Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their
speciesmembership. The term was coined by British psychologist Richard D. Ryderin 1973 to denote a prejudice based on physical differences.Ryder, Richard. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,11917,1543799,00.html "All beings that feel pain deserve human rights"] , "The Guardian", August 6 2005.]
The term speciesism is used mostly by advocates of
animal rights, who believe that it is irrational or morally wrong to regard animals (which many people believe are sentient beings) as objects or property. Some philosophers and scientists disagree with condemnation of speciesism. They argue that speciesism is an acceptable position and behavior. Philosophers Tom Reganand Peter Singerhave both argued against the human tendency to exhibit speciesism. Regan argues that all animals have inherent rights and that we cannot assign them a lesser value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants and the mentally impaired solely on the grounds of being members of a certain species. Singer's philosophical arguments against speciesism are based on the principle of equal consideration of interests.
Gary Francione’s position differs significantly from that of Peter Singer, author of " Animal Liberation" (1975). Singer, who is a utilitarian, rejects moral rightsas a general matter and regards sentienceas sufficient for moral status. Singer maintains that most animals do not care about "whether" we kill them and use them for our purposes but care only about "how" we treat them when we do use and kill them. As a result, despite having laws that supposedly protect animals, Francione contends that we treat animals in ways that would be regarded as tortureif humans were involved. Richard Dawkinsbriefly touches on the subject in " The Blind Watchmaker" and " The God Delusion". He compares former racistattitudes and assumptions to their present day speciesist counterparts. In the chapter "The one true tree of life" he argues that it is not just zoological classificationthat is saved from awkward ambiguity by the extinctionof intermediate forms, but also human ethicsand law. He describes discrimination against chimpanzees thus: [cite book | first = Richard | last = Dawkins | authorlink = Richard Dawkins | title = The Blind Watchmaker | publisher = W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. | location = New York | origyear = 1986 | year = 1996 | id = ISBN 0-393-31570-3 ]
Dawkins more recently elaborated on his personal position towards speciesism in a live discussion with
Peter Singerat The Center for Enquiry on December 7, 2007. [ [http://www.pointofinquiry.org/richard_dawkins_science_and_the_new_atheism Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism, December 7, 2007.] ]
David Nibert seeks to expand the field of sociology "...in order to understand how social arrangements create oppressive conditions for both humans and other animals..." He compares speciesism to
racismand sexism. ["Humans and other animals: sociology’s moral and intellectual challenge" David Nibert. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. Year: 2003 Volume: 23 Issue: 3 Page: 4 - 25] Some have suggested that simply fighting speciesism is not enough because intrinsic value of nature can be extended beyond sentient beings, termed the ethic of "libertarian extension." [1999 The Puzzle of Ethics. London: Harper Collins. Vardy, P., and P. Grosch] This belief system seeks to apply the principle of individual rights to not only all animals but also objects without a nervous system such as trees, plants, and rocks. ["IN NEED OF NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS FOR TOURISM?" Andrew Holden. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 94–108, 2003]
Some philosophers and scientists defend Speciesism as an acceptable if not good behavior for humans.
Carl Cohen, a Professor of Philosophy at the Residential College of the University of Michigan, writes: cquote|I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations. [C. Cohen (1986) The case for the use of animals in biomedical research, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 315, No. 14.] Jeffrey Alan Gray, British psychologist and a lecturer in experimental psychology at Oxford, similarly wrote that: cquote|I would guess that the view that human beings matter to other human beings more than animals do is, to say the least, widespread. At any rate, I wish to defend speciesism... [J. A. Gray (1980) In defense of speciesism, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 1.]
A common theme in defending speciesism tend to be the argument that humans "have the right to compete with and exploit other species to preserve and protect the human species." [D. Graft (1997) Against strong speciesism, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol.14, No. 2, ]
Great ape personhood
Great Ape personhood is a concept in which the attributes of the
Great Apes are deemed to merit recognition of their sentience and personhood within the law, as opposed to mere protection under animal crueltylegislation. This would cover matters such as their own best interest being taken into account in their treatment by people. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6505691.stm Should apes have human rights?] ]
David Sztybel holds that the treatment of animals can be compared to the
Holocaustin a valid and meaningful way. In his paper "Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?" using a thirty-nine-point comparison Sztybel asserts that the comparison is not offensive and that it does not overlook important differences, or ignore supposed affinities between the human abuse of fellow animals, and the Nazi abuse of fellow humans. The comparison of animal treatment and the Holocaust came into the public eye with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' "Holocaust on your Plate" exhibit. Sztybel equates the racism of the Nazis with the speciesism inherent in eating meat, or using animal by products particularly those produced on factory farms. [Sztybel, David "Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?" Ethics & the Environment - Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2006, pp. 97-132] However, even among the supports of the concept of speciesism as a critical tool, such comparisons are not always supported. Y. Michael Barilan writes that speciesism is not the same thing as "Nazi racism" because Nazi racism extolled the abuser and condemned the weaker and the abused. He describes speciesism as the recognition of rights on the basis of group membership rather than solely on the basis of moral considerations. ["Speciesism as a precondition to justice" Y. Michael Barilan, MD, MA. Politics and the Life Sciences Article: pp. 22–33]
In science fiction, speciesism takes on the idea of superiority via sentience. In such it is a galactic form of
racism, saying that one species is superior to another for certain reasons. In Star Wars, such is a common problem that is forbidden by law, except during the "dark times". The most common variation is humanocentrism, which is basically Human Supremacy (itself similar to real life white supremacy), where supremacy is declared by being the majority.
John Tuoheywrites that the logic behind charges of speciesism fails to hold up, and that, although it has been popularly appealing, it is philosophically flawed. Even though the animal rights movement in the United States has been influential in slowing and in some cases stopping biomedical research involving animals, no one has offered a clear and compelling argument for the equality of species ["Fifteen years after “Animal Liberation”: Has the animal rights movement achieved philosophical legitimacy?" Journal of Medical Humanities. Volume 13, Number 2 / June, 1992. John Tuohey] . Nel Noddings has criticized Peter Singer's concept of speciesism for being too simplistic, and failing to take into account the context of species preference as concepts of racism and sexism have taken in to account the context of discrimination against humans. ["Comment on Donovan's "Animal Rights and Feminist Theory" Nel Noddings Signs, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Winter, 1991), pp. 418-422] Some people who work for racial or sexual equality have said that comparisons between speciesism and racism or sexism are insulting, [" [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/animals/rights/speciesism.shtml The ethics of speciesism] "] for example Peter Staudenmaier writes:
The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women’s movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, “We’re sentient beings too!” They argued, “We’re fully human too!” Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it. -Peter Staudenmaier [" [http://www.communalism.org/Archive/5/aar.print.html Ambiguities of Animal Rights] " Peter Staudenmaier COMMUNALISM: International Journal for a Rational Society ISSUE 5 | MARCH 2003]
Although Camilla Kronqvis sympathizes with Singer’s aims, she does not accept his arguments. She writes "To say that our morality rests on attending to somebody’s pleasure and pain, also seems to be a pretty crude description of what it is to be a moral being." And concludes "I also find it highly unlikely that a polar bear would care for my interests of leading a long, healthy life if it decided to have me for lunch, and I wonder if I would have time to present it with Singer’s arguments when it started to carry out this intention." ["Speciesism - Arguments for Whom? " Camilla Kronqvis. Ethics, Agency & Love.] Singer responds that that fact that animals are not moral agents does not prevent them from being moral patients, just as humans who are not moral agents remain moral patients, so that their ability to be harmed remains the characteristic taken into consideration.
Some more radical opponents of the idea of speciesism believe that animals exist so that humans may make use of them, be it for food, entertainment or other uses. This special status conveys
special rights, such as the right to life, and also unique responsibilities, such as stewardship of the environment.
Carl Cohen argued that racism and sexism are wrong because there are no relevant differences between the sexes or races. Between people and animals however, there are significant differences, and they do not qualify for
Kantian personhood, and as such have no rights. [The case against animal rights, Carl Cohen] Animal rights advocates point out that because many humans do not qualify for Kantian personhood, and yet have rights, this cannot be a morally relevant difference.
Objectivists argue that giving more rights to animals means taking rights away from thinking beings who are, unlike animals, capable of creating value. Animal rights advocates respond by pointing out that not all humans are capable of "creating value" by this definition of value, so if "creating value" were the morally relevant characteristic, it would still not track along the lines of species alone. Conversely, any definition of "creating value" that included all humans would include many animals as well.
Some believers in
human exceptionalismbase the concept in the Abrahamic religions, such as the verse in Genesis1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Animal rights advocates however argue that dominion refers to stewardship and does not demote any right to mistreat other animals. And, still others often point out the overlooking of verses 3:19-21 from Ecclesiastes, which confronts this matter directly. Buddhism, despite its reputation for respect for animals, explicitly accords humans a higher status in the progression of reincarnation. Animals may be reincarnated as humans, but only humans can reach enlightenment.The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. By PAUL WALDAU. American Academy of Religion, Academy Series. Oxford: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2002.] However, Felipe Fernández-Armestowrites that early hunter-gatherer societies such as the Innu[ [http://books.google.com/books?id=5eEASHGLg3MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hunter-gatherers,&sig=L62XtDi4-08Bg3vfTek2UojmaLA#PPA53,M1 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers By Richard B. Lee, Richard Heywood Daly] and many animistreligions have lacked a concept of humanity and have placed non human animals and plants on an equal footing with humans. [ [http://books.google.com/books?id=tFIAAAAACAAJ&dq=Ideas+that+changed+the+world+by+Felipe+Fernandez+Armesto "Ideas that changed the world" Felipe Fernández-Armesto. human exceptionalism . Page: 138] ]
Others take a
secularapproach, such as pointing to evidence of unusual rapid evolution of the human brainand the emergence of "exceptional" aptitudes. As one commentator put it, "Over the course of human history, we have been successful in cultivating our faculties, shaping our development, and impacting upon the wider world in a deliberate fashion, quite distinct from evolutionary processes. [Starr, Sandy. " [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA855.htm What Makes Us Exceptional?] ". Spiked Science] Constance K. Perry asserts that the use of 'non-autonomous' animals instead of humans in risky research can be based on solid moral ground and is not necessarily speciesism. ["A Compassionate Autonomy Alternative to Speciesism" Constance K. Perry Volume 22, Number 3 / June, 2001 Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics]
*Dunayer, Joan. 2004. "Speciesism". Ryce Publishing: Illinois. ISBN 0-9706475-6-5
* [http://www.rightsforanimals.org Why should anti-speciesism concern me?"] , "Rights for Animals".
* [http://www.antispe.de/english.html Anti-speciesism ]
* " [http://www.cahiers-antispecistes.org/ Les Cahiers Antispécistes] " (in French)
* " [http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/wk6animals.html The Struggle for Animal Equality] "
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.