Is Speiciesism a Legitimate Moral Concern?
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:
"I use the word 'speciesism'," he explained two years later, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practiced by man against other species. Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."
It is irrational and morally unacceptable to regard other animals (which have been acknowledged as sentient or conscious* beings) as mere objects or property. Humans tend to think and behave otherwise because we have been raised in a world where human supremacy and/or anthropocentrism are the normal and "good" positions to follow. The latter of which is the belief that humans must be considered at the center of, and above any other aspect of, reality.
All animals ought to have rights and we should not assign them a lesser value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants, young children, and the cognitively impaired solely on the grounds of them being members of the allegedly superior human species. Be it the hunting, consumption, experimentation, or forced labor of other animals, speciesism is a very large and unspoken of blight within our so called "civilized" society. It needs to be an issue we are talking about every single day.
It's worth noting that challenging "speciesism" doesn't necessarily mean one believes all species are of equal moral worth, but only that it would be irrational and unjust to deny the worth of another based solely on their species membership. There could easily be other reasons to value certain organisms less than humans and other animals such as not possessing a capacity to feel pain and pleasure.
*Scientists Conclude Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious Beings
Please see the video below for a brief summary of the issues surrounding this topic:
|
Certainly logic can reinforce and/or challenge morality. Are we being consistent or treating like cases alike? Are we using logical fallacies to support and defend our moral positions such as an appeal to nature or an appeal to history? I'm also perplexed about your mention of vegans here. What is the point you are trying to make exactly? My main argument was posted above, but allow me to elaborate. What exactly does the anti-speciesist/animals rights movement ask for? Well, many things, but I think it mostly contends that the like interests of both humans and other animals (e.g. an interest in not suffering and continuing to live) should be treated similarly without prejudice towards species membership. It's not about giving a dog the right to vote, but the right to be protected and regarded respectfully. In my view, this is an issue that has gone without recognition or any sort of extensive discussion for far too long now. It affects far too many lives to be ignored any longer. Currently, 58 billion animals are killed worldwide every year for food and this does not include fish and other sea-life! Surely this number should be startling to us and indicate that something is amiss. That something needs to be done. 1
point
Non-animal foods, or in other words vegan food. It is nutritionally beneficial, and there is an abundance of food available to us. Information on vegan diets:
Supporting Evidence:
Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian/vegan diets.
(www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Of course. There is no question that humans are animals. What else would we be? |
