Speciesism

Animal liberation Main articles Animal rights Animal liberation movement Animal law Issues Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Animal testing Bile bear • Blood sport Covance • Draize test Factory farming • Fur trade Great Ape research ban • HLS Lab animal sources • LD50 Meat • Nafovanny • Open rescue Operation Backfire • Primate trade Seal hunting • Speciesism  • Veganism Cases Britches • Brown Dog affair Cambridge • Pit of despair Silver Spring monkeys Unnecessary Fuss Notable writers Carol Adams • Jeremy Bentham Steven Best • Stephen Clark Gary Francione • Gill Langley Mary Midgley • Tom Regan Bernard Rollin • Richard Ryder Henry Salt • Peter Singer Steven Wise • Roger Yates Notable activists Greg Avery • David Barbarash Mel Broughton • Rod Coronado Barry Horne • Ronnie Lee Keith Mann • Ingrid Newkirk Heather Nicholson • Jill Phipps Craig Rosebraugh • Henry Spira Andrew Tyler • Jerry Vlasak Paul Watson • Robin Webb Notable groups/campaigns List of animal rights groups Animal Aid • ALDF • ALF • BUAV GAP • Hunt Saboteurs • PETA • PCRM Sea Shepherd • SPEAK • SHAC Political parties List of animal advocacy parties Animal Alliance • Animals Count Animal Protection Party PACMA Party for the Animals Tierschutzpartei Books and magazines AR books • AR magazines Animal Liberation Arkangel • Bite Back No Compromise Films Animal rights films Behind the Mask • Earthlings The Animals Film Peaceable Kingdom • Unnecessary Fuss Related categories ALF • Animal testing Animal law • Animal rights AR movement • Blood sports Livestock • Meat Poultry Related templates Rights • Animal testing Agriculture • Fishing This box: view • talk • edit

Speciesism is the assigning of different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was created by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973 to denote a prejudice against non-humans based on physical differences that are given moral value ^[1] however, it can also refer to misanthropy, a hatred of all humans because they are human. "I use the word 'speciesism'," he wrote in 1975, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species ... Speciesism is discrimination, and like all discrimination it overlooks or underestimates the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."^[2]

The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that it is irrational or morally wrong to regard sentient beings as objects or property. However, other philosophers and scientists came to defend speciesism as an acceptable if not laudable position. ^{[3] [4]}

Philosopher Tom 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 specific species. Others argue that this valuation of a human infant, a human fetus, or a mentally impaired person is justified, not because the fetus is a fully rational human person from conception, nor because the mentally impaired are rational to the same degree as other human beings; but because the teleological and genetic orientation of any human being from conception is to develop into a rational human being and not any other creature, and because all humans have an implicit origination from two genetically human beings, and hence, both a primary genetic orientation and primary origination as the reproduction of other human beings, even if in a not fully developed state or if partially impaired.^[5] In this view, anyone who is born of human parents has the rights of human persons from conception, because the natural process of reproduction has already been initiated in biologically human organisms. Peter Singer's philosophical arguments against speciesism are based on the principle of equal consideration of interests.

[edit] Proponents

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:

Jeffrey Alan Gray, British psychologist and a lecturer in experimental psychology at Oxford, similarly wrote that:

A common theme in defending speciesism tends to be the argument that humans "have the right to compete with and exploit other species to preserve and protect the human species".^[8]

[edit] Opponents

Gary Francione's position differs significantly from that of Singer, author of Animal Liberation (1975). Singer, a utilitarian, rejects moral rights as a general matter and, like Ryder, regards sentience as sufficient for moral status. Singer maintains that most animals do not care about whether we kill and use them for our own purposes; they care only about how we treat them when we do use and kill them. As a result, and despite our having laws that supposedly protect animals, Francione contends that we treat animals in ways that would be regarded as torture if only humans were involved.

Richard Dawkins touches briefly on the subject in The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion, elucidating the connection to evolutionary theory. He compares former racist attitudes and assumptions to their present-day speciesist counterparts. In a chapter of former book entitled "The one true tree of life", he argues that it is not just zoological taxonomy that is saved from awkward ambiguity by the extinction of intermediate forms, but also human ethics and law. He describes discrimination against chimpanzees thus:

Dawkins more recently elaborated on his personal position towards speciesism and vegetarianism in a live discussion with Singer at The Center for Inquiry on December 7, 2007.^[10]

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 racism and sexism.^[11]

Some have suggested that simply to fight speciesism is not enough because intrinsic value of nature can be extended beyond sentient beings, termed the ethic of "libertarian extension".^[12] This belief system seeks to apply the principle of individual rights not only to all animals but also objects without a nervous system such as trees, plants and rocks.^[13]

Ryder rejects this in writing that "value cannot exist in the absence of consciousness or potential consciousness. Thus, rocks and rivers and houses have no interests and no rights of their own. This does not mean, of course, that they are not of value to us, and to many other painients, including those who need them as habitats and who would suffer without them." ^[14]

[edit] Great ape personhood

Part of a series of articles on Discrimination
General forms
Ableism · Ageism · Caste Classism · Colorism · Genism Heightism · Linguicism · Lookism Mentalism · Racism · Rankism Religious · Sexism · Sexualism Sizeism · Speciesism · Weightism Xenophobia
Specific forms
Social Adultism · Anti-Albinism Anti-homelessness Anti-intellectualism Anti-Masonry · Antisemitism Audism · Biphobia · Childism Cronyism · Elitism (academic) Ephebiphobia · Gerontophobia Heteronormativity · Heterophobia Heterosexism · Homophobia Leprosy stigma · Lesbophobia Misandry · Misanthropy Misogyny · Nepotism · Pediaphobia Reverse discrimination · Transphobia Triumphalism Ethnic National Albanian · American · Arab Armenian · Brahmin · British · Canadian Catalan · Chilean · Chinese English · Estonia · European · French Gentiles · German · Haitian · Hispanic Igbo · Indian · Iranian · Irish · Israel Italian · Japanese · Jewish · Korean Malay · Manchu · Mexican Polish · Portuguese · Quebec · Roma Romanian · Russian · Scottish Serbian · Slavs · Soviets Turkish · Ukrainian Religious Ahmadiyya · Atheism Bahá'í · Catholicism Christianity · Hinduism · Islam Judaism 1 2 Mormonism · Neopaganism New religious movements Protestantism Shi'a Islam · Zoroastrianism
Manifestations
Blood libel · Eliminationism Ethnic cleansing · Ethnocide Employment · Mortgage Gay bashing Gendercide · Genocide Hate crime · Hate speech Lynching · Pogrom · Police brutality Religious persecution · Slavery
Policies
Discriminatory Age/Racial/Religious/Sex segregation Apartheid · Ethnocracy Ghetto benches · Jewish quota Jim Crow laws · Internment Numerus clausus · Nuremberg Laws MSM blood donor controversy Racial quota Redlining · Sodomy law Anti-discriminatory Civil rights · Desegregation Emancipation · Equal opportunity Integration · Universal access Related Affirmative action All-women shortlists Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Employment equity (Canada) Forced busing (U.S.) Individual and group rights Reparation · Reservation (India)
International law
CDE · CEDAW · CERD · ILO C100 · ILO C111 · ILO C169 · Protocol No. 12 ECHR
Other forms
Adultcentrism · Afrocentrism Americentrism · Androcentrism Anthropocentrism · Black supremacy Chronocentrism · Economic Ethnocentrism · Eurocentrism Genetic · Gynocentrism · Indigenism Jingoism · Sinocentrism White supremacy · Xenocentrism
Related topics
Bigotry · Diversity · Eugenics Hatred · Oppression Political correctness · Prejudice Religious intolerance · Tolerance
Discrimination portal This box: view • talk • edit

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 cruelty legislation. This would cover matters such as their own best interest being taken into account in their treatment by people.^[15]

[edit] Animal holocaust

David Sztybel holds that the treatment of animals can be compared to the Holocaust in 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.^[16] 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.^[17]

[edit] In fiction

In science fiction and works of fantasy speciesism takes on a role similar to racism, discriminating against other sentients based on a sense of superiority. It varies from humans being superior to non-humans, non-humans being superior to humans, or certain non-humans being superior to other non-humans. Such exists on either a terrestrial, extraterrestrial, extragalactic, or extradimensional plane.

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Philosophical

A painting of the Trial of Bill Burns, showing Richard Martin with the donkey in an astonished courtroom, leading to the world's first known conviction for animal cruelty, a story that delighted London's newspapers and music halls.

(Rev.) John Tuohey writes that the logic behind charges of speciesism fails to hold up, and that, although it has been popularly appealing, it is philosophically flawed. Tuohey claims that, 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^[18]. 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.^[19] Some people who work for racial or sexual equality have said that comparisons between speciesism and racism or sexism are insulting,^[20] 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^[21]

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.^{[citation needed]}

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.^[22] 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.

Objectivism holds that man as the only being with a conceptual consciousness, as the animal possessing a reasoning faculty and the ability to think, which is the key characteristic setting him apart from other animals, and with his life as the standard of moral value, is the only species entitled to rights. "To demand that man defer to the "rights" of other species", it is argued, "is to deprive man himself of the right to life".^[23]

[edit] Religious

Some believers in human exceptionalism base the concept in the Abrahamic religions, such as the verse in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” " Animal rights advocates argue that dominion refers to stewardship and does not denote any right to mistreat other animals, which is consistent with the Bible.^[24] Buddhism, despite its reputation for respect for animals, explicitly accords humans a higher status in the progression of reincarnation.^[25] Animals may be reincarnated as humans, conversely, humans based on his behavior/action can be demoted to the next life to non-human forms; but only humans can reach enlightenment. Similarly in Hinduism, animals are respected, as it is believed that each animal has a role to play. Hindus are therefore vegetarians with a deep respect for Cows. ^[25] Felipe Fernández-Armesto writes that early hunter-gatherer societies such as the Innu ^[26] and many animist religions lacked a concept of humanity and placed non-human animals and plants on an equal footing with humans.^[27]

[edit] Scientific

See also: Animal experimentation

Others take a secular approach, such as pointing to evidence of unusual rapid evolution of the human brain and 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.^[28] 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.^[29]

[edit] See also

• Anthropocentrism
• Antinaturalism (politics)
• Biocentrism
• Deep ecology
• Humanism
• Misanthropy
• Veganism

[edit] References

• Ryder, Richard D. Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research. Davis-Poynter, 1975.
• —. "All beings that feel pain deserve human rights: Equality of the species is the logical conclusion of post-Darwin morality." The Guardian, 6 August 2005.

[edit] Notes

[edit] Further reading

• Dunayer, Joan. 2004. Speciesism. Ryce Publishing: Illinois. ISBN 0-9706475-6-5
• Why should anti-speciesism concern me?", Rights for Animals.
• Anti-speciesism
• Les Cahiers Antispécistes (in French)
• The Struggle for Animal Equality

[edit] External links

• Discussion between Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins