The classic instance is the Black Liberation movement, which demands an end to the prejudice and discrimination that has made blacks second-class citizens. The immediate appeal of the black liberation movement and its initial, if limited, success made it a model for other oppressed groups to follow. We became familiar with liberation movements for Spanish-Americans, gay people, and a variety of other minorities. Discrimination on the basis of sex, it has been said, is the last universally accepted form of discrimination, practiced without secrecy or pretense even in those liberal circles that have long prided themselves on their freedom from prejudice against racial minorities.
On May 27,as the US Supreme Court deliberated about the marriage rights of same-sex couples and the legacy of the Voting Rights Act, a New York Times interview with utilitarian bioethicist Peter Singer, famous for his philosophical work on animal liberation, asked us to consider another kind of bias: It is only speciesist to say human life is always more important.
To support this distinction, Singer focuses on the specificities of particular situations.
It is not speciesist, for example, to declare that monkeys should not teach physics, because monkeys lack the ability to do so. It is, however, speciesist to argue that monkeys should be used in medical experiments that are not absolutely necessary, simply because they are not human.
The concept of speciesism is a cornerstone of the animal-rights movement, whose members tend to categorize it alongside if not ahead of forms of human oppression such as racism and sexism.
Those who count animal-rights activists or vegan evangelists among their Facebook friends will no doubt be familiar with this sort of framing: Author Roxane Gay tweeted her thoughts on the hypocrisy of white Americans who were outraged about the lion but expressed no concern for ongoing police murders of African Americans, writing: The next day, the hashtag AllLionsMatter was trending on Twitter.
In the interview Yancy focuses primarily on the relationship between speciesism and racism. Singer points to the indisputably horrendous treatment of animals in the industrial production of meat. As people like Eric Schlosser have shown, cows, chickens, and other animals are housed in unsanitary conditions so crowded that they are often unable to move more than a few inches.
They are fed, often force-fed, a diet meant to maximize the speed of growth with no regard for their health or comfort.
In addition to food, antibiotics and steroids are used to prevent infections and stimulate even faster growth.
The breeding and milking conditions of factory-farmed animals are the stuff of nightmares, as are slaughterhouses themselves. But Singer goes much further than decrying factory farming when he equates these conditions to the conditions of slavery, specifically the system of race-based chattel slavery that Europeans and their descendants perpetrated in the Americas for more than years.
If we were to compare attitudes about speciesism today with past racist attitudes, we would have to say that we are back in the days in which the slave trade was still legal, although under challenge by some enlightened voices.
After significant prodding by Yancy, Singer concedes that such attitudes are often reinforced by some institutions in society, but is unwilling to specify which ones. Indeed, the very idea of structural racism as part and parcel of capitalism seems lost on Singer. He seems to think that, although the process is slow, racism is generally not accepted and is therefore on its way out.
Speciesism, on the other hand, is more ingrained — and therefore more insidious. But these human struggles are those in which the oppressed themselves rise up to demand justice and equality, to insist that they are not the objects but the subjects of history.
Rose here is using the term in a different sense than Singer does, but his point stands.1 Speciesism Is a human’s life more important or is an animal’s life?
And should they be treated equally? Peter Singer and Bonnie Steinbock are two professors with competing views about this issue. Singer’s argues that both humans and animals should be treated equally and compares our treatment of animals to racism and sexism.
However, Steinbock believes that humans have more value %(3). As for speciesism the whole point of my post was to show objectively why humans are more important than other animals. I came up with three demonstrable points to .
Feb 22, · In our studies, speciesism predicted whether people are more willing to help humans than animals, or “superior” animals to “inferior” animals.
For, example, when given the choice of donating to a charity that helps dogs or pigs, people are more likely . Many arguments for denying nonhuman animals a consideration of their most basic interests rely on human exceptionalism, and these arguments are universally motivated by speciesism (or more specifically, anthropocentrism).
Joey Carbstrong (born ) is an Australian animal rights pfmlures.com was an alcohol and drug user and an ex-member of a criminal gang, his life had taken a turn for the worst until he became a vegan animal liberation activist known for his sobriety.
The three possible relationhips between humans and animals are that the animals can be pets, domesticated animals reared for human purposes, or wild animals. our duties to pets come from us making them rely upon us to live, so the duties to a pet are the strongest, followed by domestic animals, with our duties to wild animals being the weakest.