Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1469874
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 JUNE 2022 8 INTERVIEW Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt 'Pain is pain: whether you're a In your 1975 book 'Animal Lib- eration', you argued that hu- man beings are guilty of 'spe- ciesism': a tendency to attach undue importance to their own species, when compared to oth- er animals. Separately, howev- er, you use the philanthropic argument, that the wealthy should have an obligation to assist the poor. Do you not see a small contradiction, there? On one level, you seem to be minimising the importance of the human species, as a whole; but on another, you argue that there is a lot of importance to be attached to the individual human being… I would say there's a lot of importance to be attached to EVERY sentient being… not just the individual human. So I don't really see any contradiction, no. I see it more as a matter of find- ing opportunities to improve the lives of all sentient beings, every- where. I'm still very concerned with doing that for animals; and I still think there are enormous problems… with factory farm- ing, for instance; and the way we kill animals… But the fact that we ignore the situation of so many people in extreme poverty - who could easily be helped - is something that I think we should be doing more about, too. The common thread, however, is that I'm pointing out two ways in which we can relieve suffering, at low cost; but - because 'those who are suffering', are in some ways 'not us' - we tend to neglect their suffering. And there are different ways, obviously, in which other be- ings can be defined as 'not us'. They could be people who live far away, in other countries; or who are ethnically, or racially, distinct from ourselves… or in other cases, the difference could be that they belong to another species. It's an idea I've explored in one of my less-known books, 'the Expanding Circle'… about 'ex- panding the circle of moral con- cern'. I think these are two dif- ferent ways in which that could be done. We could 'expand the circle of moral concern' to other humans in extreme poverty; and to other species, as well. And as far as Climate Change is con- cerned, it could be expanded to future generations, too… On the subject of 'us' and 'them'; we have seen a lot of evidence, recently, of how different coun- tries tend to discriminate be- tween human beings, on the basis of cultural proximity. The war in Ukraine, for instance, has sparked a refugee crisis… but we all saw how, in European (and global) media coverage, the Ukrainian refugees twere clearly perceived differently, from (for instance) those who come from equally war-torn countries such as Syria, Yemen and Libya. Would you consider this as an example of 'unequal treatment', based on cultural affiliations? Yes, I think there is some sort of affiliation going on, there. Specifically, you see it very clear- ly in Poland: because the Polish government was very hostile to taking in Syrian refugees – it had refused to take in even just a few hundred, from the EU – but it's now taken in 3 million Ukrain- ians. Naturally, I applaud the fact that it did accept to help so many Ukrainians. But obviously, that was made easier, politically – and had much greater support - because Ukrainians are ethni- cally so much closer to Poles, than Syrians. Many of them will be Catholic; all of them will be Christian… and yes, I think all of that does clearly make a dif- ference. But if you wanted to defend the different reaction: one thing you could say, is that Putin is a threat not only to Ukraine; but also to the wider world, and certainly to the other former Soviet sat- ellites. So I think it's reasonable to say that this is a more serious global crisis, than the other wars you mentioned: which don't show much sign of spreading beyond the countries where they exist. And yet, these different reac- tions all seem indicative of an entirely 'natural' tendency. It seems that human civilisations have always created their own social and political hierar- chies… and these have always been based on the view that 'the other' is somehow 'inferior to oneself'. Would you agree that this is a deeply ingrained tendency; and if so, can it really be addressed through some- thing as abstract – and (no of- fence) sometimes 'impractical' – as Philosophy? You could describe it as a 'nat- ural tendency', yes; but - like all tendencies in human nature - it is not 'determined' that it will al- ways be that way. As for your question about the 'practicality' of philosophy, though: it depends what sort of philosophy we're talking about, really. There are some philo- sophical approaches where the criticism you mention would certainly be valid – I would agree with it myself - but if we are talking about philosophy that is doing 'Ethics'; and, in particular, 'Practical or Applied Ethics' – then… it can be enor- mously influential. Billionaires are subject to its influence; as are others. If you look at the website of the Gates Foundation, for in- stance: it makes various ethical statements, about 'recognising the equal value of all human lives'. An even better example would be Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, who started some- thing called 'The Good Ventures Foundation'; and that gave rise to an organisation called 'Open Philanthropy', which is funding some of the most effective char- ities – and also doing research, into what ARE the most effec- tive ways to be charitable, to be- gin with. Philosopher, ethicist and Animal Liberation exponent PETER SINGER talks about the need to 'expand the circle of moral concern': to include humans, animals, and 'all sentient beings, everywhere'