Argument Against Speciesism

A statement adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association that posits racial differences, while often deemed by society to be genetic in nature, are actually social in nature. The statement supports this assertion by using genetic studies that have found genetic difference is greater within racial groups rather than between different groups. The statement from the AAA also uses the history of the construction of race, and its link to colonialism and enslavement; to further its claim that race is a social construction, not a collection of genetic differences.

When describing Race they state that its roots are not within the biological realm. That Race is a social construct and cannot be defined genetically.

Speciesism, as defined by Peter Singer, “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 6). The rationale for the preferential treatment encapsulated in this definition is simply the fact that those receiving the preferred treatment belong to the same species, and not on the basis of any grounds of higher intelligence or other attributes.

Michael Tooley, the author of ‘Abortion and Infanticide’, argues that an organism must possess certain properties to possess a right to life. He states that an organism possess a serious right to life only if it possess the concept of self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it itself is a continuing entity (p. 44). Furthermore, he argues that there are certain requirements to meet this claim. To say one only has a right to life if it possesses a concept of self as a continuing subject is a bold statement. If claiming a fetus does not have a right to life because they do not possess a concept of self, then what about an human who is suffering from a disease that makes them

Peter Singer has written many works in support of animal rights. In one of his greatest works Animal Liberation, Singer goes into great depths on how similar in biology animals are to human beings. Another strong point was not only the biological resemblance, but also the behavioral tendencies and traits humans and nonhuman species share. There are two major areas of focus that Singer puts emphasis on that need to be recognized for the purposes of my argument. One focus is this utilitarian approach that only the human species carry: the belief of ethical and morally good behavior should be extended to the consideration of nonhuman species. The second focus that is the basis for my argument is Singer’s argument against a huge human social construct labeled speciesism.

Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to explain the origin, diversity and complexity of life. I will will disprove evolution by showing that natural selection only explains small evolutionary changes, collectively known as microevolution. Natural selection cannot drive large evolutionary changes, macroevolution. I will also show that the primordial soup, in which life supposedly evolved, did not exist.

Comment Powered by Li 1 UCOR 1620 02 Darwin & the idea of Evolution Mingxi Li(Jessie) Mar. 8th, 2017 Assignment 3 Argument against Evolution by Natural Selection Abstract Natural selection is one of the numerous theories that attempt to explain the evolution of living things from their primitive origins to the more advanced organisms existing today. At its core, this theory supports the notion that only the strongest organisms survive in a changing environment while their weak counterparts die off. Nevertheless, various circles regard the evolutionary theory by natural selection as practically impossible. Since its conception, proponents of the theory have defended it with the help of

In Sharon Begley’s article, “Three is not enough,” the author focuses her argument on the fact that race should not be defined by his or her body components, such as DNA, hair, eye, or skin color. In other words, race should be justified by their social interactions with others and build upon one’s behaviors and actions.That is to say, one’s skin color, physical appearance do not define who he or she is, nor does it impose a stereo type of that a certain group of people. The word race is often misunderstood, many believe that race is used to label one group of people, and make assumptions about a certain group of people. However, this is wrong according to Sharon Begley, author of “ Three Is Not Enough”. Begley cites a study done by biologist

It has the full potential of becoming a person. In that sentence is the distinction. A person has the right to live and to be treated with equal consideration among the rest of the population. A fetus, although undeniably a human, is not a person, and therefore does not have those rights. A single cell amoeba is extremely similar to a human zygote, it also has a unique set of DNA, uses oxygen for energy that allows its cells divide and grow just the same as a human zygote; but it would be absurd for someone to defend the life of this amoeba because it has a right to live. To refer to a fetus as a person that deserves rights is a blatant category mistake. A fetus is not a person in the same right as you and I, it is a bundle of human cells with the potential of becoming a person.

One of the more vulnerable parts of her arguments centers on the consideration of whether sentient fetuses are persons. While they may not have the ability to act upon their sentience, that does not mean that they are not persons. Here is where she brings up the reasons why infants are persons, and thus somehow morally above even sentient fetuses, and especially fetuses not beyond the first trimester. Her words are that: “not all sentient beings are persons with full and equal moral rights”(146). The difference between moral and empirical rationale behind how we act towards people is significant for Warren.

Singer starts the article by challenging the reader's idea of the last form of discrimination; too many the last form of discrimination was sex-based but to Singer that is not the case. He believes people false consciously accept sexism as the last form of discrimination because there are no other groups of women that have advocated for rights, but people fail to realize oppression and discrimination go unnoticed until the group being mistreated points out the mistreatment. People look past the mistreatment of animals because animals cannot advocate for their rights. He refers to the discrimination against animals as speciesism; speciesism is the innate superiority of a species (homo sapiens) to another species without a solid foundation other than self-interest. Just like a racist places the self-interest of members of their own race superior to members of another race, a speciesist places the self-interest of members of their own species superior to another species. He continues by saying people are often confused when talking about animal rights; are we supposed to give animals the right to vote? He explains this concern by bringing up a woman’s right to an abortion. Woman have the right to an abortion

“On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”, an essay written by Mary Anne Warren, defend abortion in any stage of a woman’s pregnancy (pg 468). Warren argues that the potential to become a human being is not the same as being human and deserving the same right to life (pg. 468-472). This essay asserts that in order to be human, one must possess five particular traits (pg. 470). These trait are consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the ability to communicate, and awareness of oneself (pg. 470). Warren claims that since a fetus has not yet acquired all of the traits, then that fetus is not human and therefore does not have the right to life (pg. 470).

Speciesism is an undeniable prejudice focused on by the likes of Peter Singer and Shelly Kagan. The general accepted definition of speciesism is the assumption of superiority to humans which leads to the exploitation of animals. Singer hones in on the idea of speciesism and uses it to describe giving preference to our own species over another, in the absence of morally relevant differences.

Another topic of prejudice portrayed in the novel, which was also in our text, is that of speciesism. According to McGraw-Hill and Plous, a “common way people reduce conflict over their use of animals is to acknowledge that animals feel pain but to deny that animals are intelligent or self-aware” (521). In Wicked, the relationship between humans and animals is unique from our world since in the world of Oz there is a sub-group of animals, called Animals, which we do not have. The group called Animals are self-aware and live simultaneously with humans as their peers, although their inferiority in the Oz social system increases throughout the book. An example of the prejudice towards animals is the statement, “Everyone knows that you can’t teach an animal to talk” (Maguire 272). This shows that there is a denial of awareness towards animals and perpetuation of inequality. For instance, with Animals, Elphaba discovered there were captive Sheep and a Cow under her sister’s rule and asked, “Did you say Sheep? A Cow? You mean Animals?” (Maguire 313). Although Animals are given to be on the same self-awareness level of human, they are terribly discriminated against and treated as animals, no different from humans being forced into slavery. The prejudice and discrimination towards animals and Animals is especially complex and a concern of Elphaba throughout the novel.

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as