Ali Capener

PHIL 2300
Drexler
7/16/15

The Moral Circle: Whos In & Whos Out?

When it comes to the Moral Circle, there is a certain criteria you must meet in order to be
included. According to Peter Singer, sentience is the most basic aspect of criteria you must meet
in order to be part of the Moral Circle. Now, maybe youre wondering what the Moral Circle is.
Let me tell you: the Moral Circle is a circle of beings who are worthy of moral consideration.
Lets explore a bit more about the Moral Circle and who is in and who is out.
What does it mean to be included in the Moral Circle? According to the lecture slides, it
means: that you are owed consideration when making moral decisions, that your needs and
interests matter, that we are obligated to take your welfare into consideration, that you are
important and valuable in yourself and not just for how you can benefit others, and that we may
not violate any rights that you may have. I previously mentioned Peter Singer, while hes not
mentioned until Module 5: Animals, I think he still has a spot with the Moral Circle because I
share his same view on sentience.
So, who is in the Moral Circle? The most obvious member is the human. The second
most obvious member is the animal. What do humans and animals have in common? They are
both sentient. What does being sentient mean? Sentience means that you have the ability to feel
pleasure and the ability to feel suffering. Any sentient being, in my opinion, is automatically
included in the Moral Circle. If you have the ability to feel pleasure and to feel suffering, you are

more than worthy of moral consideration. For example: animals. Animals can most definitely
feel pleasure and suffering. Right now would the opportune time to bring up the Dualist theorist
Rene Descartes. He and I do not share the same views. Descartes believe that animals are
simply machines. According to one of the lecture slides on Descartes, it makes no sense to
talk about causing pleasure or pain to a dog. That would be like being concerned about causing
pain to your car. Im sorry, but really? How can he think that? Obviously he lived in a very, very
different time, but still. That train of thought makes absolutely zero sense to me. Animals are
blatantly sentient. Dogs can 100% feel pleasure and can 100% feel pain. Trust me, I know. I
definitely take the side of Singer in this case. Singers train of thought makes the most sense to
me. I could go on and on about how much I disagree with Descartes, but I wont. That would
lead to a novel.
Now, lets talk about Peter Singer. Yes, he falls under the module of Animals, but that fits
right in with the Moral Circle. My personal Moral Circle includes humans, animals, probably
rodents and maybe a few reptiles and insects. Again, it all comes back to Singers notion of
sentience for me. That makes it both easy and difficult to allow beings into my circle. Before
taking this class, my Moral Circle included humans and animals. Now because of Singer and
Regan (mainly), it has truly grown. Im going to blame most of it on Peter Singer though because
he planted the word sentient in my mind. That was a huge game-changer for me. I have a very
serious phobia of spiders, but because of Singer, I include them in my Moral Circle. Of course
they are sentient. At least, I believe they are. I can handle small ones and if I see them stuck or
having any sort of issue, I usually like to help. Ive also made it a point to trap any spiders in my
house and release them outside. However, if they are as big as my fist, then that is a totally
different story. I would also include snakes in my Moral Circle. YesI am afraid of snakes as

well. But, because they are sentient, they are included in my circle. They shed their skin and Im
sure they can feel pleasure and pain. They feel pleasure by eating a mouse and pain by being
stabbed in the back. Another member of my circle would be fish. Any type of fish is more than
welcome in my circle. Obviously fish are sentient. I mean clearly. Anyway, Ill stop listing who
all is in my circle. It will go on and on for a very long while.
I think bringing up Tom Regan now is a great idea. Regan is an activist for animal rights.
Hes in the same module as Peter Singer, as you already know. Regans excerpt was really
fascinating to read. I really like how Regan brought up the idea of being a subject of a life. I
absolutely love that. I think it is a really incredible way to look at life and especially an animals
life. A great quote from Regan is human beings not only are alive, they have a life. What is
more, we are the subjects of a life that is better or worse for us, logically independently of
anyone elses valuing us or finding us useful. In simpler terms: inherent value. Because humans
have a life, we are automatically the subject of a life. The same goes exactly for animals.
Because animals are in existence, they are worthy of moral consideration. Animals, just like
humans, have inherent value. Sure, they can be valuable to humans by providing milk and meat
and cheese, but none of that matters in the way of Regan. Because a cow exists, it has inherent
value. Just by being born, that cow is worthy of being in the Moral Circle. Im not a vegetarian,
but I am still for animal rights. I suppose you dont really have to be a vegetarian to stick up for
innocent animals, but it doesnt hurt, right?
This brings me to Michael Pollan and Joel Salatin. Pollans article An Animals Place is
a very fascinating read. He makes some wonderful points in it. For example: he mentions how he
visited Joel Salatins farm in the Shenandoah Valley and how humane it was. Im bringing this up
because this is the other side of animal rights. Salatin treats his animals incredibly well and very

humanely. The chickens have enough room to spread out their wings, the pigs can lie down and
they arent crowded by other pigs, and the cows dont have to sleep in their own manure. Salatin
is a very humane farmer. Obviously, the animals still die eventually. They are being raised for
meat and dairy products. However, that doesnt make Salatin any less of a humane farmer. Why
am I mentioning all of this? Well, because it all ties in with my specific Moral Circle and who I
have included in it. All animals: moose, cows, birds, pigs, chickens, foxes, etc. are in my Moral
Circle. Back to the pointI brought up Michael Pollan and Salatin because Pollan points out
how we either look away or go vegetarian when it comes to factory farms. Then he mentions
how if all slaughterhouses would have glass walls, the factories would be forced to do things
more humanely. This comes back to sentience and my own Moral Circle. This all made sense in
my head, so I really hope it makes sense to you.
While I am a firm believer in sentience, I think Pollan has a point. If we raise the animal
humanely and feed it what it needs to be fed and treat it in the best way possible while its alive, I
think using it for meat can sometimes be OK. This is making me think of Leopold and his Land
Ethic. The pyramid he sketches of beings on top of one another and how the being below the
top one serves as food and services for it. Everything is basically coming full circle now. From
the beginning of this paper to right now, things are looping back around. If you couldnt tell,
sentience was essentially my theme throughout this paper. I mentioned the Salatin farm because
its the other side of animal rights, just more humane than most other farms out there.
In conclusion, my Moral Circle has gotten rather large. My criteria is the same as it was
at the beginning: sentience. To be sentient is to have the ability to feel pleasure and the ability to
feel suffering. If you are sentient (as most beings are) then welcome to my circle! You have just

earned my moral consideration of you as an individual! Congratulations! That is what the Moral
Circle is all about: being sentient. Thats all I require of you.