The Sentience Institute Podcast - Kevin Schneider of the Nonhuman Rights Project on using litigation to expand the moral circle

Kevin Schneider of the Nonhuman Rights Project on using litigation to expand the moral circle

12/03/19 • 132 min

I think within five years, we will absolutely see... the first nonhuman animals recognized as holders of rights in the US; ‘persons’... [I don’t think] the gates [would be] flung open if we start to see one or two species recognized as having rights... I don’t see this at all as a linear path. We file the cases that we do and the work that we do and hope to achieve discrete outcomes, but we’re also very mindful of the fact that other judges [cite] us in cases that we don’t file... We’ve seen more and more judges citing our cases approvingly to say, ‘look, the relationship between humans and animals is changing; we need to take their interests more seriously’
- Kevin Schneider

The Nonhuman Rights Project has litigated in US courts for four chimpanzees and four elephants. But can litigation for a small number of animals drive a wider expansion of the moral circle? What are the risks of this approach? How can animal advocates maximize the chances of positive impact for animals while pursuing this strategy?

Since 2015, Kevin Schneider has been the executive director of the Nonhuman Rights Project, previously having worked in private legal practice.

Topics discussed in the episode:

The NhRP’s plans for legislative campaigns (5:05)
Whether litigation should focus on farmed animals or chimpanzees and elephants (13:28)
How legal change interacts with public opinion and wider social change (29:00)
The insights from forthcoming public polling supported by the NhRP on rights for particular species, and the implications of this (37:28)
The decisions made by the NhRP in selecting particular states and legal strategies to focus on (46:49)
How litigating for legal personhood for animals compares to enforcing and expanding the scope of existing legal protections for animals (1:00:30)
What the NhRP has learned from its study of historical social movements and the risks of using this sort of evidence (1:08:03)
The NhRP’s priorities for media coverage (1:13:08)
How the NhRP interacts with advocates in other countries (1:32:08)
Why the NhRP is not greatly constrained by either funding or by a lack of talented applicants to their job roles (1:42:33)
How current legal professionals might (or might not) be able to help the NhRP (1:47:04)
Why Kevin doesn’t believe that there is much scope for new organizations to do similar work to the NhRP elsewhere in the US (1:51:00)
How someone could best prepare to be an excellent candidate for a role at the NhRP and how Kevin’s own career experiences have affected his work (1:59:12)
Which professional legal experience might be most useful for animal advocates (2:04:40)

Resources discussed in the episode:

Resources by or about the NhRP:

Support the show

Since 2015, Kevin Schneider has been the executive director of the Nonhuman Rights Project, previously having worked in private legal practice.

Topics discussed in the episode:

The NhRP’s plans for legislative campaigns (5:05)
Whether litigation should focus on farmed animals or chimpanzees and elephants (13:28)
How legal change interacts with public opinion and wider social change (29:00)
The insights from forthcoming public polling supported by the NhRP on rights for particular species, and the implications of this (37:28)
The decisions made by the NhRP in selecting particular states and legal strategies to focus on (46:49)
How litigating for legal personhood for animals compares to enforcing and expanding the scope of existing legal protections for animals (1:00:30)
What the NhRP has learned from its study of historical social movements and the risks of using this sort of evidence (1:08:03)
The NhRP’s priorities for media coverage (1:13:08)
How the NhRP interacts with advocates in other countries (1:32:08)
Why the NhRP is not greatly constrained by either funding or by a lack of talented applicants to their job roles (1:42:33)
How current legal professionals might (or might not) be able to help the NhRP (1:47:04)
Why Kevin doesn’t believe that there is much scope for new organizations to do similar work to the NhRP elsewhere in the US (1:51:00)
How someone could best prepare to be an excellent candidate for a role at the NhRP and how Kevin’s own career experiences have affected his work (1:59:12)
Which professional legal experience might be most useful for animal advocates (2:04:40)

Resources discussed in the episode:

Resources by or about the NhRP:

Support the show

Next Episode

Kristof Dhont of University of Kent on intergroup contact research and research careers

More positive contact [with an outgroup] reduces prejudice. No matter how you measure it, no matter how you set up your study design, once there’s a positive contact situation, you lower prejudice towards the outgroup... These effects tend to be stronger among those higher on social dominance orientation and those higher on right-wing authoritarianism, which makes intergroup contact quite a good and efficient strategy to reduce prejudice among those who seem to be initially prejudiced towards outgroups.
- Kristof Dhont

Recent psychological research on intergroup contact and human-animal relations has implications for effective animal advocacy strategy. But what are the most action-relevant findings? And how can researchers maximize their positive impact for animals?

Kristof is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Kent. He founded and directs a research group focused on the “Study of Human Intergroup and Animal Relations at Kent.” He recently edited the book Why We Love and Exploit Animals and organises the Animal Advocacy Conference: Insights from the Social Sciences.

Topics discussed in the episode:

Kristof’s most action-relevant work for animal advocates and the audience of his work (1:29)
Finding the balance between academic rigor and making work accessible to advocates (6:15)
SHARKLab and the academic field of human-animal relations (13:28)
Connections between right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and animal exploitation (26:02)
“Vegetarianism threat,” its correlates, and its causes (41:12)
The pros and cons of advocacy focusing on children (55:38)
Research on human intergroup interactions and what this suggests about farmed animal advocacy (58:08)
The importance of intergroup contact (including between humans and animals) being experienced as positive, in order to improve attitudes towards outgroups (1:12:32)
The “secondary transfer effect” of intergroup contact, where reducing prejudice towards one outgroup also reduces prejudice towards other outgroups (1:14:52)
How research careers and training in academia compare to research careers in nonprofits and more independent skills development (1:18:05)
Advice on PhD applications and on research careers (1:31:16)
The interaction between researchers in the academic sphere and the “effective animal advocacy” sphere (1:47:55)

Resources discussed in the episode are available at https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/podcast
Support the show

Support the show

The Sentience Institute Podcast - Kevin Schneider of the Nonhuman Rights Project on using litigation to expand the moral circle

Transcript

Music00:00:10.720

[inaudible]

Jamie00:00:13.529

welcome to the Sentience Institute podcast where we interview advocates, entrepreneurs or researchers to better understand expansion of humanity's moral circle with the focus on expanding the circle to farm animals. I'm Jamie Harris , researcher at Sentience Institute. Since this is our inaugural episode of the podcast, I want to briefly note a few strategies we're using to make this the m