Talk:Sentiocentrism

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animal rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Philosophy: Ethics / Contemporary Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Contemporary philosophy

• Don't merge – Hi. I'd suggest Sentiocentrism and Sentientism are not merged as they are distinct, but related, philosophies. Sentientism can be seen as an an extension of Humanism to cover all sentient beings. In common with Humanism, Sentientism explicitly commits to the use of evidence and reason when determining sentience and making moral decisions. Sentientism, like Humanism, therefore rejects supernatural beliefs and moral rationales. Sentiocentrism is silent on that front. Further thoughts very welcome. --JamieWoodhouse (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dont merge. Sentientism is a modern unifying philosophy that takes the reason and evidence-based position that all sentient beings are worthy of moral consideration because they are sentient (conscious) beings with the capacity to have 'experiences'. A genuine conscious 'experiencer' is a moral subject regardless of species or substrate because of that fact. This does not limit other potential intrinsic values or moral concerns but provides the space for the most fundamental consideration, that of 'consciousness'. This is distinct from Sentiocentrism which could be classified as an older less well-defined branch of Sentientism. --Brendon Smale (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Merge - The association with humanism, naturalism, or atheism is not found in any of the references on Sentientism, except the one by JamieWoodhouse himself. Woodhouse has been promoting his conception of sentientism as an upgrade to humanism on various blogging platforms and social media (e.g., [1]), but the original conception of the word doesn't have that connotation, as far as I can tell. Until his version of Sentientism receives reliable, independent citations, it isn't notable enough for a separate article. In the philosophical literature, the terms sentientism and sentiocentrism appear to be synonyms. (In fact, even if there were a minor difference, this wouldn't necessarily justify having a separate article. However, there doesn't seem to be any substantial difference.) For example:

• [2]: "Sentiocentrism, also known as sentientism, claims that all and only sentient beings can be morally concerned."

• [3]: seems to regard them as synonyms

• [4]: (p. 173) "Cette forme d'égalitarisme radical articulé autour du seul critère de la sensibilité justifie que l'on parle parfois de sentientism ([...]) ou sentiocentrism." (Translation: "This form of radical egalitarianism articulated around the sole criterion of sentience justifies that we sometimes speak of sentientism or sentiocentrism.")

• [5]: "Det händer att det refereras till sentientism som sentiocentrism för att koppla termen till den centristiska terminologi." (Translation: "Sometimes sentientism is referred to as sentiocentrism to link it to the centrist terminology [such as ecocentrism, etc.]")

• I would welcome comments from others who are more knowledgeable about animal ethics, such as User:J Milburn, in case I have missed any subtle distinction. --Throughthemind (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Merge if "This is distinct from Sentiocentrism which could be classified as an older less well-defined branch of Sentientism" then they should easily merge. valereee (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge – Can we reverse the merging until we've had a chance to discuss this further? The merge has removed all of the sentientism references (there are many more than for the term sentiocentrism). Sentiocentrism and Sentientism are distinct, but related, philosophies. Sentientism can be seen as an an extension of Humanism to cover all sentient beings. In common with Humanism, Sentientism explicitly commits to the use of evidence and reason when determining sentience and making moral decisions - this was the basis of the term when created by Richard Ryder and Peter Singer in the 1970s. Sentiocentrism is silent on that front so remains open to supernatural rationales. The term sentientism is not a neologism as can be seen from the decades old references. It is also more prevalent as a modern term than sentiocentrism as per the recent book Sentientist Politics by Alasdair Cochrane - also referenced. --JamieWoodhouse (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Name it sentientism not sentiocentrism sentientism is more commonly used and is a simpler word. Tim.thelion (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On google scholar for example a search for sentientism gives me 914 results while sentiocentrism has just 105 . Tim.thelion (talk) Tim.thelion (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Merge: Could we revisit this? I'm rusty on my animal ethics, but from reading the articles that define these terms, particularly those pointed out by Throughthemind above, I'm struggling to see enough of a distinction to justify two separate articles. I have not seen anyone other than Jamie Woodhouse assert a distinction between the two, which could be mentioned in the merged article. It could even have its own section. I am concerned that having two separate articles will confuse readers. At a minimum, I think the articles should more clearly explain Woodhouse's distinction, perhaps with a section heading. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do merge: I agree with the idea of a merger, and was going to propose it myself (then saw the Talk page threads). I see very little difference between the two. They are so closely related that they would be better served in a single article so that a distinction between them (if there is one) could be highlighted. I added merge templates at the top of both articles... directing discussion to this thread. Normal Op (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Should we add an RFC or something to get more people to chime in? Jmill1806 (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge I would support the merge but only if no text is lost. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Merge: there is not enough of a difference 777burger (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do merge: Captain MarcusL 02:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge: I oppose because; 1.: because the concepts also oppose each other, one is about raising sentience as an issue and the other is about prioritizing sentience; 2.: it would make the article too long; 3.: I dont see a problem to have it in two articles instead of adding a long subchapter in the other article. PS: I do see that the difference can be vague, but the future will tell if the literature will converge the terms or differentiate further Nsae Comp (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. For what it's worth, I don't even know which articles you are referring to when you say "one is about raising sentience as an issue and the other is about prioritizing sentience." I think both terms qualify for both of those definitions! Jmill1806 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge. The points that I made in the previous merge discussion still stand. Throughthemind (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It seems like we now have enough support to merge the pages. I think anyone who has time, go for it. Jmill1806 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article is sadly WP:OR, if you actually check out the listed sources they do not use the terms sentiocentrism, sentio-centrism, or sentientism. The first source Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare specifically uses the term and is a good source unfortunately most of the other sources do not use these terms. If you look at the quote section it cites Peter Singer. Neither two quotes contain the word sentiocentrism.

A scan through the history shows that the original author who wrote the article used no sources [6]. I am not saying we should delete this article. On Google books there are a minority of academic sources that give a brief overview of sentiocentrism and its relation to animal rights but this article should be re-written with the WP:OR removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]