Episode Overview

Podcast: Philosophy Bites
Episode Title: Ellie Robson on Mary Midgley on Animals
Date: August 17, 2025
Host(s): David Edmonds & Nigel Warburton
Guest: Ellie Robson (philosopher and Midgley scholar)

This episode features philosopher Ellie Robson discussing the work of Mary Midgley, focusing on Midgley’s views about animals, animal ethics, and human nature. The conversation explores Midgley’s life, her philosophical approach, and her critical engagement with leading animal ethicists like Peter Singer. Robson and the hosts examine what makes Midgley’s perspective unique—particularly her holistic, relational view of ethics and resistance to reductionist thinking.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Who Was Mary Midgley?

[00:30–01:46]

• Background: British philosopher, born 1919, lived to 99, began publishing at age 59.
• Part of the "wartime quartet": Alongside Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foote, Iris Murdoch.
• Quote: “She famously says in her amazing biography, Owl of Minerva, that she just didn’t know what she thought before then, which is quite a privilege for us in academia nowadays.” — Ellie Robson [00:53]

2. Midgley’s Core Philosophical Premise

[01:54–02:28]

• Holistic and Consistent: The theme of humans as animals runs through all her work.
• Key Quote: “We are not just rather like animals, we are animals.” (First line of Midgley's first book; cited by Robson [01:59])

3. Consequences of Viewing Humans as Animals

[02:28–03:47]

• Critique of Human Exceptionalism: Rejects single-defining features (like rationality) that separate humans from animals.
• Dualism Critique: The division of “humans” and “animals” as two mutually exclusive categories simplifies and distorts reality.
• Ethical Implications: Elevating humans leads to justifying superiority and mistreatment of animals.

4. Where Does This Dualism Originate?

[03:47–04:27]

• Human Tendency to Simplify: Not inherently wrong, but over-simplification is damaging and inaccurate regarding our relationships with animals.
• Metaphor: “Us and them lifeboat analogy” — oversimplifies who deserves moral concern.

5. Midgley’s Intellectual Context

[04:27–05:22]

• Life and Career: Break from academia to raise a family, deeply informed by reading and observing animals.
• Return and Publications: Started publishing in the 1970s, dedicating her first book to her sons for showing her “humans are a kind of animal.”

6. Midgley’s Radical Approach to Animal Ethics

[05:22–06:45]

• Relational Ethics: Emphasizes kinship and fellowship with other creatures.
• Contrast with Utilitarianism: Focus on lived relationships, not abstract capacities.
• Empathy in Children: Children’s natural empathy illustrates our instinctual ability to relate to animals.
• Quote: “We are the kinds of animals… that have always lived in mixed communities. We’ve always had animals as pets, we’ve always used animals to get around, we’ve ridden horses… So she thinks that this is the starting point for thinking about animal ethics: to acknowledge our kinship with animals.” — Ellie Robson [06:24]

7. Antagonism and Conflict with Animals

[06:45–07:35]

• Human Responsibility: Many problems stem from human domination and intrusion.
• Dualistic Thinking Critique: Pitting humans against animals (us vs. them) underlies both popular and some philosophical views.

8. Midgley’s Critique of Peter Singer

[07:35–09:12]

• Singer’s Approach: Grounds animal ethics in sentience (pleasure and pain).
• Midgley’s Response: Criticizes grounding moral worth in single abstract features (e.g., rationality, sentience).
• Speciesism Not Equivalent to Racism/Sexism: Structural differences exist.
• Empiricism Over Abstraction: Advocates “getting on the ground” and understanding animals’ needs in their complexity.

9. Practical Ethical Living with Animals

[09:12–10:46]

• Rejects Simple Moral Rules: Philosophy should not just offer action guides; it’s about cultivating virtues.
• Virtue-based Approach: Compassion, empathy, patience—virtues fostered by attention to animals’ real lives and needs.
• Negative Project: Current animal treatment exposes vicious traits, not merely irrationality.

10. Human Nature and Cruelty to Animals

[10:46–12:35]

• Historical Change: Large-scale exploitation of animals for food is relatively recent.
• Genealogies: Different cultures treat animals variously; brutality is not an inevitability.
• Critique of ‘Red in Tooth and Claw’: Human nature is not essentially cruel; it’s more nuanced.
• Quote: “We can't make an abstract statement that nature is red in tooth and claws. It might be red and tooth and claw right now...” — Ellie Robson [11:35]

11. Human Rationality and Moral Progress

[12:35–13:26]

• Midgley’s View: Human rationality is real but should not be the sole defining feature.
• Quote: “We’re rational, among other things. And it’s our emotional nature that allows us to have this kinship with non-human animals… our rationality is part of our nature, but it shouldn’t dominate it.” — Ellie Robson [12:58]

12. Kinship and Partiality

[13:26–14:54]

• Partiality Is Natural: Justified to care more about those close to us—family, pets—than distant animals.
• Moral Bonds: Morality grounded in lived bonds, not just sentience.
• Against Utilitarian Calculus: “She actually thinks the utilitarian gets that premise wrong. We can and are justified in some kind of speciesism. It’s just natural for me to prefer my sister to my dog.” — Ellie Robson [14:15]

13. Reception and Legacy of Mary Midgley

[14:54–15:44]

• Undervalued Philosopher: Midgley’s unconventional path and accessible writing led to academic underappreciation.
• Call to Action: Robson encourages listeners to read Beast and Man and reconsider Midgley’s philosophical contributions.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “She famously says in her amazing biography, Owl of Minerva, that she just didn’t know what she thought before then…”
  — Ellie Robson [00:53]

• “We are not just rather like animals, we are animals.”
  — Mary Midgley (quoted by Robson) [01:59]

• “It’s just more complicated than the us and them lifeboat analogy, as she calls it.”
  — Ellie Robson [04:10]

• “We are the kinds of animals… that have always lived in mixed communities. We’ve always had animals as pets, we’ve always used animals to get around…”
  — Ellie Robson [06:24]

• “We can and are justified in some kind of speciesism. It’s just natural for me to prefer my sister to my dog.”
  — Ellie Robson [14:15]

• “A lot of my work is to place Midgley in conversation with academic philosophers and academic philosophy, especially Aristotelian naturalism… She writes for a public audience… So I encourage people to overlook these potentially prejudice assumptions made about Mary Midgley and read Beast of Man to begin with.”
  — Ellie Robson [15:15]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:30] Who was Mary Midgley?
• [01:54] Midgley’s holistic view of humans as animals
• [02:28] Consequences of dismantling human/animal dualism
• [04:27] Midgley’s intellectual journey and personal life
• [05:22] Rise of animal ethics in the 1970s and Midgley’s approach
• [07:35] Critique of Singer and rationalist animal ethics
• [09:12] Virtue ethics, empiricism, and practical moral guidance
• [10:46] Historical and cultural perspectives on cruelty to animals
• [12:35] Human rationality and the role of emotions
• [13:26] Emotional bonds, partiality, and kinship
• [14:54] Mary Midgley's academic legacy

Conclusion

Ellie Robson’s discussion offers a lively and accessible blend of biography, philosophical analysis, and practical ethics. She brings out how Mary Midgley’s relational, virtue-oriented approach challenges dominant traditions in both philosophy and animal ethics, inviting us to look beyond abstract rules and instead focus on the complex web of relationships that govern our lives with animals. Robson advocates for renewing academic and public appreciation for Midgley’s subtle, humane, and empirically grounded thinking.