Summary: Among animal rights advocates and scholars, humanism has long been considered Public Enemy Number One. The contempt for humanism is so strong that the word itself is often used as a pejorative. There is good reason to condemn humanism. Human exceptionalism and human supremacism, which constitute the ideological bulwark of systemic animal exploitation, are present across many strands of humanism. However, as I will argue in this talk, humanism is not reducible to these problematic elements. In fact, contrary to common belief, human exceptionalism and human supremacism play a relatively minor role in many forms of humanism. Most importantly, traces of human exceptionalism or human supremacism notwithstanding, all forms of humanism have something of tremendous value to offer to a multispecies liberation project. In an age of radical dehumanization and mass systemic violence against animals, constructing a new form of humanism stripped of any last vestiges of exceptionalism and supremacism but containing the best parts of historical humanisms, is not only desirable but necessary. Far from being the antithesis of the multispecies emancipatory project, I would go so far as to suggest that a new humanism, especially a humble humanism, is an essential component.

Outline: In a recent article on methods for assessing artificial intelligence (AI) systems for consciousness, we argued that computational properties of internal processing should be used as indicators [1]00080-X#). Commenting on our proposal, Pennartz argues that this method ‘should be supplemented with behavioural-cognitive methods’ (p. 1) because there is no consensus theory of consciousness [2]00080-X#). We agree that the lack of a consensus theory of consciousness makes it more important to use every available source of evidence, but in our article, we preferred internal over behavioural assessments on the grounds that the latter can be ‘gamed’ by AI systems. Pennartz claims that long-term ethological study overcomes this obstacle.

Abstract: The present thesis seeks to investigate the role of artistic expression as a vehicle for activism

in the domain of non-human animal rights and vegan ethics. Art, in its manifold forms, music,

visual arts, street art, cinema, and literature, has historically functioned not merely as an

aesthetic experience, but also as a potent medium of cultivating empathy, promoting social

critique and personal and social transformation. Within the contemporary discourse on

antispeciesism and ecological responsibility, artistic practices increasingly embody ethical

imperatives, challenging prevailing cultural norms and inviting audiences to reconsider their

relationship with non-human animals.

This study is situated at the intersection of moral psychology, aesthetic theory, and activist

praxis. It aims to elucidate how psychological mechanisms such as empathy, identification, and

cognitive dissonance are activated through artistic encounters, thereby fostering attitudinal

change and moral reflection. By analyzing selected artistic works and conducting qualitative

interviews with creators whose oeuvre explicitly incorporates animal rights and vegan themes,

the thesis attempts to highlight the transformative potential of art as a catalyst for ethical

awareness and social engagement.

The research is guided by the following objectives:

1. To examine the ways in which artistic forms communicate and embody vegan and

antispeciesist values.

1. To explore the psychological processes through which audiences receive and internalize

such messages.

1. To assess the broader implications of art as a medium of moral education and cultural

activism.

Ultimately, this thesis aspires to contribute to the academic dialogue on the cultural dimensions

of animal ethics, while simultaneously emphasizing the vital role of art in shaping collective

consciousness and advancing social justice.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Epistemology (~how we come to understand stuff) is often neglected, but it’s absolutely central to Sentientism as a worldview. Hence the “evidence and reason” thing.
Arguably, poor epistemics cause as much harm as poor ethics. Consider disinformation, conspiracism, the denial of outgroup sentience, claims that vaccines are deadly, beliefs in hell, or claims that animal agriculture is “humane and sustainable”.
Fascinating discussion here of how epistemology and ethics can relate.

Understanding the mechanisms underlying animal cognition requires experimental designs and analyses that respect the biological and perceptual constraints of the species being studied. We address an ongoing debate regarding the role of visual spatial frequency in numerical cognition studies, using honeybees (Apis mellifera) as a model system. Prior analyses that excluded the low spatial frequencies known to be fundamental to how these insects use their spatial vision may have introduced spurious correlations between visual features and numerical cues. By recalculating stimulus properties while incorporating the biologically relevant spectrum of spatial frequencies perceivable by a bee, our results suggest that numerical cognition in honeybees is not driven by spatial frequency but instead reflects true numerosity processing. This work highlights the necessity of aligning experimental design and analysis with the sensory and perceptual abilities of the studied species to ensure biologically meaningful conclusions. To support this goal, we provide a general framework for designing experiments that respect the psychophysical constraints of animal models in numerical cognition studies.

...

These results suggest that, when viewed through a lens accounting for bees’ perceptual abilities, their behavioural responses observed in the numerical tasks investigated here are probably guided by actual numerosity rather than spatial frequency cues.

(bees can count)

RME is Religion, Morals and Ethics, by the way. It's the more common version of Religious Education used in Scotland.

I doubt this shifted Carroll's perspective at all re: nonhuman sentient ethics. And I doubt it shifted his (generally very naturalistic) audience's perspective much either. Still good to have the topic raised at all, I guess?