Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

Oh good grief. A book reviewer named Justin Moss, discussing a book called Ethics and Animals, completely misstates the definition of human exceptionalism. From the Metapsychology blog:

In the first chapter, Gruen identifies and analyzes a philosophical view she refers to as “human exceptionalism” — the view that human beings are the only beings deserving of ethical concern, and that humans have no ethical responsibilities to non-human animals.

What garbage.  Human exceptionalism actually holds quite the opposite, that animals are of ethical concern and that we—as the only duties-bearing creatures in the known universe—have very serious ethical responsibilities toward animals.  Hence, animal welfare laws.  Hello?

I don’t know if this particular straw man was erected by the author or the reviewer.  But knocking one down takes no talent whatsoever.

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles