Speciesism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was coined by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973 to denote a prejudice based on physical differences.[1] "I use the word 'speciesism'," he explained two years later, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species [...]. Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."[2]
The term is used mostly by advocates of animal rights, who believe that it is irrational or morally incorrect to regard animals (which are acknowledged to be to some degree sentient[3] beings) as mere objects or property. The view is motivated by an acceptance of Darwinism and the logical upshot which suggests that humans as they are today would be just as speciesist towards their lesser evolved forms.[4] Some philosophers and scientists, however, disagree with the condemnation of speciesism, arguing that it is an acceptable position and behaviour, as a form of human supremacy.
Philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer have both argued against the human tendency to exhibit speciesism. Regan believes 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 their being members of the supposedly superior human species.[5] Singer's philosophical arguments against speciesism are based on the principle of equal consideration of interests.
Contents |
[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.Those who don't are called speciests.
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:
| “ | Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! [...] The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.[6] | ” |
Dawkins more recently elaborated on his personal position towards speciesism in a live discussion with Singer at The Center for Inquiry on December 7, 2007. [7]
| “ | What I am doing is going along with the fact that I live in a society where meat eating is accepted as the norm, and it requires a level of social courage which I haven't yet produced to break out of that. It's a little bit like the position which many people would have held a couple of hundred years ago over slavery. Where lots of people felt morally uneasy about slavery but went along with it because the whole economy of the South depended upon slavery. | ” |
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.[8]
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".[9] 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.[10]
[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:
| “ | 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. [11] | ” |
Jeffrey Alan Gray, British psychologist and a lecturer in experimental psychology at Oxford, similarly wrote that:
| “ | 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... [12] | ” |
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." [13]
[edit] Great ape personhood
|
Part of a series of articles on
Discrimination |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General forms | ||||||
|
Ageism · Biphobia · Heterophobia · Homophobia · Racism · Sexism |
||||||
| Specific forms | ||||||
|
||||||
| Manifestations | ||||||
|
Blood libel · Ethnic cleansing |
||||||
| Movements | ||||||
|
||||||
| Policies | ||||||
|
Discriminatory Anti-discriminatory Counter-discriminatory |
||||||
| Law | ||||||
|
Discriminatory |
||||||
| Other forms | ||||||
|
Adultcentrism · Androcentrism · Anthropocentrism · |
||||||
| Related topics | ||||||
|
Bigotry · Diversity · |
||||||
|
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.[14]
[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.[15] 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.[16]
[edit] In fiction
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. Such is challenged by another form called Anti-Humanism. Potentially (depending on intergalactic contact/travel), this may actually be the future replacement of racism.
[edit] Criticism
[edit] Philosophical
(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. 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[17]. 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.[18] Some people who work for racial or sexual equality have said that comparisons between speciesism and racism or sexism are insulting,[19] 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[20]
Although Camilla Kronqvist 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."[21] 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.[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.
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.
[edit] Religious
Some believers in human exceptionalism base the concept in the Abrahamic religions, such as the verse in Genesis 1:26 "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 denote 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. Some say Jonah 4:11 also re-enforces the worth of animals whilst not placing them before humans: "And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?" Buddhism, despite its reputation for respect for animals, explicitly accords humans a higher status[23] in the progression of reincarnation. Animals may be reincarnated as humans, but only humans can reach enlightenment.[23] However, Felipe Fernández-Armesto writes that early hunter-gatherer societies such as the Innu [24] and many animist religions have lacked a concept of humanity and have placed non human animals and plants on an equal footing with humans. [25]
[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.[26] 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.[27]
[edit] See also
[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
- ^ Ryder, Richard. "All beings that feel pain deserve human rights", The Guardian, August 6, 2005.
- ^ Ryder 1975, p. 16.
- ^ Ryder, significantly, prefers the word "painient". In a piece for The Guardian in 2005, entitled "All beings that feel pain deserve human rights", he wrote, "Our concern for the pain and distress of others should be extended to any 'painient' — pain-feeling — being regardless of his or her sex, class, race, religion, nationality or species. Indeed, if aliens from outer space turn out to be painient, or if we ever manufacture machines who are painient, then we must widen the moral circle to include them. Painience is the only convincing basis for attributing rights or, indeed, interests to others." (Ryder 2005)
- ^ Ryder 2005.
- ^ Ryder has argued along similar lines: "We treat the other animals not as relatives but as unfeeling things. We would not dream of treating our babies, or mentally handicapped adults, in these ways - yet these humans are sometimes less intelligent and less able to communicate with us than are some exploited nonhumans."
- ^ Dawkins, Richard (1996) [1986]. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.
- ^ Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism, December 7, 2007.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 1999 The Puzzle of Ethics. London: Harper Collins. Vardy, P., and P. Grosch
- ^ IN NEED OF NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS FOR TOURISM? Andrew Holden. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 94–108, 2003. 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." (Ryder 2005)
- ^ C. Cohen (1986) The case for the use of animals in biomedical research, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 315, No. 14.
- ^ J. A. Gray (1980) In defense of speciesism, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 1.
- ^ D. Graft (1997) Against strong speciesism, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol.14, No. 2,
- ^ Should apes have human rights?
- ^ Sztybel, David Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust? Ethics & the Environment - Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2006, pp. 97-132
- ^ Speciesism as a precondition to justice Y. Michael Barilan, MD, MA. Politics and the Life Sciences Article: pp. 22–33
- ^ 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
- ^ Comment on Donovan's "Animal Rights and Feminist Theory" Nel Noddings Signs, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Winter, 1991), pp. 418-422
- ^ The ethics of speciesism
- ^ Ambiguities of Animal Rights Peter Staudenmaier COMMUNALISM: International Journal for a Rational Society ISSUE 5 | MARCH 2003
- ^ Speciesism - Arguments for Whom? Camilla Kronqvist. Ethics, Agency & Love.[1]
- ^ The case against animal rights, Carl Cohen
- ^ a b The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. By PAUL WALDAU. American Academy of Religion, Academy Series. Oxford: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2002.
- ^ The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers By Richard B. Lee, Richard Heywood Daly
- ^ Ideas that changed the world Felipe Fernández-Armesto. human exceptionalism . Page: 138
- ^ Starr, Sandy. What Makes Us Exceptional?. Spiked Science
- ^ A Compassionate Autonomy Alternative to Speciesism Constance K. Perry Volume 22, Number 3 / June, 2001 Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
[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
