Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equal consideration of interests


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  05:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Equal consideration of interests

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is TNT at the very least. Looks like original research. Almost no citations, almost everything refers to Peter Singer. Reads like an essay, not encyclopedic. Lrieber (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails WP:NOTESSAY. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Peter Singer, where the concept is mentioned. This principle is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on speciesism and is identified with Singer. It is conceivable that this could be a notable topic and it is a plausible search term. This nearly unsourced essay, however, does a worse job of summarizing the principle and placing it in context than does the section Peter Singer. A redirect there would better serve our readers. --Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Lrieber (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A key concept in contemporary academic ethics, not idiosyncratic to Peter Singer. --Davidcpearce (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article currently only cites Peter Singer. It would need significant cleanup if it's to be kept.Lrieber (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect perhaps, as this is acceptable, and as Books noticeably found a few several links but there's nothing currently to suggest the considerable convincing of having its own article at this time. SwisterTwister   talk  23:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference to Guidi's "The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests from Bentham to Pigou"; but there is a huge scholarly literature if anyone wants to add further.--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. A topic of considerable significance in contemporary ethics; there is a lot of literature out there. Singer's words on the topic are well-known, and have provoked a lot of discussion, but the idea now has a life of its own beyond him. (Also: Is Davidcpearce perhaps the David Pearce known for his abolitionist project? Small world.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as an important position in ethics, and one of the original and most popular positions in contemporary animal ethics. Needs a major rewrite (to satisfy WP:BALANCE and WP:OR) according to sources which overwhelmingly show WP:GNG:
 * 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"
 * I could go on, but this should be more than enough for the purposes of an AFD. FourViolas (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.