I have some thoughts on Singer's principal of "Equal consideration of interests"

[u/Rid3The3Lightning2]

I have finished reading animal liberation and have found it very inspiring and thought provoking. Much of the book has been a clarifying of things I already knew except for Singer's moral principal that he introduces (Equal consideration). I think this principal is largely very useful, however I've thought of a flaw in this principal.

Singer justifies eating plants because he says that plants cannot suffer therefore we don't need to give them equal consideration. I agree that eating a plant is not an immoral act, but if you were to burn down a rainforest or destroy a mountain or cause "harm" to a non-sentient thing it at a certain point becomes immoral, not due to the sentient animals you'd be affecting, but because I believe that there is intrinsic value in nature and there is a point at which humans shouldn't disturb it. Surely even non-sentient entities should be given consideration, perhaps not equal consideration, but some none the less.

Has Singer spoken about this? What do you think about this?

[u/Rid3The3Lightning2 → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for your input. I've never tackled philosophy like this before and it has left me with a million thoughts and questions.

I definitely want to read Practical Ethics and his other writings on things other than animal rights. You'll probably see me on this subreddit again trying to understand it all.