This article was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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

Animal rights Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Effective Altruism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism 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.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

An example would be nice.

I would also ask what kinds of nationalisms?

---any kind of nationalism. Implicit is nationalism is a belief that one's nation is special, not necessarily superior, but at least special. It should be noted that a society, particularly a democratic society, can be based upon the Intrinsic Equality principle, or the Equal Consideration of Interests principle, without having to extend that consideration to foreigners or anyone not part of the particular society. 129.67.17.233 (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent deletion discussion had a point: the article as currently written is essentially an uncritical, WP:ESSAY-ish, and nearly WP:COPYVIO exposition of Singer's application of this principle in the context of animal ethics. I may be able to spend some time working on it over the next few months. (My qualifications are literally sophomoric: I took a great seminar on animal ethics last fall, and that's it.) Some sources I found for the AFD are hatted below:

A suggested outline, to be adjusted as secondary sources indicate:

• Lede
• Exposition/context. Definition(s), contextualization within rule & preference utilitarianism, distinction from related ideas like equal consideration of rights, importance in animal ethics (because nonhuman animals are sometimes thought to have interests but not rights).
• Proponents and their arguments. Singer would probably merit a full subsection.
• Opponents and their arguments. Divide among opponents in the generality of metaethics (e.g. anti-utilitarians and those who reject aggregation); opponents of increased moral consideration for nonhuman animals (e.g. Francis and Norman); and opponents among pro-animal philosophers (e.g. rights theorists like Francione, or virtue ethicists like Rosalind Hursthouse).

Pinging User:J Milburn, User:Sammy1339, User:SlimVirgin, User:Adam Cuerden, and User:Davidcpearce, the editors who come to mind as having shown interest or knowledge in animal ethics (with respect to which this topic has been most discussed) in the past. FourViolas (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd be wise to keep specific examples back until it's been dealt with at much greater length. I'd be inclined to cut back to the lead, and work forwards from there, focusing on the sources and viewpoints, and less on advocacy/moral claims based on them until we've developed the subject a lot more. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. My concern, which more experienced philosophy editors can advise on, is that the "secondary literature" in this field is often minimal; apparently philosophers rarely publish review articles, instead responding to each other in long chains of primary sources. So it will probably be hard to depict the debates meaningfully without starting to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, giving names and positions to the interpreters. But I agree that the article needs a lot of fundamental work before we get to that level of detail. FourViolas (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]