Speciesism Is Similar To Racism And Speciesism?

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.

Even though Singer uses speciesism to explain the lack of empathy towards animals, a counterargument to his theory exists in Marina Keegan’s essay “Why We Care About Whales.” Keegan points out that a tremendous amount of money goes towards the rescue of beached whales when it could go towards helping humanity and other more dire issues. The question becomes whether or not our inability to stop the mass consumption of meat is actually because speciesism makes it so we don’t care about the rights or lives of other animals, or is there another piece to the puzzle? Keegan argues that we care tremendously, “In theory [Keegan] can say that our resources should be concentrated on saving human lives, that our ‘Save the Whales’ T-Shirts should read

“Speciesism and the Idea of Equality” by Bonnie Steinbock is a rebuttal to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”. The issue presented is should animal rights be considered on the same par as human rights? The conclusion is no, animal rights shouldn’t be on the same standing as human rights. There are several reasons that support this conclusion. The first reason is that humans have abilities that animals don’t have. Steinbock states, “It is not arbitrary or smug, I think, to maintain that human beings have a different moral status from members of other species because of certain capacities which are characteristic of being human” (225). There are three sub points within this argument that help her case. They include: human

Peter Singer is one philosopher who attempts to answer this question. Singer being an advocate of animal equality argues that humans and animals are morally equal. He believes the unjust treatment of animals is derived from speciesism; describes the widespread discrimination

The idea that all humans are born equal has been something that has been almost installed in our minds. However, in the eyes of Peter Singer, we as humans are constantly violating our own moral code in the way we treat animals. Singer refers to this as speciesism and compares our treatment of animals to the same way sexists and racists treat those who they deem inferior. He also argues that the grounds on which they base their prejudice on are equally fragile. He illustrates this by comparing speciesists to racists. He recalls, “The racists violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of his own race…similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of another species” (53.) He initiates this argument by explaining how our willingness to declare all humans as equal when the opposite is fundamentally true. Singer writes, “Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellect…if the demand for equality was based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality” (51). Singer seeks to establish that our push for equality ends once the being in question is no longer human. Once he establishes this, he can quickly draw parallels between our unequal treatment of animals and humans. He evolves what initially begins as a far-fetched claim to a nuanced and

We are all animals. Although we like to believe we are superior and justify many of our actions on this ideology. The truth is quite different. We share countless, undeniable similarities with “animals” and to pretend we are some super being that transcends animals status is foolish.

When trying to co-exist with the environment there contain many challenges. And sometimes as an effect of these challenges humans may harm the environment. Humanity can harm the environment in many ways. For example, dumping trash in landfills, cutting down trees, burning fossil fuels for energy, and clearing out an area for new housing and businesses. Out of the many ways that people can harm the environment, introducing a non-native species into new surroundings harms the environment the most.

Another point the Singer brings up is how humans let their own interests take priority over other species. The fact that we eat animals shows that we think of them as nothing more than a "means to our ends". This is true because there are other, more nutritional, ways to meet our needs. By doing this we cause additional suffering for animals. Moreover, the cruel behavior that we put these animals through before they are killed for us to eat. Yet another type of discrimination we perform on these animals is experimentation to see the effects of substances and if they are safe on humans. Animal experimentation and consumption is wrong except if we were willing to perform the same acts on a human with similar capabilities. Singer reasons that, "a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month" (LaFollette, 110). He argues that if we cannot experiment on humans with severe brain damage or defective infants, then we should not experiment on animals. Furthermore, killing animals for food would be the same as killing these humans for food. Singer is saying that if instead of treating these defective infants that do not stand a chance; we should use them to test medical treatments, which in the end is the greater good for more people. The last aspect of speciesism that Singer talks about is philosophers trying to draw a distinct, clear line

The author, Peter Singer states that animals should be given equal consideration since speciesism is wrong. The principal of equal consideration states that the like interests of any two sentient beings are of equal moral importance. Also, speciesism is when one species takes the interests of itself or of another of its members over the same equal interests of another species. On the other hand, an opposing author, Michael Fox, states that animals do not have any rights because they are not a member of the moral community which requires autonomy and certain capacities which nonhuman animals lack. The moral community is a group of beings that are alike one another, that feel they are bound to certain rules of conduct towards one another because

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.

To begin, we will first look at the reasons why someone might believe that these non-human animals deserve to be considered people. To put it most simply, humans are animals. In the words of Eric Olson, “We are animal organisms start to finish”. To look at animals compared to humans, we can refer to the famous Charles Darwin. The human species did not just happen, we did not appear in a way similar to the big bang theory but however from evolution. Humans or Homo sapiens are believed to be descendants of the Great Ape. We were once a more primitive species, but nonetheless we originated from a gorilla. We have evolved from that uneducated, uncivilized being walking on four limbs to a much more educated, civilized

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

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.

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