Talk:Equal consideration of interests

An example would be nice.

I would also ask what kinds of nationalisms?

---any kind of nationalism. Implicit is nationalism is a belief that one's nation is special, not necessarily superior, but at least special. It should be noted that a society, particularly a democratic society, can be based upon the Intrinsic Equality principle, or the Equal Consideration of Interests principle, without having to extend that consideration to foreigners or anyone not part of the particular society. 129.67.17.233 (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
The recent deletion discussion had a point: the article as currently written is essentially an uncritical, WP:ESSAY-ish, and nearly WP:COPYVIO exposition of Singer's application of this principle in the context of animal ethics. I may be able to spend some time working on it over the next few months. (My qualifications are literally sophomoric: I took a great seminar on animal ethics last fall, and that's it.) Some sources I found for the AFD are hatted below:


 * Secondary sources
 * The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests from Bentham to Pigou, credit to Davidcpearce
 * The Principle of Equal Interests, 1981 article in Philosophical Review (uses the term "Principle of Equal Interests")
 * Morality and Universality: Essays on Ethical Universalizability chap. 1 (calls this the "principle of impartiality")
 * Brittanica entry on "speciesism"
 * The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: sections in Impartiality, The Moral Status of Animals, Democracy (discussing "principle of equal advancement of interests"), Global Justice
 * Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status, chapter "A short primer on animal ethics"
 * Primary sources: pro-ish
 * Equal Consideration: A Theory of Moral Justification, book defending this principle
 * Practical Ethics and much of the rest of Peter Singer's influential and controversial work
 * Equal Consideration and Unequal Moral Status: 1993 paper with lots of secondary material, suggesting that animals should be given both
 * Introduction to Animal Rights Francione is overall over-represented in WP's spotty animal ethics coverage IMHO, but here he gives a discussion of this principle in and out of animal ethics
 * Egalitarianism and the Equal Consideration of Interests Book chapter arguing for it
 * Primary sources: contra-ish
 * Some Animals are More Equal than Others Probably the classic rejection of this principle in an animal ethics context
 * Animal Liberation: A Critique 1978 paper rejects this principle, in the course of arguing that animals have interests but not morally important ones
 * Rethinking Peter Singer: A Christian Critique rejects it
 * Refuting Peter Singer's Ethical Theory: The Importance of Human Dignity, chapter five: "Why Singer's Principle of Equal Consideration is a Threat to Morality and to Human Values"

A suggested outline, to be adjusted as secondary sources indicate:
 * Lede
 * Exposition/context. Definition(s), contextualization within rule & preference utilitarianism, distinction from related ideas like equal consideration of rights, importance in animal ethics (because nonhuman animals are sometimes thought to have interests but not rights).
 * Proponents and their arguments. Singer would probably merit a full subsection.
 * Opponents and their arguments. Divide among opponents in the generality of metaethics (e.g. anti-utilitarians and those who reject aggregation); opponents of increased moral consideration for nonhuman animals (e.g. Francis and Norman); and opponents among pro-animal philosophers (e.g. rights theorists like Francione, or virtue ethicists like Rosalind Hursthouse).

Pinging User:J Milburn, User:Sammy1339, User:SlimVirgin, User:Adam Cuerden, and User:Davidcpearce, the editors who come to mind as having shown interest or knowledge in animal ethics (with respect to which this topic has been most discussed) in the past. FourViolas (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we'd be wise to keep specific examples back until it's been dealt with at much greater length. I'd be inclined to cut back to the lead, and work forwards from there, focusing on the sources and viewpoints, and less on advocacy/moral claims based on them until we've developed the subject a lot more. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. My concern, which more experienced philosophy editors can advise on, is that the "secondary literature" in this field is often minimal; apparently philosophers rarely publish review articles, instead responding to each other in long chains of primary sources. So it will probably be hard to depict the debates meaningfully without starting to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, giving names and positions to the interpreters. But I agree that the article needs a lot of fundamental work before we get to that level of detail. FourViolas (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)