can be seen from the decades old references. It is also more prevalent as a modern term than sentiocentrism as per the recent book Sentientist Politics by Alasdair Cochrane - also referenced. --JamieWoodhouse (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger (2020 discussion)

[edit]
  • Do Merge: Could we revisit this? I'm rusty on my animal ethics, but from reading the articles that define these terms, particularly those pointed out by Throughthemind above, I'm struggling to see enough of a distinction to justify two separate articles. I have not seen anyone other than Jamie Woodhouse assert a distinction between the two, which could be mentioned in the merged article. It could even have its own section. I am concerned that having two separate articles will confuse readers. At a minimum, I think the articles should more clearly explain Woodhouse's distinction, perhaps with a section heading. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do merge: I agree with the idea of a merger, and was going to propose it myself (then saw the Talk page threads). I see very little difference between the two. They are so closely related that they would be better served in a single article so that a distinction between them (if there is one) could be highlighted. I added merge templates at the top of both articles... directing discussion to this thread. Normal Op (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Should we add an RFC or something to get more people to chime in? Jmill1806 (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge: I oppose because; 1.: because the concepts also oppose each other, one is about raising sentience as an issue and the other is about prioritizing sentience; 2.: it would make the article too long; 3.: I dont see a problem to have it in two articles instead of adding a long subchapter in the other article. PS: I do see that the difference can be vague, but the future will tell if the literature will converge the terms or differentiate further Nsae Comp (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. For what it's worth, I don't even know which articles you are referring to when you say "one is about raising sentience as an issue and the other is about prioritizing sentience." I think both terms qualify for both of those definitions! Jmill1806 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

Most of this article is sadly WP:OR, if you actually check out the listed sources they do not use the terms sentiocentrism, sentio-centrism, or sentientism. The first source Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare specifically uses the term and is a good source unfortunately most of the other sources do not use these terms. If you look at the quote section it cites Peter Singer. Neither two quotes contain the word sentiocentrism.

A scan through the history shows that the original author who wrote the article used no sources [6]. I am not saying we should delete this article. On Google books there are a minority of academic sources that give a brief overview of sentiocentrism and its relation to animal rights but this article should be re-written with the WP:OR removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. (closed by non-admin page mover) Waqar💬 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentiocentrism → Sentientism – The term "sentientism" is simpler and more popular than "sentiocentrism". Searching on Google Scholar returns 168 results for sentiocentrism and 949 for sentientism. On JSTOR, I get 709 results for sentientism and 7 for sentiocentrism Alenoach (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abortion

[edit]

The section "Gradualism" currently contains three paragraphs on abortion. But the sources don't really seem to be about sentience. And it's unclear what sentientism suggests to do in this case. Suppose you have a way to abort that is totally painless for the fetus. Then why does it matter whether the fetus is sentient or not (whether it has the ability to suffer if the abortion procedure is painless anyway)? I'm going to rework the section and remove some content, but I'm open to a discussion here if there are disagreements. Alenoach (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content is WP:OR and was removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on gradualist sentientism are original research

[edit]

Most of the sources added to the article in this edit are WP:OR [7]. They do not mention "sentientism". Only sources that mention sentientism specifically can be added. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term

[edit]

Hi Psychologist Guy, I'm not sure this sentence is accurate. Some sources attribute the term "sentientism" to Andrew Linzey in 1980, but some others (§ "What is the history of the word “Sentientism”?") say that Joseph L. Lewis did it first, in 1975. I don't have access to the original source to verify due to the paywall. (Another source also says 1977 from John Rodman)

I removed the sentence for now, since it's not entirely clear who coined the term. If you want to add back a sentence saying that it was coined by Joseph L. Lewis in 1975, it's ok for me. Alenoach (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote on the article was accurate per a good WP:RS we have on this. Here is what the Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare says (page 311) "Sentientism, a term coined by Andrew Linzey in 1980, denotes an attitude that arbitrarily favors sentients over nonsentients. The term is historically parallel to that of "speciesism"* coined by Richard Ryder in 1970". You can verify that this is accurate per checking at archive.org [8].
The website you link to sentientism.info although interesting does probably not pass WP:RS, it was written by Jamie Woodhouse and is an advocacy website. That website claims that "The term Sentientism itself was coined in the 1970s. The first formal use of the term I know of so far is in a 1975 paper by Joseph L. Lewis called “Homo Sapienism: Critique of Roe v. Wade and Abortion“. It then goes on to say that Lewis used the term "intelligent sentientism".
A scan for "intelligent sentientism" on the internet reveals no clicks. The Lewis paper is behind a paywall of $34.95 [9]. Nobody has verified this obscure source, the definition of "intelligent sentientism" may have been used by Lewis in a different context.
Per WP:RS and WP:V the Andrew Linzey line should be restored. I disagree with the removal of a reliable reference and the request to insert text about Joseph L. Lewis from an obscure source that has not been publicly verified. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the sentientism website you cited, it says that Josh Milburn tracked down those sources and there is a link to his profile [10], so I presume that he has access to the "Homo Sapienism: Critique of Roe v. Wade and Abortion" paper. Both Josh and Jamie Woodhouse are Wikipedia editors. You can find their accounts here [11] and [12], so you could email them as they may have access to the paper. I am very interested in history research, however, we must not run into the issue of conducting WP:OR. Having looked on Google books the term "Sentientism" was also used in a 1961 book in relation to animal rights and the first usage of the word can be found in an 1895 dictionary by William Dwight Whitney. I am not convinced citing these obscure sources improves the article. Per policy the best thing to do would be to cite the Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare which is a mainstream academic source, on-topic and verifiable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok if you don't want to name Joseph L. Lewis in the article, if he is not particularly notable. But there is also the source that attributes it to John Rodman. My concern is just that the word "coin" may not be accurate and may mislead readers. But perhaps we could say that Andrew Linzey "popularized" the term? Or another term that doesn't imply that he was the first to use it? Alenoach (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to citing Rodman if a good source is provided, I am only interested in what the reliable sources say. The best one would probably be this [13] that you cited above. However, John Rodman only used the word once in a negative manner, he never defined it properly. He was criticizing Peter Singer and called his philosophy "a kind of zoocentric sentientism". The original Rodman source was this review from 1977 [14]. If we do cite Rodman there wont be much to say but if he is going to be cited then we should also cover Linzey. Rodman doesn't have a Wikipedia article currently, there is some information about him here [15]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to not mentioning Rodman or to mentioning Linzey. It's just the word "coin" which suggests that he was he really introduced the word in 1980, and there is some evidence that he was not the first one to use it. Moreover, Andrew Linzey seems to have contributed to the writing of the Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, so it could be a reason why the claim ended up there, even if it was in good faith. If there is significant doubt about the accuracy of the sentence, then it's better not to include it in the article, to avoid misleading readers. So I propose a more modest phrasing, like perhaps saying he "popularized" the term or was "among the first ones" to use it. Or if the discussion stalls, let's ask for a third opinion, I would be ok to let someone else decide here. Let me ping @J Milburn in case he has an opinion or has access to the 1975 source or the 1977 source to quickly check it. Alenoach (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying as others have obviously used the term before Andrew Linzey, however on Wikipedia, ultimately it is not up to us the editors to state if specific content from a reference is true or false or conduct our own original research about how a source may be misleading to readers. All we do here is cite what is in the reliable sources; we leave our opinions out of it. The Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare is considered a reliable source and is cited on many Wikipedia articles, so no matter what it says if we are strictly going by policy we would just cite it and say Linzey coined the term.
No disrespect to Jamie Woodhouse and his Sentientism website but I have not seen confirmation that it passes WP:RS, so it is worth investigating this. It would be worth asking about this website because if it is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia it could be added to many biographies because he has compiled a huge list of sentientists [16]. Also the website could be used on this article to expand its history but I have a feeling it would be seen as WP:Advocacy website. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See section on Sentientism WP:RSN for hopefully third opinion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some sources for John Rodman, I have not seen any good sourcing on Lewis. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph looks ok to me, although ideally I would merge the section "Origin" with "History".
But I don't think this is accurate: "According to sentientism only sentient creatures have moral understanding." Sentientism is not really about understanding. A sentence like this would be more accurate: "According to sentientism, sentient creatures have moral status.", but then it would be redundant with the previous sentence "It holds that both humans and other sentient individuals have interests that must be considered." Alenoach (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a typo, see page 51 in Environmental Ethics which defines sentientism as only sentient creatures having moral standing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, makes sense indeed. Although it would still be quite redundant with the previous sentence "It holds that both humans and other sentient individuals have interests that must be considered." Alenoach (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that sentientism has been heavily criticized in the environmental literature. If you look on Google books, there is heavy criticism of the idea from environmental academics who have published on environmental ethics going back 30 years. Would you say that sentientism is a fringe idea? It doesn't appear to have a strong following in philosophy circles. I have created a small criticism section but much more can be added. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the core idea behind sentientism is popular, but "sentientists" don't really call themselves this way and often don't use the term. People usually use other similar terms instead, like "utilitarian".
My personal impression is that if you define sentience as the capability to have mental experiences that are valenced (that feel good or bad) like suffering, then sentient beings have moral status almost by definition (although you could question whether sentience is a necessary condition). If you have a broader definition of sentience, then the concept is more questionable.
I'm not knowledgeable in environmental ethics and how it evolved over time, but I think the reputation of sentientism is positive within proponents of animal welfare and rational ethics, and more contentious among traditionalists, e.g. people who oppose veganism or that have anthropocentric views. Alenoach (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a WP:DEFINING issue with "sentientists". I agree that most would probably not call themselves this. This category is problematic and would have probably been deleted by now if an admin had seen it [17]. It would be helpful to know how sentientists are defining sentience as there is more than one definition. Our Wikipedia article defines it as "the ability to experience feelings and sensations". It is not clear that all sentientists are using this definition. Peter Singer and others for example, their criteria basically falls back on pain as criteria for sentience. There are too many loopholes with this, argument from marginal cases like those in coma, disabled or those with Congenital insensitivity to pain or Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis etc. Some of these criticisms are mentioned in environmental ethics publications. Gregory Bassham is claiming in his book that biocentrism is the opposite of sentientism. Biocentrism doesn't look like a mainstream idea either, it is associated with the deep ecology movement. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sentientism&oldid=1260221454"