How Speciesism Allows for a Constant Animal Holocaust

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.

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.

In “Speciesism and Moral Status”, Peter Singers argument is that when it comes to the value of life, we should not discriminate in regards to species, and cognitive ability should play some role in moral status. In comparison to humans with “profound mental disabilities” (Singer 569), the use of the gorilla Koko’s higher IQ score, not needing constant supervision, or border collies being able to provide useful work to society, serves as a strong logos appeal regarding the relationship between cognitive ability and moral status. Singer is effectively able to support his claims by continuously referencing respected philosophers and individuals such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and even Pope John Paul II. Validity and integrity are very much solidified in Singers article with the use of counter arguments as well as alternate views to his own arguments. The structure and information Singer provides is clear and organized, and does not leave his audience confused due to the strong use of factual, relevant support of his argument.

Peter Singer is deeply rooted against speciesism, in which humans favor themselves as having greater moral rights than animals. Racism and sexism are equally as wrong of acts as speciesism. Singer acknowledges the difference between animals and humans mentally and physically, although he argues that animals’ wellbeing’s to be considered. He states that “allowing animals to suffer from neglect or for the sake of large profits may also be unnecessary and cruel” (288). Animals are being treated inhumanely with their living conditions and are abused.

Speciesism is a prejudice for or against a certain species. It is the belief that all and only human beings have moral status. Peter Singer, in “All Animals are Equal”, points out that people are contradicting themselves when they make the argument that non-human animals do not deserve the same rights as humans just because animals do not have the same intellectual abilities as us. Singer points out that humans come with different moral capacities and intellectual abilities, such as humans with irreparable brain damage and infant humans, so if people were to argue that animals don’t deserve the same equality as humans because they are basing it on actual equality, then humans who lack certain abilities and characteristics would also not deserve the same equality.

It is difficult to realize the latent prejudice in the personal attributes towards particular groups until the prejudiced forcefully point it to us. A liberation call demands that we expand the moral horizons and the reinterpretation of basic moral principle of equality. The practices that in the previous were natural are now inevitably unjustifiable prejudice (Höchsmann, 2002). This raises the question of whether the attitudes we exhibit are void of criticism. The rise of animal protection groups and the laws that govern and guard the animal's rights brings a completely different perspective of equality.

Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future and renders the present inaccessible. (Maya Angelou) By definition prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Prejudice to others is hate, judgement, and evil. The effects of prejudice are shown in the novel The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, the play The Merchant of Venice, and the tragedy known as the Holocaust. Prejudice affected all people differently, but one thing is true for all; prejudice is crippling and disables those who experience it from being who they truly are and doing as they please.

Human arrogance is derived from the biased notion that man has the right and the sovereignty to dominate over nature and nonhuman animals. The difference between humans and animals is not their ability to reason or think about reality, but rather the human tendency for anthropocentric idealism – a false illusion of superiority in which society accesses the differences through an exclusively anthropomorphic perspective. Society’s arrogance over nonhuman animals is merely a form of speciesism, or what Peter Singer, in his essay “All Animals Are Equal,” describes as the violation of “the principle of equality,” or the prejudice towards one’s own species in favor of another (Singer, 5). Under Singer’s principle of equal consideration, both humans and animals have the capacity to suffer, “the prerequisite for having [interests] (Singer, 4).

You have a valid point about the unrealistic nature of achieving equality among all species similar to Rachels and Singer’s ideal against speciesism. There is no dispute that humans are the superior beings due to the fact that we are about to critically think, reason and advance as a species. If we are to achieve equality in species, we would have to regress back in time to the period of the Homo erectus. It is undeniable that we have evolved Homo sapiens that we are and will continue to progress with time. What I gather from Singer’s speciesism is that we essentially need to consider the best interest of other species when it comes to reasonable and humane conduct. As humans, we should not inflict pain or harm to one another as well

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.

Prejudice, a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or personal experience. The amount of prejudice differs from person to person, but no one is free from it. In the film, American History X, Derek is a great example of how prejudice someone can be. Derek agrees with the white power movement because he feels victimized and threatened by everyone who is not white, but in prison he learns his stereotypes are full of holes; from the film I learned there is no reason to hate one another based on race or stereotypes. Life is too short to live a life based on hate.

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

In his article “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer discusses the widely-held belief that, generally speaking, there is no more inequality in the world, because all groups of formerly oppressed humans are now liberated. However, it often goes without notice that there are groups of nonhuman animals that continue to face unequal treatment, such as those that are consumed or used as scientific test subjects. Singer’s article criticizes the belief that because humans are generally more intelligent than nonhuman animals, then all humans are superior to all nonhuman animals. Singer argues that intelligence is an arbitrary trait to base the separation of humans and nonhumans, and declares that the only trait that one can logically base moral value is the capacity to have interests, which is determined by a creature’s ability to suffer. Singer explains that in order to stay consistent with the basic principle of equality, anything that has the capacity to suffer ought to have its needs and interests recognized, just as humans’ needs and interests are currently recognized through what he calls “equal consideration.” In this paper, I will explain Singer’s notion of equal consideration as the only relevant sense of equality and why it applies to the rights of both human and nonhuman species that are

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

First and foremost, with the current development in the field of biotechnology, the increased dependence on machines for various purposes, the multiplication of hybrid substances for diverse purposes, coupled with many more happenings in the contemporary times suggest that our life is interwoven with all manner of non-humans and it will be impossible to uniquely separate humans from non-humans (Anderson, 2013). The two entities are inseparable and based on this premise of inseparability between the humans and non-humans, nature and culture, it suffices to say that, though some of the arguments raised by the humanistic perspective are valid, the overarching supremacy accorded to humans and its consciousness over other non-humans are far-fetched and immaterial. As aptly put by Jones, “and somewhat understandably, humans tend to think of themselves and their societies as rather different to nature, and rather special” (2009, p.7) in the face of complement roles performed by both.