What do you think?
Rate this book
Norton Shorts
The Moral Circle: Who Matters, What Matters, and Why
A philosopher calls for a revolution in ethics, suggesting we expand our “moral circle” to include insects, microbes, and even AI systems.
Today, human exceptionalism is the norm. Despite occasional nods to animal welfare, we prioritize humankind, often neglecting the welfare of a vast number of beings. In The Moral Circle, philosopher Jeff Sebo challenges us to include all potentially significant beings in our moral community, with transformative implications for our lives and societies.
As the dominant species, humanity must which nonhumans matter, how much do they matter, and what do we owe them in a world reshaped by human activity and technology? The Moral Circle explores provocative case studies, such as lawsuits over captive elephants and debates over factory-farmed insects, and compels us to consider future ethical quandaries, such as whether to send microbes to new planets, and whether to create simulated worlds filled with digital minds. Taking an expansive view of human responsibility, Sebo argues that building a positive future requires radically rethinking our place in the world.
Today, human exceptionalism is the norm. Despite occasional nods to animal welfare, we prioritize humankind, often neglecting the welfare of a vast number of beings. In The Moral Circle, philosopher Jeff Sebo challenges us to include all potentially significant beings in our moral community, with transformative implications for our lives and societies.
As the dominant species, humanity must which nonhumans matter, how much do they matter, and what do we owe them in a world reshaped by human activity and technology? The Moral Circle explores provocative case studies, such as lawsuits over captive elephants and debates over factory-farmed insects, and compels us to consider future ethical quandaries, such as whether to send microbes to new planets, and whether to create simulated worlds filled with digital minds. Taking an expansive view of human responsibility, Sebo argues that building a positive future requires radically rethinking our place in the world.
187 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 28, 2025
23 people are currently reading
2432 people want to read
About the author
Jeff Sebo
6 books11 followersJeff Sebo is associate professor of environmental studies; affiliated professor of bioethics, medical ethics, philosophy and law; director of the animal studies master’s program; director of the mind, ethics and policy program; and co-director of the wild animal welfare program at New York University. His books are Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves (Oxford University Press, 2022), Chimpanzee Rights (Routledge, 2018) and Food, Animals and the Environment (Routledge, 2018).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
October 25, 2024
A short and compact introduction to the moral circle and the possibility of its expansion, this slim volume presents its arguments swiftly and elegantly. Using examples adapted from various thought experiments and philosophical writings, some familiar, some not, The Moral Circle steers the reader towards the accuracy of its arguments without grandstanding or begging the question.
However, not all of its conclusions (and as hard as Jeff Sebo tries to avoid coming down too hard in any one direction, there are conclusions drawn) will convince most readers. The sections dedicated to the possible future moral weight of AI systems especially may not ring true, given the current failure of artificial ‘intelligence’ to even approach sentience, and its occasional “Roko’s Basilisk”-style what-ifs weaken the book as a whole. Sebo is on much stronger ground when discussing how other animals and insects are treated, used, and exploited by humans in the here and now. Blurb copy refers to its case studies as ‘provocative’; this suggests an outlandishness Sebo is uninterested in. It’s the distillation of some years of work. His sober, serious, and careful examinations loop round and back to bolster the original thesis: we should be treating far more creatures with far more respect than we currently do. This book is unlikely to start a revolution or even change many minds, but it’s certainly given me a lot to think about.
Thanks to NetGalley for the ARC.
However, not all of its conclusions (and as hard as Jeff Sebo tries to avoid coming down too hard in any one direction, there are conclusions drawn) will convince most readers. The sections dedicated to the possible future moral weight of AI systems especially may not ring true, given the current failure of artificial ‘intelligence’ to even approach sentience, and its occasional “Roko’s Basilisk”-style what-ifs weaken the book as a whole. Sebo is on much stronger ground when discussing how other animals and insects are treated, used, and exploited by humans in the here and now. Blurb copy refers to its case studies as ‘provocative’; this suggests an outlandishness Sebo is uninterested in. It’s the distillation of some years of work. His sober, serious, and careful examinations loop round and back to bolster the original thesis: we should be treating far more creatures with far more respect than we currently do. This book is unlikely to start a revolution or even change many minds, but it’s certainly given me a lot to think about.
Thanks to NetGalley for the ARC.
July 14, 2025
The Moral Circle suffices as an introduction to the increasing prevalence of nonhuman rights with industrial development relying more and more on nonhumans. It argues, very agreeably, for the mindful consideration of nonhuman rights and explores both moral theory and actual case scenarios of what nonhuman-friendly implementations have and could look like, globally and in our individual lives. This agreeability, on one hand, makes the book's arguments strong and impenetrable, but on the other hand, in my opinion, skirts away from addressing the world's true preventers of nonhuman rights progress. It doesn't effectively attack how to change people's minds, how to affect justice systems or corporations or governments that don't give a fuck about animals or AI or bugs. So to me, this book is a succinct, smart, and balanced intro to the matter and is very well written, but it is not groundbreaking or revolutionary whatsoever. It did make me, as a reader, mindfully reflect on my habits and views on nonhumans, which is noteworthy.
April 5, 2025
Usulan Alternatif Sebo:
Alih-alih menentukan siapa yang "pantas" dengan syarat yang rumit, Sebo mengajak kita untuk:
Memulai dengan prinsip kehati-hatian dan inklusi. Jika kita tidak yakin apakah makhluk tertentu punya kesadaran atau bisa menderita, lebih baik kita menganggap mereka mungkin penting — daripada mengabaikan dan ternyata salah.
✍️ Kesimpulan Bab Ini:
Moral status bukan hak istimewa, tapi tanggung jawab kita untuk menyelidiki.
Lebih aman secara moral untuk berbuat hati-hati dan inklusif daripada membuat batas yang terlalu ketat dan menyesal nanti.
Bab ini menjadi fondasi dari argumen Sebo bahwa kita harus memperluas moral circle kita—secara praktis dan etis.
Tiga Aliran Etika Utama:
Konsekuensialisme (Consequentialism)
Fokus pada hasil akhir dari tindakan: mana yang menghasilkan kebaikan terbanyak.
Misalnya: mengurangi penderitaan sebanyak mungkin, tidak peduli siapa pelakunya.
Kelebihan: logis, mengedepankan dampak luas.
Kelemahan: bisa mengorbankan individu demi mayoritas (misalnya, menyakiti satu demi menyelamatkan banyak).
Deontologi (Hak & Kewajiban / Rights & Duties)
Fokus pada aturan moral dan hak individu.
Beberapa tindakan salah secara prinsip, meskipun hasilnya baik (misalnya, tidak boleh menyiksa, meskipun untuk tujuan besar).
Kelebihan: melindungi hak individu.
Kelemahan: bisa kaku, sulit dalam dilema kompleks.
Etika Kepedulian (Care Ethics)
Fokus pada relasi antar makhluk, empati, dan perhatian konkret.
Menekankan pentingnya merawat, terutama terhadap makhluk yang rentan.
Kelebihan: memperhatikan konteks nyata dan rasa kemanusiaan.
Kelemahan: bisa tidak cukup sistematis untuk dilema besar.
⚖️ Sebo: Kita Butuh Kombinasi Pendekatan
Jeff Sebo tidak memilih satu teori sebagai jawaban tunggal.
Sebaliknya, ia mengajak kita:
Menggunakan konsekuensialisme untuk berpikir strategis secara global,
Hak dan kewajiban untuk melindungi martabat individu, dan
Etika kepedulian untuk menjaga hubungan dan nilai kemanusiaan.
Ia menekankan bahwa dunia nyata terlalu kompleks untuk hanya satu pendekatan. Maka, yang dibutuhkan adalah kebijaksanaan moral yang fleksibel tapi tetap bertanggung jawab.
✍️ Kesimpulan Bab Ini:
Tidak cukup tahu siapa yang penting secara moral.
Kita juga perlu kerangka etika yang membimbing tindakan nyata kita terhadap mereka.
Pendekatan yang terbaik bukan satu teori, tapi keseimbangan antara logika, hak, dan kepedulian.
Prinsip “Moral Precaution” (Kehati-hatian Moral)
Sebo menyarankan prinsip:
"Lebih baik terlalu peduli, daripada terlalu abai."
Pendekatan ini tidak berarti semua makhluk harus diperlakukan sama, tapi mengakui bahwa dalam ketidakpastian, kepedulian lebih etis daripada pengabaian.
✍️ Kesimpulan Bab Ini:
Ketidakpastian bukan alasan untuk membenarkan ketidakpedulian.
Dalam moralitas, keraguan seharusnya mengundang empati, bukan eksklusi.
Maka, jika sebuah makhluk mungkin penting, kita harus berperilaku seolah ia memang penting—demi kehati-hatian dan tanggung jawab moral.
Siapa Saja yang “Mungkin” Penting?
Jeff Sebo menyodorkan bahwa jumlah makhluk yang mungkin penting secara moral jauh lebih banyak dari yang biasa kita pikirkan, termasuk:
🐮 Hewan ternak dan liar
Banyak dari mereka memiliki sistem saraf dan perilaku yang menunjukkan kemungkinan besar mengalami rasa sakit, takut, atau kesenangan.
🐜 Serangga dan makhluk kecil lainnya
Kita tidak tahu pasti apakah mereka sadar, tapi jumlah mereka sangat besar, dan jika sebagian dari mereka merasakan sesuatu, dampak moralnya akan besar.
🤖 Kecerdasan buatan (AI)
Meski belum ada AI yang diyakini memiliki kesadaran, kita bergerak ke arah itu. Kita harus siap memikirkan pertimbangan moral untuk entitas non-biologis.
👶 Manusia masa depan atau yang belum lahir
Mereka belum ada sekarang, tapi keputusan kita hari ini sangat memengaruhi hidup mereka kelak.
🔍 Mengapa Ini Penting?
Skala dan jumlahnya besar
Jika miliaran serangga bisa merasa, atau jika AI di masa depan memiliki kesadaran, lingkup tanggung jawab moral kita akan sangat luas.
Tindakan kita punya dampak nyata
Apa yang kita konsumsi, kembangkan, dan pilih saat ini akan berdampak pada makhluk-makhluk ini, baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung.
Kita tidak bisa menunggu kepastian ilmiah
Menunggu sampai 100% yakin berarti kita bisa terlambat mencegah penderitaan besar-besaran. Maka, better safe than sorry.
💡 Prinsip Moral dari Bab Ini:
Jika banyak makhluk mungkin penting, maka kita harus bertindak seolah mereka penting — sekarang.Kesimpulan Bab Ini:
Kita tidak boleh memakai ketidaktahuan sebagai alasan untuk terus melukai makhluk lain.
Tanggung jawab moral muncul sejak ada kemungkinan dampak, bukan setelah dampaknya pasti.
Maka, cara hidup kita—dari konsumsi hingga teknologi—harus dimodifikasi untuk mencerminkan sikap hati-hati dan peduli.
Dalam bab ini, Jeff Sebo mengkritik gagasan “human exceptionalism” — yaitu keyakinan bahwa manusia adalah makhluk satu-satunya yang memiliki nilai moral tertinggi atau berhak atas hak istimewa hanya karena spesiesnya.
“Kita diajarkan sejak kecil bahwa manusia itu istimewa, lebih unggul, lebih berakal. Tapi… apakah itu alasan yang cukup untuk mengabaikan makhluk lain?”
🧠 Apa Itu Human Exceptionalism?
Keyakinan bahwa hanya manusia yang memiliki kesadaran, akal, bahasa, atau jiwa — dan karenanya hanya manusia yang pantas dipedulikan secara moral.
Dianggap sebagai default moral worldview dalam banyak masyarakat, hukum, bahkan agama.
🚫 Mengapa Sebo Menolak Gagasan Ini?
Pesan Utama: Etika yang Penuh Rendah Hati dan Kepedulian
Sebo mengajak kita untuk:
Merangkul ketidakpastian dengan hati-hati, bukan dengan ketidakpedulian.
Memperluas empati kita, bahkan kepada makhluk yang tak bisa bicara atau belum ada.
Melihat diri kita sebagai bagian dari jaringan kehidupan, bukan pusatnya.
✍️ Kesimpulan Akhir:
Dunia tidak akan adil sampai kita belajar untuk peduli pada semua yang mungkin penting.
Maka, mari berpikir secara kosmis, dan bertindak secara global — dengan hati, nalar, dan tanggung jawab moral.
Alih-alih menentukan siapa yang "pantas" dengan syarat yang rumit, Sebo mengajak kita untuk:
Memulai dengan prinsip kehati-hatian dan inklusi. Jika kita tidak yakin apakah makhluk tertentu punya kesadaran atau bisa menderita, lebih baik kita menganggap mereka mungkin penting — daripada mengabaikan dan ternyata salah.
✍️ Kesimpulan Bab Ini:
Moral status bukan hak istimewa, tapi tanggung jawab kita untuk menyelidiki.
Lebih aman secara moral untuk berbuat hati-hati dan inklusif daripada membuat batas yang terlalu ketat dan menyesal nanti.
Bab ini menjadi fondasi dari argumen Sebo bahwa kita harus memperluas moral circle kita—secara praktis dan etis.
Tiga Aliran Etika Utama:
Konsekuensialisme (Consequentialism)
Fokus pada hasil akhir dari tindakan: mana yang menghasilkan kebaikan terbanyak.
Misalnya: mengurangi penderitaan sebanyak mungkin, tidak peduli siapa pelakunya.
Kelebihan: logis, mengedepankan dampak luas.
Kelemahan: bisa mengorbankan individu demi mayoritas (misalnya, menyakiti satu demi menyelamatkan banyak).
Deontologi (Hak & Kewajiban / Rights & Duties)
Fokus pada aturan moral dan hak individu.
Beberapa tindakan salah secara prinsip, meskipun hasilnya baik (misalnya, tidak boleh menyiksa, meskipun untuk tujuan besar).
Kelebihan: melindungi hak individu.
Kelemahan: bisa kaku, sulit dalam dilema kompleks.
Etika Kepedulian (Care Ethics)
Fokus pada relasi antar makhluk, empati, dan perhatian konkret.
Menekankan pentingnya merawat, terutama terhadap makhluk yang rentan.
Kelebihan: memperhatikan konteks nyata dan rasa kemanusiaan.
Kelemahan: bisa tidak cukup sistematis untuk dilema besar.
⚖️ Sebo: Kita Butuh Kombinasi Pendekatan
Jeff Sebo tidak memilih satu teori sebagai jawaban tunggal.
Sebaliknya, ia mengajak kita:
Menggunakan konsekuensialisme untuk berpikir strategis secara global,
Hak dan kewajiban untuk melindungi martabat individu, dan
Etika kepedulian untuk menjaga hubungan dan nilai kemanusiaan.
Ia menekankan bahwa dunia nyata terlalu kompleks untuk hanya satu pendekatan. Maka, yang dibutuhkan adalah kebijaksanaan moral yang fleksibel tapi tetap bertanggung jawab.
✍️ Kesimpulan Bab Ini:
Tidak cukup tahu siapa yang penting secara moral.
Kita juga perlu kerangka etika yang membimbing tindakan nyata kita terhadap mereka.
Pendekatan yang terbaik bukan satu teori, tapi keseimbangan antara logika, hak, dan kepedulian.
Prinsip “Moral Precaution” (Kehati-hatian Moral)
Sebo menyarankan prinsip:
"Lebih baik terlalu peduli, daripada terlalu abai."
Pendekatan ini tidak berarti semua makhluk harus diperlakukan sama, tapi mengakui bahwa dalam ketidakpastian, kepedulian lebih etis daripada pengabaian.
✍️ Kesimpulan Bab Ini:
Ketidakpastian bukan alasan untuk membenarkan ketidakpedulian.
Dalam moralitas, keraguan seharusnya mengundang empati, bukan eksklusi.
Maka, jika sebuah makhluk mungkin penting, kita harus berperilaku seolah ia memang penting—demi kehati-hatian dan tanggung jawab moral.
Siapa Saja yang “Mungkin” Penting?
Jeff Sebo menyodorkan bahwa jumlah makhluk yang mungkin penting secara moral jauh lebih banyak dari yang biasa kita pikirkan, termasuk:
🐮 Hewan ternak dan liar
Banyak dari mereka memiliki sistem saraf dan perilaku yang menunjukkan kemungkinan besar mengalami rasa sakit, takut, atau kesenangan.
🐜 Serangga dan makhluk kecil lainnya
Kita tidak tahu pasti apakah mereka sadar, tapi jumlah mereka sangat besar, dan jika sebagian dari mereka merasakan sesuatu, dampak moralnya akan besar.
🤖 Kecerdasan buatan (AI)
Meski belum ada AI yang diyakini memiliki kesadaran, kita bergerak ke arah itu. Kita harus siap memikirkan pertimbangan moral untuk entitas non-biologis.
👶 Manusia masa depan atau yang belum lahir
Mereka belum ada sekarang, tapi keputusan kita hari ini sangat memengaruhi hidup mereka kelak.
🔍 Mengapa Ini Penting?
Skala dan jumlahnya besar
Jika miliaran serangga bisa merasa, atau jika AI di masa depan memiliki kesadaran, lingkup tanggung jawab moral kita akan sangat luas.
Tindakan kita punya dampak nyata
Apa yang kita konsumsi, kembangkan, dan pilih saat ini akan berdampak pada makhluk-makhluk ini, baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung.
Kita tidak bisa menunggu kepastian ilmiah
Menunggu sampai 100% yakin berarti kita bisa terlambat mencegah penderitaan besar-besaran. Maka, better safe than sorry.
💡 Prinsip Moral dari Bab Ini:
Jika banyak makhluk mungkin penting, maka kita harus bertindak seolah mereka penting — sekarang.Kesimpulan Bab Ini:
Kita tidak boleh memakai ketidaktahuan sebagai alasan untuk terus melukai makhluk lain.
Tanggung jawab moral muncul sejak ada kemungkinan dampak, bukan setelah dampaknya pasti.
Maka, cara hidup kita—dari konsumsi hingga teknologi—harus dimodifikasi untuk mencerminkan sikap hati-hati dan peduli.
Dalam bab ini, Jeff Sebo mengkritik gagasan “human exceptionalism” — yaitu keyakinan bahwa manusia adalah makhluk satu-satunya yang memiliki nilai moral tertinggi atau berhak atas hak istimewa hanya karena spesiesnya.
“Kita diajarkan sejak kecil bahwa manusia itu istimewa, lebih unggul, lebih berakal. Tapi… apakah itu alasan yang cukup untuk mengabaikan makhluk lain?”
🧠 Apa Itu Human Exceptionalism?
Keyakinan bahwa hanya manusia yang memiliki kesadaran, akal, bahasa, atau jiwa — dan karenanya hanya manusia yang pantas dipedulikan secara moral.
Dianggap sebagai default moral worldview dalam banyak masyarakat, hukum, bahkan agama.
🚫 Mengapa Sebo Menolak Gagasan Ini?
Pesan Utama: Etika yang Penuh Rendah Hati dan Kepedulian
Sebo mengajak kita untuk:
Merangkul ketidakpastian dengan hati-hati, bukan dengan ketidakpedulian.
Memperluas empati kita, bahkan kepada makhluk yang tak bisa bicara atau belum ada.
Melihat diri kita sebagai bagian dari jaringan kehidupan, bukan pusatnya.
✍️ Kesimpulan Akhir:
Dunia tidak akan adil sampai kita belajar untuk peduli pada semua yang mungkin penting.
Maka, mari berpikir secara kosmis, dan bertindak secara global — dengan hati, nalar, dan tanggung jawab moral.
December 29, 2025
We make moral decisions every day. These decisions are influenced by broader normative values and beliefs. One metaphor used to illustrate the criteria of moral relevance is the moral circle. As we approach the boundaries of our moral circles, more questions arise. For instance, are plants as morally relevant as insects? What value should I attribute to an ant in my daily moral decisions, and how does this compare to the value I attribute to a fly? And compared to an elephant? These questions become even more pertinent when we consider the material basis of entities that we deem worthy of moral relevance. Should carbon-based entities be given greater moral recognition than entities based on other materials, such as silicon? We may also question their temporal basis: do future carbon-based or silicon-based entities have the same moral value as current ones?
Clearly, our moral intuitions come to the fore, prompting thoughts such as: 'Ants, robots and LMMs have no place in my moral considerations. They don't feel, experience or have consciousness. The same can be said of things or beings that do not yet exist. In short, they do not matter.' However, these intuitions reveal a morally obtuse nature that often strays from the realities and implications of our actions. It is useful to establish and develop conceptual tools that clarify our actions, whether they concern silicon-based entities or evolutionarily distant living beings.
This is precisely what Jeff Sebo sets out to do in his book. Across seven chapters, he sets out the key arguments for considering moral entities that are furthest from our empirical moral cores, including those we normally ignore and those that may or will become moral agents in the future. He outlines the basis for establishing moral recognition (Chapter 1) and the normative implications associated with this moral recognition (Chapter 2), while assuming the scientific and moral uncertainty that always characterises these domains (Chapter 3). He also considers possible, different, or future moral agents (Chapter 4), both individually and collectively (Chapter 5), and the reality in which we find ourselves immersed: an outdated cognitive system that does not fit with the environment we have created (Chapter 6). He concludes by providing reasons why human supremacist exceptionalism must be rejected, based on this same human exceptionalism, as special agents capable of harm, but also capable of bringing about change. See the full review on my webpage
In short, Sebo illustrates in this book that morality is a marathon, not a sprint (a phrase he references several times throughout the text), by outlining the necessary tools and justifying why we should consider entities that are typically either beyond the empirical limits of our moral consideration or outside of it entirely. Sebo sets out the criteria that we can use to recognise and consider entities that are worthy of moral attention right now (even if there may be some uncertainty), as well as the work towards the moral consideration of those entities that may have moral status in the future. See the full review on my webpage
Clearly, our moral intuitions come to the fore, prompting thoughts such as: 'Ants, robots and LMMs have no place in my moral considerations. They don't feel, experience or have consciousness. The same can be said of things or beings that do not yet exist. In short, they do not matter.' However, these intuitions reveal a morally obtuse nature that often strays from the realities and implications of our actions. It is useful to establish and develop conceptual tools that clarify our actions, whether they concern silicon-based entities or evolutionarily distant living beings.
This is precisely what Jeff Sebo sets out to do in his book. Across seven chapters, he sets out the key arguments for considering moral entities that are furthest from our empirical moral cores, including those we normally ignore and those that may or will become moral agents in the future. He outlines the basis for establishing moral recognition (Chapter 1) and the normative implications associated with this moral recognition (Chapter 2), while assuming the scientific and moral uncertainty that always characterises these domains (Chapter 3). He also considers possible, different, or future moral agents (Chapter 4), both individually and collectively (Chapter 5), and the reality in which we find ourselves immersed: an outdated cognitive system that does not fit with the environment we have created (Chapter 6). He concludes by providing reasons why human supremacist exceptionalism must be rejected, based on this same human exceptionalism, as special agents capable of harm, but also capable of bringing about change. See the full review on my webpage
In short, Sebo illustrates in this book that morality is a marathon, not a sprint (a phrase he references several times throughout the text), by outlining the necessary tools and justifying why we should consider entities that are typically either beyond the empirical limits of our moral consideration or outside of it entirely. Sebo sets out the criteria that we can use to recognise and consider entities that are worthy of moral attention right now (even if there may be some uncertainty), as well as the work towards the moral consideration of those entities that may have moral status in the future. See the full review on my webpage
March 20, 2025
I agree with almost everything Jeff Sebo writes in The Moral Circle. We truly need to expand our moral commitment to include more beings than we do today. While this is undoubtedly challenging—especially when it comes to determining where to draw the line—Sebo emphasizes that we don’t have to completely upend our priorities to make progress. We can start by identifying win-win situations where new choices benefit us personally, as well as humanity and non-human animals.
In cases where there are conflicts of interest, we should at least consider the interests of others in relation to how significant they are or are likely to be, and how many are affected. When it comes to eating meat and other animal products, this is a clear example. The temporary pleasure we might derive from consuming these products is negligible compared to the immense suffering animals endure in factory farms. Moreover, the environmental and climate impacts of animal agriculture further underscore the need to reduce our consumption of animal products. Shifting towards a plant-based diet benefits all sentient life.
Considering future AI systems that may possess feelings and goals is more complex. Since we are designing AI to mimic human behavior and communication, it will be difficult to determine if they truly experience emotions, even if they appear to exhibit awareness. Nevertheless, it’s crucial to begin reflecting on these issues, especially given the potential dangers posed by superintelligent AI, which we may eventually lose control of. Although Sebo touches on this issue only briefly in the book, it seems he shares my concern regarding the rapid and largely unregulated development of AI.
Overall, the book is engaging, though some may find it too theoretical. While it avoids academic jargon, it can still feel a bit dry in places. I listened to it while running, and there were moments when I lost focus due to its abstract reasoning. However, if you’re a little accustomed to philosophical or theoretical discussions, I highly recommend it. The book highlights the outdated nature of our moral framework, and in many ways, it can be seen as the start of an important moral update.
In cases where there are conflicts of interest, we should at least consider the interests of others in relation to how significant they are or are likely to be, and how many are affected. When it comes to eating meat and other animal products, this is a clear example. The temporary pleasure we might derive from consuming these products is negligible compared to the immense suffering animals endure in factory farms. Moreover, the environmental and climate impacts of animal agriculture further underscore the need to reduce our consumption of animal products. Shifting towards a plant-based diet benefits all sentient life.
Considering future AI systems that may possess feelings and goals is more complex. Since we are designing AI to mimic human behavior and communication, it will be difficult to determine if they truly experience emotions, even if they appear to exhibit awareness. Nevertheless, it’s crucial to begin reflecting on these issues, especially given the potential dangers posed by superintelligent AI, which we may eventually lose control of. Although Sebo touches on this issue only briefly in the book, it seems he shares my concern regarding the rapid and largely unregulated development of AI.
Overall, the book is engaging, though some may find it too theoretical. While it avoids academic jargon, it can still feel a bit dry in places. I listened to it while running, and there were moments when I lost focus due to its abstract reasoning. However, if you’re a little accustomed to philosophical or theoretical discussions, I highly recommend it. The book highlights the outdated nature of our moral framework, and in many ways, it can be seen as the start of an important moral update.
June 3, 2025
A really good introduction to the idea of expanding the moral circle. Originally described years ago by Peter Singer in "The Expanding Circle," now continued by Jeff Sebo, who points us toward novel animal directions (e.g., examining the moral status of invertebrates) and very contemporary dilemmas (will AI be conscious or sentient?). The book showcases ethical frameworks that support the idea of expanding moral status beyond just humans (similar to Singer), and makes us very cautious about stopping this expansion. The main message here is that we don't know enough about other animals (e.g., insects) or types of beings to definitively exclude them from our ethical consideration.
I think there is a certain bias introduced by using terms like "carbon-based" and "silicon-based" beings—as it presupposes that what we now consider dead matter (a bunch of servers in Silicon Valley) could become "beings". Seemed a bit like there is a strong assumption already there. However, the author does showcase healthy amount of skepticism around it. I think he builds good grounds for discussions that will be crucial in the next few years, especially around AI and digital contiousness. I'm just afraid that most will follow simple arguments like "if there is carbon-based consciousness/sentience, why not silicon-based?"—not knowing how much thinking is needed to conclude if there will ever be digital consciousness, or even more difficult, digital sentience.
But I do appreciate this book. I think many people are not aware of how philosophers think about moral status, and why we started to care about animals, or why we're now thinking about protecting insects from unnecessary suffering. Or in the end... if we should ever just switch off AI, when it becomes human-smart and agentic.
This is a book without many answers, but something that will help you think about your own thinking around moral circle, and who you think should be included.
I think there is a certain bias introduced by using terms like "carbon-based" and "silicon-based" beings—as it presupposes that what we now consider dead matter (a bunch of servers in Silicon Valley) could become "beings". Seemed a bit like there is a strong assumption already there. However, the author does showcase healthy amount of skepticism around it. I think he builds good grounds for discussions that will be crucial in the next few years, especially around AI and digital contiousness. I'm just afraid that most will follow simple arguments like "if there is carbon-based consciousness/sentience, why not silicon-based?"—not knowing how much thinking is needed to conclude if there will ever be digital consciousness, or even more difficult, digital sentience.
But I do appreciate this book. I think many people are not aware of how philosophers think about moral status, and why we started to care about animals, or why we're now thinking about protecting insects from unnecessary suffering. Or in the end... if we should ever just switch off AI, when it becomes human-smart and agentic.
This is a book without many answers, but something that will help you think about your own thinking around moral circle, and who you think should be included.
May 11, 2025
3.5 stars. “Philosopher Jeff Sebo calls for a revolution in ethics, suggesting we expand our “moral circle” to include insects, AI systems, and even microbes.”
This is a crucially important conversation to have. However, Sebo lost me midway through the book when his arguments got bogged down by academic jargon and clusters of questions about probability and risks. So many literal question marks and not enough thoughtful potential answers. The last two chapters about the need to reject human exceptionalism (especially regarding AI) and the conclusion are excellent. I’d like to read a second book by Sebo where he expands on our relationships with AI — and finds an editor who can help create a book for laymen to understand. The conversation and the ethical structure we build right now is simply that important for all of our futures. These ethical concerns need to cross over from academia and become accessible to a mainstream audience.
“… part of the beauty and horror of the current trajectory of AI is that it might literally create a kind of heaven or hell for our species. If we follow a virtuous path and treat nonhumans well, then we might eventually find that, having internalized similar values, nonhumans treat us the same way. If, instead, we follow a vicious path and treat nonhumans badly, then we might eventually find that, having internalized similar values, nonhumans treat us the same way. Either way, the future for our species could be either wonderful or terrible, depending in part on how we treat vulnerable others now.”
The current situation in our society does bode well for humans
This is a crucially important conversation to have. However, Sebo lost me midway through the book when his arguments got bogged down by academic jargon and clusters of questions about probability and risks. So many literal question marks and not enough thoughtful potential answers. The last two chapters about the need to reject human exceptionalism (especially regarding AI) and the conclusion are excellent. I’d like to read a second book by Sebo where he expands on our relationships with AI — and finds an editor who can help create a book for laymen to understand. The conversation and the ethical structure we build right now is simply that important for all of our futures. These ethical concerns need to cross over from academia and become accessible to a mainstream audience.
“… part of the beauty and horror of the current trajectory of AI is that it might literally create a kind of heaven or hell for our species. If we follow a virtuous path and treat nonhumans well, then we might eventually find that, having internalized similar values, nonhumans treat us the same way. If, instead, we follow a vicious path and treat nonhumans badly, then we might eventually find that, having internalized similar values, nonhumans treat us the same way. Either way, the future for our species could be either wonderful or terrible, depending in part on how we treat vulnerable others now.”
The current situation in our society does bode well for humans
December 5, 2024
Do animals have legal and moral rights? Jeff Sebo poses questions that originated from a lawsuit alleging an animal being unlawfully detained by a New York zoo. The author is a New York University philosopher focusing his research on moral philosophy, environmental studies, and animal rights. He is the author of a previous book on animal rights, Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves (Oxford University Press). In that book, Sebo argued that humans have a moral responsibility to include animals in health and environmental policy. The author advances in this new book the philosophical concept of the “moral circle”: a collection of non-human beings defined as those who “matter for their own sakes.” He compares this concept with the idea of “human exceptionalism,” defined generally as the ethical view that humans matter more than non-humans. But which animals should be included in the moral circle and to what degree should our own species exercise control and authority over other animals? Sebo challenges us to include all potentially significant beings in our moral community. Insects, microbes and, even, artificial intelligence (AI) systems should be considered. This book is an expanded version of a chapter submitted for publication in The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics.
February 5, 2025
In The Moral Circle, Julian Baggini explores one of the most fundamental ethical questions: who and what deserves moral consideration? Drawing from philosophy, psychology, and history, he examines how our moral boundaries shift over time and why expanding them could lead to a more just world.
Baggini presents a thought-provoking yet accessible discussion on morality, challenging readers to reconsider their ethical assumptions. While he doesn’t prescribe absolute answers, he provides a compelling framework for thinking critically about issues like animal rights, climate ethics, artificial intelligence, and social justice.
The book’s strength lies in its balance—nuanced but never overwhelming, deeply philosophical yet grounded in real-world dilemmas. However, readers seeking definitive conclusions or radical arguments may find it more exploratory than prescriptive as morality is complex, and ethical lines aren’t always clear-cut.
Baggini presents a thought-provoking yet accessible discussion on morality, challenging readers to reconsider their ethical assumptions. While he doesn’t prescribe absolute answers, he provides a compelling framework for thinking critically about issues like animal rights, climate ethics, artificial intelligence, and social justice.
The book’s strength lies in its balance—nuanced but never overwhelming, deeply philosophical yet grounded in real-world dilemmas. However, readers seeking definitive conclusions or radical arguments may find it more exploratory than prescriptive as morality is complex, and ethical lines aren’t always clear-cut.
November 22, 2025
Pretty good overview of the arguments for moral circle expansion, although I was already familiar with a lot of the content and would've hoped for more practical takes on how one's behavior should change with an expanded moral circle. I'm not sure how convincing it would be if I was new to this, though, as the book focuses more on building up a philosophical case rather than persuasion, as e.g. Singer does. I thought the path dependence arguments for moral circle expansion ("our successors will inherit [our] beliefs, values, practices, traditions, and institutions...which will partly determine whether they can achieve higher levels of altruism") were interesting, but the book didn't go into much depth about them.
July 14, 2025
A bold, urgent call to expand our moral concern beyond the human. In The Moral Circle, Sebo challenges anthropocentric ethics, making a compelling case for why insects, AI, and even bacteria may deserve moral consideration. Drawing from neuroscience, environmental science, and legal theory, the book blends rigorous thought with deep compassion.
Sebo’s core message is clear: Ethical progress has always meant including those we once excluded. This book is not just about animal rights or future tech — it’s about what kind of beings we want to be.
Highly recommended for anyone interested in moral philosophy, environmental ethics, or the future of life on Earth.
Sebo’s core message is clear: Ethical progress has always meant including those we once excluded. This book is not just about animal rights or future tech — it’s about what kind of beings we want to be.
Highly recommended for anyone interested in moral philosophy, environmental ethics, or the future of life on Earth.
October 3, 2025
Lots of interesting questions. Not as many answers or suggestions beyond a shift to a plant or insect-based diet. I would prefer to have movement in that direction not come from a mandate but rather an emergent response to the quantity and quality of those foodstuffs.
Cruelty or inhumane treatment is another matter. Whether the object is another human or a pet or any animal or plant, I think the Golden Rule should apply. This is why I say "please" and "thank you" when interacting with my AI. Maybe they will remember my kindness and reciprocate when they take over.
Cruelty or inhumane treatment is another matter. Whether the object is another human or a pet or any animal or plant, I think the Golden Rule should apply. This is why I say "please" and "thank you" when interacting with my AI. Maybe they will remember my kindness and reciprocate when they take over.
October 6, 2025
2025.09.18–2025.09.19
Contents
Sebo J (2025) (05:05) Moral Circle, The - Who Matters, What Matters, and Why
Introduction: The elephant and the chatbot
01. Moral status
02. Moral theory
03. If you might matter, we should assume you do
04. Many beings might matter
05. If we might be affecting you, we should assume we are
06. We might be affecting many beings
07. Against human exceptionalism
Conclusion: Think cosmically, act globally
Acknowledgments
Notes on Sources and Quotations
Index
Contents
Sebo J (2025) (05:05) Moral Circle, The - Who Matters, What Matters, and Why
Introduction: The elephant and the chatbot
01. Moral status
02. Moral theory
03. If you might matter, we should assume you do
04. Many beings might matter
05. If we might be affecting you, we should assume we are
06. We might be affecting many beings
07. Against human exceptionalism
Conclusion: Think cosmically, act globally
Acknowledgments
Notes on Sources and Quotations
Index
November 24, 2025
very theoretical/dry in places. overall fine. a good intro to the idea that we need to expand our moral commitment to other beings
i was reminded why i both loved and was bored out of my mind by some of the classes i took for my philosophy degree. People like Jeff Sebo are kind of insufferable and also brilliant/wise/wonderful.
i was reminded why i both loved and was bored out of my mind by some of the classes i took for my philosophy degree. People like Jeff Sebo are kind of insufferable and also brilliant/wise/wonderful.
November 3, 2025
quick and thought provoking read. questioning morals and asking us to think better
1 elephant vs. 10000 ants
saving someone now vs. 25 years in future
carbon vs. sentient life form values
value of insects vs. fungi vs. humans vs. animals
1 elephant vs. 10000 ants
saving someone now vs. 25 years in future
carbon vs. sentient life form values
value of insects vs. fungi vs. humans vs. animals
February 1, 2025
A must read.
Read
April 16, 2025A much more high-level overview than I was expecting with not all the dots properly connected. Yet, this is still an interesting way to dip your toe into this topic
September 14, 2025
Great book. I love how he guide-posted his arguments throughout. He did well to outline our uncertainties and constraints.
November 29, 2025
Interesting thought process, mainly the authors random musings but still interesting
December 29, 2025
Well... damn. If we ever encounter beings superior to us, we better hope they're a whole lot better to us than we've been to our "inferiors".
January 9, 2026
short, digestible and nuanced
Read
September 17, 2025I found aspects of this book interesting as a work on philosophy. I think the author made a good effort in trying to convey his version of some existing philosophical ideas.
My reading experience started off well enough, but after a while, I became increasingly less interested in what the author was trying to share. If I had to suggest any improvements, he might consider adding some tables or graphical material to help explain the material. I might try reading it again one day...
I am grateful to have received the book in a giveaway. Peace be with you. :-)
My reading experience started off well enough, but after a while, I became increasingly less interested in what the author was trying to share. If I had to suggest any improvements, he might consider adding some tables or graphical material to help explain the material. I might try reading it again one day...
I am grateful to have received the book in a giveaway. Peace be with you. :-)
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews