Speciesism And Speciesism

First, I will explore the historic and contemporary connections of animal studies within feminist waves and discussions. Next, this paper will address speciesism as a system of oppression and infrahuman prejudices – animals as less than human – and I will discuss the interconnectedness of

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.

People are constantly trying to justify the immoral treatment of animals. As humans we have an inherent tendency to give preference to our own species over others without any moral relevant differences, a concept more formally known as speciesism. In the piece of writing titled Animal Liberation by Peter Singer he talks about this concept, giving arguments and counter arguments in the name of animal rights. Singer starts off with the powerful and effective analogy connecting the arguments used to fight for equality of sexes and races to the arguments that are applicable to the fundamental rights of animals. This comparison is brought up continuously and although it's acknowledged that there’s a significant difference between people who are racist or sexist to those who can be considered speciesist, the analogy is still helpful in dismissing certain arguments, for instance, just because we are capable of oppressing animals doesn't mean that we should. Also just thinking because it's how things have always been done and because it would be difficult and drastically impactful to society aren't reasons enough not to change. In the writing Singer incorporates a very good quote from a black Feminist named Sojourner Truth who once said in reference to oppression on the bases of intellect, “If my cup won't hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?”. During that time in American history many believed that blacks and

As part of a utilitarian perspective, Singer denounced the unequal consideration the interests of animals. He compares the uneven taken into account the interests of the animals with the discrimination suffered by black people in the West, and by women. The term "animal liberation" (All Animals Have Rights) is wanting a layer of the "liberation of women" (Women Liberation). For Singer, refuse to take into account the interests of animals on the basis of a difference in kind with the man is comparable with the rejection suffered by black on the basis of "race," or that of women due gender. The differences reflected in the interests of different groups should not be based on such criteria. Inspired by the term "racism", it refers to as "speciesism" the fact to discriminate because of a difference in kind.

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.

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

Singer argues that the uncomplicated matter that animals have the capability to experience discomfort and joy puts them on an equal moral footing with human beings. Singer also condemns "speciesism," a concept like racism in which humans consider that they are authorized to use other creatures simply because they are members of a different species just in the way humans have exploited one another on the basis of race or gender or other perceived differences. Animals from factory farms have no legal protection from cruelty that. If the same acts were inflicted on dogs or cats it would be illegal. This only proves the discrimination there is when it comes to animal rights. Species are not considered to have equal values. Humans appreciate animals

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

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

What she is saying is the definition of speciesism. Speciesism is basically treating one species better than another one. A fetus is a human regardless of how different it looks compared to a person you would see on the street. A woman is a human regardless if she is not physical a man. A human is a human regardless of color. Speciesism is all discrimination based on physical appearance and differences.

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 are thought to be the dominant species. They believe that humans should manage the earth, all other life forms have some sort of instrumental value for human use.