Critical Thinking Feed

Some believe a fabulous Spanish treasure is buried on the slopes of Oregon's Neahkahnie Mountain.

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

A few of your favorite experts weigh in on how you can make sure your information comes from the very best sources.

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

What really happened — and what didn't — in the 2024 telecom cyberattack.

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Join us for our 2nd Annual Skeptoid Adventure, this time to the Bermuda Triangle! Early bird pricing ends this Friday, don't miss the boat!

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Just as important as the question of how much the livestock industry contributes to global warming is whether your giving up meat will have any real impact.

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

The newer the data, and the longer we've had to study the epidemiology, the less harm we find that Agent Orange caused.

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Cloud seeding would seem like an easy and obvious way to create rain where none existed before. Is it really that simple?

Economic nationalism, while attractive to many populists, is not the path to economic success some believe it to be.

Skeptoid answers another round of feedback emails sent in by listeners.

These schools combine an atypical education with a New Age spirituality called anthroposophy.

Cryonics promises an opportunity for you to be frozen and revived at some distant point in the future — though with plenty of controversy.

Skeptoid answers another round of questions from students all around the world.

What could explain a strange creature living in the suburbs, but only ever witnessed once?

On this Giving Tuesday, please consider supporting Skeptoid Media (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization) and our mission of cultivating critical thinking and science literacy skills. Donations will be matched by our Board of Directors!

Skeptoid corrects another round of errors in previous episodes.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss486_Jon_Mills_2024_11_19.mp3 Download MP3

Michael Shermer interviews Jon Mills, a psychoanalyst and philosopher, on a variety of topics, including the evolution of psychoanalysis, the dynamics of therapeutic relationships, and the psychological roots of aggression and trauma. Mills explains Freud’s lasting influence, the moral implications of aggression, and the role violence plays in society. The conversation also explores how trauma affects individuals and families across generations and the difficulty of understanding human behavior when faced with global challenges.

The discussion extends to broader issues such as individuality, the struggles faced by modern youth, and the evolution of belief in God. Shermer and Mills discuss how technology impacts mental health and the pursuit of spirituality without relying on traditional religion.

Jon Mills, PsyD, PhD, ABPP, is a philosopher, psychoanalyst, and clinical psychologist. His two latest books are Inventing God: Psychology of Belief and the Rise of Secular Spirituality, and End of the World: Civilization and its Fate.

End of the World: Civilization and Its Fate

Famine. Extreme climate change. Threats of global war and nuclear annihilation. Obscene wealth disparities. Is civilization destined for self-annihilation? In this timely book, philosopher and psychoanalyst Jon Mills explores the emergencies that could ignite an apocalypse. As we idly stand by in the face of ecological, economic, and societal collapse, we must seriously question whether humanity is under the sway of a collective unconscious death wish. Examining ominous existential risks and drawing on the psychological motivations, unconscious conflicts, and cultural complexes that drive human behavior and social relations, he offers fresh new perspectives on the looming fate of humanity based on a collective bystander disorder.

End of the World is a warning about the dangerous precipice we find ourselves careening toward and a call to action to take control of our own fate.

Inventing God: Psychology of Belief and the Rise of Secular Spirituality

In this controversial book, philosopher and psychoanalyst Jon Mills argues that God does not exist; and more provocatively, that God cannot exist as anything but an idea. Put concisely, God is a psychological creation signifying ultimate ideality. Mills argues that the idea or conception of God is the manifestation of humanity’s denial and response to natural deprivation; a self-relation to an internalized idealized object, the idealization of imagined value.

After demonstrating the lack of any empirical evidence and the logical impossibility of God, Mills explains the psychological motivations underlying humanity’s need to invent a supreme being. In a highly nuanced analysis of unconscious processes informing the psychology of belief and institutionalized social ideology, he concludes that belief in God is the failure to accept our impending death and mourn natural absence for the delusion of divine presence. As an alternative to theistic faith, he offers a secular spirituality that emphasizes the quality of lived experience, the primacy of feeling and value inquiry, ethical self-consciousness, aesthetic and ecological sensibility, and authentic relationality toward self, other, and world as the pursuit of a beautiful soul in search of the numinous.

Jon Mills, PsyD, PhD, ABPP, is a philosopher, psychoanalyst, and clinical psychologist. He is Honorary Professor, Department of Psychosocial & Psychoanalytic Studies, University of Essex, UK, on faculty in the Postgraduate Programs in Psychoanalysis & Psychotherapy, Gordon F. Derner School of Psychology, Adelphi University, USA, and on faculty and a Supervising Analyst at the New School for Existential Psychoanalysis, USA. Recipient of numerous awards for his scholarship including 5 Gradiva Awards, he is the author and/or editor of over 30 books in psychoanalysis, philosophy, psychology, and cultural studies including most recently Psyche, Culture, World. In 2015 he was given the Otto Weininger Memorial Award for Lifetime Achievement by the Canadian Psychological Association. He is based in Ontario, Canada. His two latest books that I want to discuss today are Inventing God: Psychology of Belief and the Rise of Secular Spirituality, and End of the World: Civilization and its Fate.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

This alleged sea serpent terrorized a New England fishing village for two years in the 19th century.

Recently, a law banning the consumption of dog meat was passed by the National Assembly of Korea. One of the main goals of domestic animal rights activists and dog lovers has been accomplished. However, quite a few people were dissatisfied with the passing of this particular law, asking why it refers specifically to dogs, but does not protect cows and pigs. Those who welcomed the species-specific ban responded to such reactions by citing the thousands of years of companionship shared between dogs and humans, and our uniquely close bond.

Animal ethics, a division within applied ethics that deals with such disputes over animal issues, is one of today’s most hotly debated fields. It includes discussions on the moral status of animals, the use of animals for food or for experimentation, the ethics of having zoos, aquariums, xenotransplantation, and consumption of dog meat, among various other topics. Such topics are not only interesting in their own right but also invite us to reflect critically on our often-assumed position atop the animal kingdom.

Can humans do with animals as they please?

Until relatively recently, people considered animals merely as tools for human use, thinking that the use of animals in any way was entirely up to humans. What is the basis for such thinking? And can such assumptions be justified?

One of the reasons some people think humans can do whatever they want with animals is that our species now sits atop of the food pyramid, and that position justifies our dominance over animals. They argue that humans have the power to subdue animals and that using this power to treat animals as they please is thereby justified.

With a bit of thought, however, it is not difficult to recognize that this logic is flawed. If the logic of power were justified, then imperialist invasions could be justified, as would be the actions of bullies who harass weaker peers in schools. Invoking power is a logic that thoroughly represents the perspective of the strong, but if we consider ourselves in the position of the weak in a Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” thought experiment, we can see that this reasoning is flawed. If we encountered an extraterrestrial intelligence vastly superior to humans, would we accept the logic of power and agree they could exploit us as food? Obviously not.

One reason that makes the logic of power seem justified is the failure to distinguish facts from values. The two are distinctly different; for example, it is a fact that the strong dominate the weak. The world is indeed a place where the powerful rule over others, such as the wealthy oppressing the poor or the strong bullying the weak. However, just because such practices are facts does not mean they are values we should accept. In philosophy, this mistake of deriving value directly from fact is called the naturalistic fallacy. That humans dominate animals is a fact, but that does not justify it as right, as something we ought to do.

Did God grant dominion to humans?

Christianity, which has established itself as world’s largest and most widespread religion with approximately 2.4 billion followers, has long believed that humans are the crown of creation, were made in the image and likeness of God, and are endowed with rationality unique among all of God’s creatures. This belief justifies the special position of humans who, possessing these characteristics, should be the subject of greater concern compared to other animals, and in cases of conflicting interests between humans and other beings, the latter should yield to the former. From the Christian perspective, all beings, including animals, ultimately exist for God, while in this world, they exist for humans, as commanded in Genesis 9:1–3:

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

There is debate over whether interpreting such messages as granting humans the right to treat other animals as they wish is appropriate. Indeed, there is room to interpret this dominion as meaning that humans must fulfill their duty to God by being wise stewards of His creation and therefore making efforts to protect animals. Nevertheless, if indeed God has bestowed such authority upon humans, then they would be able to treat animals as they see fit.

The real problem with this argument arises due to the fact it is specifically rooted in the God of Christianity (as well as Judaism and Islam), and adherents of other religions and agnostics and atheists would therefore not accept this position. Hinduism, for example, advocates respect for animals, teaching that all living beings are imbued with divinity, and those who adhere to this religion would argue for the importance of respecting animals. Justifying human dominion over animals based on the doctrines or teachings of a specific religion lacks persuasiveness. If one were not a follower of that religion, they could simply reject such a position.

Are humans fundamentally different from other animals?

Whatever the reason, we tend to believe that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, and that this difference justifies our dominion over them. Human rationality is often used to highlight the distinction between people and animals, with particular focus on intelligence or capacity for moral reasoning as the specific differences that demonstrate human superiority. Even conceding these differences, do they justify the various forms of abuse perpetrated against animals for consumption or experimentation?

Consider how we treat humans who lack these abilities. For example, while rationality is a capability that the average adult possesses, there are members of society who lack it entirely, such as those with severe intellectual disabilities, individuals in a vegetative state, infants, or those with dementia. Yet, we do not believe anyone can treat these individuals in the same way they are allowed to treat most animals. If this is the case, we cannot justify discrimination based merely on the presence or absence of rationality, and therefore, we cannot justify unfair treatment of animals by claiming they lack rationality. This argument about how to treat those who lack some of the capabilities that the average adult possesses is referred to by ethicists as the argument from marginal cases. If we contemplate how to treat people who lack these abilities, we cannot justify discrimination against animals by claiming they lack these abilities, if we seek any kind of consistency.

Some argue that merely being human can be a reason to respect humans, and that it can become a basis for discriminating against animals. However, this logic is no different from the rationale behind sexism or racism, which treats only individuals of the same sex or race equally and discriminates against those who do not belong to that category. Just as discriminating based on gender is called sexism and discriminating based on race is called racism, discriminating based on species is termed speciesism.

The position that humans can treat animals arbitrarily is generally unconvincing. Conversely, however, if humans should not treat animals arbitrarily, what is the rationale? Ethicists believe various moral judgments made in different situations should be justified through some ultimate standard. For example, they argue that judgments about whether it is permissible to eat animals should be justified through moral theory. Peter Singer and Tom Regan are prominent philosophers who argue that animals should be granted moral status in this way. Singer argues for moral status through utilitarianism, while Regan attempts to grant moral status to animals through rights theory.

Animals That Feel Pleasure and Pain

Peter Singer is the first philosopher to systematically grant moral status to animals. His 1975 book Animal Liberation is referred to as the bible of the animal rights movement and marks the beginning of the debate about the moral status of animals. Before its publication, people did raise issues with factory farming and animal experiments, and while veganism existed, Singer’s work made a significant impact because it was both an exposé and outlined a rational argument for liberating animals. Singer persuasively argued that animals must be granted moral status based on ethical theory, while highlighting—at the time largely unknown to the public—the horrific abuse inflicted upon animals used for experimentation and meat consumption.

Singer uses utilitarianism to show that animals have moral status. Roughly speaking, utilitarianism considers pleasure good and pain evil. According to Singer, any being that can feel pleasure and pain is a subject of moral consideration. He calls such creatures “sentient beings,” a category that includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish that possess a central nervous system. Animals raised in factory farms for meat, such as cows, pigs, and chickens, and animals used for experiments, such as mice and monkeys, live in extreme pain throughout their lives. Releasing them from this pain is a logical and moral obligation of utilitarianism.

Singer formalizes utilitarianism as the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle demands that the interests of every being be equally considered. This includes all sentient beings, not just humans. Singer believes there should be no special differences in interests, whether they are human or non-human animals. If an animal feels 100 units of pain and a human feels 10 units of pain, other conditions being equal, the animal’s pain should be prioritized. If we think otherwise and give priority to human pain simply because it is human, we are not considering interests equally. To do so is evidence of a specialist attitude that grants priority to humans over animals simply because they are human.

Animals as Subjects of a Life

While Peter Singer used utilitarianism to justify the moral treatment of animals, Tom Regan attempted to grant animals moral status using rights theory. Regan’s rights theory, along with Singer’s position, is considered a philosophical foundation of the animal rights movement, particularly in the English-speaking world.

Regan’s seminal work is The Case for Animal Rights, published in 1983. This book argues, with meticulous logic, that animals that meet certain criteria have an absolute moral status. According to Regan, any being with “inherent value” has rights. Here, rights refer to “ethical values” different from legal rights that vary by society or state. These are rights that protect the inherent value of all beings equally. This value is logically distinct from other types of value, such as utility or aesthetic value, and cannot be reduced to them. It also corresponds to what Kant posits when considering rational beings as ends in themselves; either all beings possess this value or none do, and there are no degrees of possession. Regan asserts that beings possessing this value are equal in having it.

So, who possesses this value? According to Regan, “subjects of a life” have inherent value. These beings possess certain characteristics, such as awareness, desire, intention, purpose, belief, perception, memory, emotion, and self-awareness. Most humans meet these criteria, as do most mammals older than one year. Thus, non-human animals such as mammals older than one year have inherent value. Beings with inherent value have the right to be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. This means it is not permissible to violate the inherent value of these beings for another being’s benefit. Consequently, Regan argues that using animals as food, for experiments, hunting, or display in zoos violates their inherent value and is therefore wrong.

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 29.3
Buy print edition
Buy digital edition
Subscribe to print edition
Subscribe to digital edition
Download our app

In this regard, Regan contrasts with Singer, who, in some instances, deals somewhat leniently with the issue by leaving room for the possibility of taking the lives of animals beyond certain criteria. Singer’s allowance for taking animal lives stems from the perspective of utilitarianism, where if killing animals produces significantly more benefits than pain, or if it’s possible to kill animals without any pain at all, then it may be permissible. This is an inevitable conclusion from the utilitarian standpoint, but Regan rejects such a moderate stance of utilitarianism and firmly grants moral status to animals.

As recently reported by Peter Singer in his 2023 book Animal Liberation Now, research conducted in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland found that 67 percent of ethicists and 63 percent of non-ethics philosophy professors considered it morally wrong to eat meat from mammals. This shows that even though there may be a relatively high percentage of professors who believe eating meat is wrong, there is still a significant number of ethicists or philosophy professors who do not particularly see eating meat as wrong.

When contemplating this issue, we must not base our judgments on intuition, personal preference, or habit, but rather on reason—at least if we aim to avoid logical errors and strive to maintain logical consistency. This is important not only when discussing animal rights, but also if we hope to lead a morally sound life.

About the Author

Seong-han Kim is a professor in the Department of Ethics Education at Jeonju National University of Education in South Korea, with a keen interest in shared life and evolution. He holds a PhD in Philosophy from Korea University in Seoul. He is the author of several books on ethics, morality, and animal rights, and a contributor to the Korean edition of Skeptic magazine.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss485_Michael_Shermer_2024_11_14.mp3 Download MP3

In this special solo episode, Michael Shermer reflects on the 2024 election.

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss484_Ben_Westhoff_2024_11_12.mp3 Download MP3

In 2023, 107,543 Americans died from an overdose—over 75 thousand of those overdosed from fentanyl. This is almost double the number of people who died in car accidents or from gun homicides that year.

Fentanyl has been cut into heroin for years, but now is often mixed into meth and cocaine, fueling rising death counts for those drugs, a troubling development, considering that Americans are much more likely to try meth and cocaine than heroin.

In Canada, the numbers are similarly astronomical, and fentanyl deaths have marched upward in Australia and many European countries as well. Ten years ago, fentanyl and its analogues overtook heroin to become the deadliest drug in Sweden.

“Fentanyl is the game changer,” Special Agent in Charge James Hunt of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) told Vice News. “It’s the most dangerous substance in the history of drug tracking. Heroin and cocaine pale in comparison to how dangerous fentanyl is.”

Ben Westhoff is a best-selling investigative journalist focused on drugs, culture, and poverty. His book Fentanyl, Inc.: How Rogue Chemists Created the Deadliest Wave of the Opioid Epidemic is the bombshell first book about fentanyl. Since its publication, Westhoff has advised top government officials on the fentanyl crisis, including from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the U.S. embassy in Beijing, and the U.S. State Department.

His new book Little Brother: Love, Tragedy, and My Search for the Truth tells the story of his relationship with Jorell Cleveland, his longtime mentee in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. When Jorell was murdered at age 19, and the case went cold, Ben used his skills as an investigative journalist to find the killer. It’s a three-year investigation set in the northern suburbs of St. Louis that uncovers a heartbreaking cycle of poverty, poor education, drug trafficking, and violence. Follow him at benwesthoff.substack.com and benwesthoff.com.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.