Author | J. Howard Moore |
---|---|
Language | English |
Series | International Library of Social Science |
Subject | Animal rights, ethics, evolution |
Publisher | Charles H. Kerr & Co. |
Publication date | 1906 (reissued edition, 1916; reissued edition, 1992) |
Publication place | United States |
Media type | |
Pages | 329 |
OCLC | 3704446 |
The Universal Kinship is a 1906 book by American zoologist and philosopher J. Howard Moore. In the book, Moore advocates for the doctrine of Universal Kinship, a secular sentiocentric philosophy, which mandates the ethical consideration and treatment of all sentient beings based on Darwinian principles of shared evolutionary kinship, and a universal application of the Golden Rule, a challenge to existing anthropocentric hierarchies and ethics. The book built on arguments Moore first made in Better-World Philosophy , published in 1899, and was followed by The New Ethics in 1907. The Universal Kinship was endorsed by a number of contemporary figures including Henry S. Salt, Mark Twain and Jack London, Eugene V. Debs and Mona Caird.
J. Howard Moore was a pioneering advocate for animal rights. His writings were significantly shaped by his scientific background and moral philosophy. Moore was also connected to the broader humanitarian movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which aimed to improve the treatment of both animals and humans. [1]
The book was one of several works by Moore, including Better-World Philosophy (1899) and The New Ethics (1907). Together, these writings promoted his belief in the interconnectedness of all life and the necessity of a moral evolution toward a more compassionate world. [1]
The book is split into three parts, each exploring and evidencing the sources of kinship between humans and nonhuman animals—the physical, psychical and ethical. To support his claims, Moore drew "extensively upon the fields of geology, paleontology, and biology, together with the works of evolutionary scientists such as Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, Romanes, and Lubbock." [2]
This section focuses on the biological connections between humans and other animals. Moore discusses how humans are not fundamentally different from other animals but are part of a continuum within the animal kingdom. He begins by highlighting that humans are indeed animals, sharing a common ancestry with all living creatures.
Moore then delves into the classification of humans as vertebrates and mammals, pointing out shared characteristics such as internal skeletons, four-chambered hearts, and the ability to nourish offspring with milk. Moore emphasizes the close relationship between humans and other primates, particularly the anthropoid apes, noting similarities in anatomy, behavior, and evolutionary history. He uses this to argue against the idea of an unbridgeable gulf between humans and other species. Moore concludes with a discussion on homology, the idea that similarities among species are not coincidental but rather evidence of common ancestry and evolutionary processes.
The second section delves into the mental and emotional similarities between humans and nonhuman animals. Moore challenges the traditional view that places human consciousness and mental abilities on a unique pedestal, arguing that many cognitive and emotional capacities, such as problem-solving, memory, emotions, and social behaviors, are also present in varying degrees across the animal kingdom.
He begins by exploring the conflict between science and tradition, highlighting how religious and cultural beliefs have long promoted the idea of humans possessing a unique, divinely granted soul or consciousness. This idea has led to a perceived gulf between humans and other animals. However, scientific advancements in biology, psychology, and ethology have increasingly shown that many animals exhibit behaviors and cognitive processes similar to those of humans.
In providing evidence of psychical evolution, Moore argues that mental faculties have evolved in animals just as physical traits have, with different species demonstrating abilities like problem-solving, social structures, and communication skills. By presenting these parallels, Moore suggests that the minds of humans and animals are not fundamentally different but vary in complexity, challenging the notion of human exceptionalism in mental and emotional realms.
The final section addresses the moral implications of the relationship between humans and other animals, arguing for a more inclusive ethical perspective that extends beyond humanity. Moore begins by tracing the evolution of human ethics, starting with the primal behaviors of early humans who, like other animals, acted primarily out of self-interest and survival instincts. As human societies developed, so did concepts of morality and ethics, gradually incorporating notions of altruism and compassion.
However, Moore critiques the persistence of anthropocentric ethics, which place human interests above all other forms of life, often justifying the exploitation and mistreatment of animals. He emphasizes that this mindset contradicts the principles found in the Golden Rule, which encourages treating others as one would like to be treated. Moore argues that if this rule is to be applied consistently, it should extend beyond the human species to include all sentient beings.
In advocating for the doctrine of Universal Kinship, Moore calls for a reevaluation of our ethical principles, urging humans to acknowledge their moral responsibilities toward other creatures. This includes considering the impact of human actions on animals and extending compassion and justice to them. By emphasizing our shared kinship with all life forms, Moore argues for an ethical framework that recognizes the inherent worth of every living being. He urges a shift towards more compassionate and humane treatment of animals, in alignment with the broader application of the Golden Rule.
The Universal Kinship was well-received by several contemporary figures. The English writer Henry S. Salt, Moore's friend and fellow animal rights advocate, later described the book, in his autobiography, as "the best ever written in the humanitarian cause". [3] Upon the book's publication in the United Kingdom, Salt widely publicized it using his Humanitarian League network. [2] The book received positive reviews in The Daily Telegraph , the Evening Standard , The Clarion, and Reynold's News. [4]
American socialist Eugene V. Debs declared that "[i]t is impossible for me to express my appreciation of your masterly work. It is simply great, and every socialist and student of sociology should read it." [5] Debs was inspired by the book to publish an article "Man and Mule", reflecting on the relationship between mules and humans. [6]
Moore sent a personal copy of the book to the American writer Mark Twain, who replied: [7]
The book has furnished me several days of deep pleasure and satisfaction; it has compelled my gratitude at the same time, since it saves me the labor of stating my own long-cherished opinions and reflections and resentments by doing it lucidly and fervently and irascibly for me.
In an endorsement, the American writer Jack London stated: [8]
Mr. Moore has a broad grasp and shows masterly knowledge of the subject. And withal the interest never flags. The book reads like a novel. One is constantly keyed up and expectant. Mr. Moore is to be congratulated upon the magnificent way in which he has made alive the dull, heavy processes of the big books. And, then, there is his style. He uses splendid virile English and shows a fine appreciation of the values of words. He uses always the right word.
In his copy, London marked the passage "All beings are ends;no creatures are means. All beings have not equal rights, neither have all men; but all have rights." [9]
English feminist and writer Mona Caird, was so deeply moved by the book that she wrote Moore a personal letter, declaring: [10]
It leaves me in a glow of enthusiasm and hope. It seems like the embodiment of years of almost despairing effort and pain of all of us who have felt these things. That which we have been thinking and feeling—some in one direction and some in another, some in fuller understanding and breadth, others in little flashes of insight here and there—all seems gathered together, expressed, and given form and color and life in your wonderful book.
American socialist Julius Wayland endorsed the book, describing the book as "not exactly socialism", but that it would open up a new world for its readers and that the book was a "scientific education within itself." [11]
The National Anti-Vivisection Society approved of Moore’s illustration of "the ethical kinship" between humans and animals but objected to the idea that evolution could explain the evolution of human mental capacity. The RSPCA felt that while Moore's arguments were well supported, they took exception with his Darwinian perspective, stating that "there is much in it that cannot be agreed with". [12]
G. M. A.'s review in The American Naturalist , stated: "While agreeing with the author that 'the art of being kind' is in sore need of cultivation among us, one cannot but be amused at the mixture of fact and error, observation and travelers' tales, seriousness of statement and straining after absurd expressions, that characterizes this not unreadable book." [13] J. R. Stanton in American Anthropologist was also critical, stating "[i]ts failing, as in the case of so many works of similar nature, is that in sweeping away impassable gulfs it ignores real differences." [14]
In the book, Moore criticizes the anthropocentrism of human beings: "We think of our acts toward non-human peoples [...] entirely from the human point of view. We never take the time to put ourselves in the places of our victims." [15] : 304 He also asserts that arrogance prevents humans from recognizing their kinship with nonhuman animals and grievously mistreating them, likening their "provincialist" attitude to chauvinism and racism: [15] : 276
The denial by human animals of ethical relations to the rest of the animal world is a phenomenon not differing either in character or cause from the denial of ethical relations by a tribe, people, or race of human beings to the rest of the human world.
These arguments have been described by contemporary scholars as antecedents of the concept of speciesism, [16] [17] which was coined as a term 63 years later by Richard D. Ryder. [18]
The book's publisher, Charles H. Kerr & Co., included the book in its International Library of Social Science series, which was described as "positively indispensable to the student of socialism." [19] In 1906, the same year as the book's original publication, The Whole World Kin, a condensed version of the book was published in London by George Bell & Sons. [20] : 127 They also published an unabridged version of the book, [21] as did the Humanitarian League. [22]
In the same year, Felix Ortt produced a Dutch translation of the book. [23] In 1908, Ōsugi Sakae and Sakai Toshihiko translated the book into Japanese. [24]
The book was out-of-print for several years, but was reissued by Charles H. Kerr & Co., in 1916, due to increased demand. [25]
It was reissued by Centaur Press in 1992, edited by animal rights philosopher Charles R. Magel, with added appendices, including "letters from Moore to Salt, a biographical essay and the eulogy Clarence Darrow delivered at Moore's funeral." [26]
Speciesism is a term used in philosophy regarding the treatment of individuals of different species. The term has several different definitions. Some specifically define speciesism as discrimination or unjustified treatment based on an individual's species membership, while others define it as differential treatment without regard to whether the treatment is justified or not. Richard D. Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species". Speciesism results in the belief that humans have the right to use non-human animals in exploitative ways which is pervasive in the modern society. Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to have intersectional bias that encapsulates and endorses racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.
Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the central or most important entity on the planet. The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, and some refer to the concept as human supremacy or human exceptionalism. From an anthropocentric perspective, humankind is seen as separate from nature and superior to it, and other entities are viewed as resources for humans to use.
Henry Shakespear Stephens Salt was a British writer and campaigner for social reform in the fields of prisons, schools, economic institutions, and the treatment of animals. He was a noted ethical vegetarian, anti-vivisectionist, socialist, and pacifist, and was well known as a literary critic, biographer, classical scholar and naturalist. It was Salt who first introduced Mohandas Gandhi to the influential works of Henry David Thoreau, and influenced Gandhi's study of vegetarianism. Salt is considered, by some, to be the "father of animal rights", having been one of the first writers to argue explicitly in favour of animal rights, rather than just improvements to animal welfare, in his book Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress (1892).
Evolutionary ethics is a field of inquiry that explores how evolutionary theory might bear on our understanding of ethics or morality. The range of issues investigated by evolutionary ethics is quite broad. Supporters of evolutionary ethics have argued that it has important implications in the fields of descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and metaethics.
Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Broadly speaking, and particularly in popular discourse, the term "animal rights" is often used synonymously with "animal protection" or "animal liberation". More narrowly, "animal rights" refers to the idea that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as individuals—rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture that may not be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.
The Humanitarian League was a British radical advocacy group formed by Henry S. Salt and others to promote the principle that it is wrong to inflict avoidable suffering on any sentient being. It was based in London and operated between 1891 and 1919.
The concept of moral rights for animals is believed to date as far back as Ancient India, particularly early Jainist and Hindu history. What follows is mainly the history of animal rights in the Western world. There is a rich history of animal protection in the ancient texts, lives, and stories of Eastern, African, and Indigenous peoples.
Gary Steiner is an American moral philosopher, and the John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University. Steiner's particular focus is animal rights, Descartes, and 19th- and 20th-century continental philosophy.
Alasdair Cochrane is a British political theorist and ethicist who is currently Professor of Political Theory in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Sheffield. He is known for his work on animal rights from the perspective of political theory, which is the subject of his two books: An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory and Animal Rights Without Liberation. His third book, Sentientist Politics, was published by Oxford University Press in 2018. He is a founding member of the Centre for Animals and Social Justice, a UK-based think tank focused on furthering the social and political status of nonhuman animals. He joined the Department at Sheffield in 2012, having previously been a faculty member at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights, London School of Economics. Cochrane is a Sentientist. Sentientism is a naturalistic worldview that grants moral consideration to all sentient beings.
John Hadley is an Australian philosopher whose research concerns moral and political philosophy, including animal ethics, environmental ethics, and metaethics. He is currently a senior lecturer in philosophy in the School of Humanities and Communication Arts at Western Sydney University. He has previously taught at Charles Sturt University and the University of Sydney, where he studied as an undergraduate and doctoral candidate. In addition to a variety of articles in peer-reviewed journals and edited collections, he is the author of the 2015 monograph Animal Property Rights and the 2019 monograph Animal Neopragmatism. He is also the co-editor, with Elisa Aaltola, of the 2015 collection Animal Ethics and Philosophy.
John Howard Moore was an American zoologist, philosopher, educator, and social reformer. He was best known for his advocacy of ethical vegetarianism and his pioneering role in the animal rights movement, both deeply influenced by his ethical interpretation of Darwin's theory of evolution. Moore's most influential work, The Universal Kinship (1906), introduced a sentiocentric philosophy he called the doctrine of Universal Kinship, arguing that the ethical treatment of animals, rooted in the Golden Rule, is essential for human ethical evolution, urging humans to extend their moral considerations to all sentient beings, based on their shared physical and mental evolutionary kinship.
Charles Russell Magel was an American philosopher, animal rights activist and bibliographer. He was professor emeritus of Philosophy and Ethics at Moorhead State University.
Why I Am a Vegetarian is an 1895 pamphlet based on an address delivered by J. Howard Moore before the Chicago Vegetarian Society. It was reprinted several times by the society and other publishers.
The predation problem or predation argument refers to the consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem, that humans may or may not have an obligation to work towards preventing. Discourse on this topic has, by and large, been held within the disciplines of animal and environmental ethics. The issue has particularly been discussed in relation to animal rights and wild animal suffering. Some critics have considered an obligation to prevent predation as untenable or absurd and have used the position as a reductio ad absurdum to reject the concept of animal rights altogether. Others have criticized any obligation implied by the animal rights position as environmentally harmful.
The relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics concerns the differing ethical consideration of individual nonhuman animals—particularly those living in spaces outside of direct human control—and conceptual entities such as species, populations and ecosystems. The intersection of these two fields is a prominent component of vegan discourse.
Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes is an 1824 book by Lewis Gompertz, an early animal rights advocate and vegan. The book argues that animals, like humans, are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and pleasure, and thus deserve moral consideration. He critiques the exploitation of animals for labour, food, and clothing, condemning practices such as slaughter, hunting, and scientific experimentation. He also addresses the suffering of wild animals, suggesting that even in nature, animals face hardships such as hunger and predation.
Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology is an 1897 book by the American scholar and early animal rights advocate Edward Payson Evans. It is an in-depth exploration of the intersection between ethical theory and animal psychology, with a particular focus on the rights of animals and the moral obligations humans have toward them.
The New Ethics is a 1907 book by the American zoologist and philosopher J. Howard Moore, in which he advocates for a form of ethics, that he calls the New Ethics, which applies the principle of the Golden Rule—treat others as you would want to be treated yourself—to all sentient beings. It builds upon the arguments made in his 1899 book, Better-World Philosophy, and 1906 book, The Universal Kinship.
Moral circle expansion is an increase over time in the number and type of entities given moral consideration. The general idea of moral inclusion was discussed by ancient philosophers and since the 19th century has inspired social movements related to human rights and animal rights. Especially in relation to animal rights, the philosopher Peter Singer has written about the subject since the 1970s, and since 2017 so has the think tank Sentience Institute, part of the 21st-century effective altruism movement. There is significant debate on whether humanity actually has an expanding moral circle, considering topics such as the lack of a uniform border of growing moral consideration and the disconnect between people's moral attitudes and their behavior. Research into the phenomenon is ongoing.
Better-World Philosophy: A Sociological Synthesis is an 1899 book by American zoologist and philosopher J. Howard Moore. The book explores the nature of human desires, the challenges of industry, and the complex interactions between individuals and society. Moore structures his work into several chapters, each addressing different aspects of the human condition, societal organisation, and the relationship between humans and other sentient beings, particularly animals. He advocates for a deeper understanding of universal laws and promotes a more ethical and harmonious approach to social organisation, emphasizing the humane treatment of all sentient beings.