Better Descartes than Aristotle: Talking about Those Who Deny Moral Consideration to Animals

In this short paper I want to advance a provocative thesis.The French philosopher René Descartes has always been considered by animal rights defenders as the greatest enemy of animals, because he even denies them the ability to feel (a conception that in recent years has been advocated by Peter Carruthers).In reality, if we compare his ethical views on animals with those of another important symbol of the denial of moral status to non-human sentient beings, namely Aristotle, the French philosopher comes out better.Because the latter seems to endorse -albeit dubiouslythe moral principle according to which it is wrong to make sentient beings suffer and kill, rejected instead by Aristotle and with him by a good part of the Western philosophical tradition.To grasp this point, I would say to start with what I have elsewhere (Allegri 2021, 104) called the "Minimal Pro-Animal Argument" (hereafter MPAA).In fact, what does it mean to deny non-human animals any moral consideration (an aspect that unites Aristotle and Descartes)?It means not giving any moral weight even to their suffering.That is, it means not accepting the following reasoning: it is directly wrong to procure unnecessary suffering to sentient beings 1 non-human animals are sentient beings it is directly wrong to procure unnecessary suffering to non-human animals 1 "Directly" because even those who deny moral status to animals can, for indirect reasons, censure the act of causing them (gratuitous) suffering; "unnecessary" because even those who ascribe moral status to animals accept that a cat or dog can be made to suffer for justified reasons (for example, when they need to be injected by the veterinarian).