The Origin Of Speciesism By Peter Singer

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’s argument is that all animals are equal and should be treated as such. He begins to build his argument by defining “equality”. Equality entails “equal consideration” for a being’s interests, with the potential for different treatment. Consider the difference in treatment between men and women in regards to abortion rights. Women have the right to get an abortion while men do not. This is not a difference in equality, but simply recognition of the fact that it could be in the interest of women to get one. Men on the other hand, have no desire or ability for this right. Singer

Kwame Anthony Appiah's article “Racisms”, claims racism to be a view of racialism which are the “heritable characteristics, possessed by the members of our species, that allow us to divide them into smaller sets of races… these races share certain traits…” (Appiah). Appiah argues that humans need a definition of

I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.

Alexander Von Humboldt was a Prussian naturalist whose work has helped shape and define our modern understanding of nature. He used enlightenment rationalism to navigate his way through life and his deep connection to his natural environment inspired a visionary movement in ushering out the monotheistic creationist worldview. “Humboldt’s books, diaries and letters reveal a visionary, a thinker far ahead of his time. He invented isotherms...discovered the magnetic equator...came up with the idea of vegetation and climate zones that snake across the globe…and revolutionized the way we see the natural world.” (Invention of Nature, 5). Although his work was extensive, author of ‘The Invention of Nature, Andrea Wulf suggests that his work has largely been forgotten due to his polymath approach of including art, history, poetry and politics that made him unfavorable. While Humboldt gave us our concept of nature itself, “the irony is that Humboldt’s views have become so self-evident that we have largely forgotten the man behind them.” However, although his work individual work may be overlooked, Humboldt’s success in making science more accessible work and as a result, his legacy lives on as the source of inspiration for many influential thinkers throughout history.

Every living thing on this planet has evolved from the same original specie. Having this information, could it not be concluded that all living things are, to some degree, related? Yes. To further explain, evolution is a theory that states that organisms have diversified or in other words, have changed into a more complex living thing. In the book Inherit The Wind, the townsfolk of the play disagree heavily with the theory of evolution. Common ancestry is the theory that states that all living things share a common ancestor or common descendent, which then ties into evolution. Speciation, both allopatric and parapatric, show evidence for common ancestry. Speciation is when new species arise due to an evolutionary process. There are multiple and observable accounts that are used to support the theory of common ancestry. Charles Darwin’s book, The Descent of Man And Selection in Relation to Sex, goes into specifics with these accounts with placental mammals. Placental mammals are mammals that nourish their embryos using the mother 's blood supply. Common Ancestry in placental mammals provides sufficient scientific evidence, such as the similarities in bone structures and genetic coding between animals, to support the theory of evolution.

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

Chris McCandless probably wasn’t the first to think, “When you want something in life, you just gotta reach out and grab it.” In the book Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer and the short story “Nature” by Ralph Waldo Emerson, they both have the belief that by living off of nature and preserving it, the closer one will come to understanding the nature of nature.

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

Approximately 185,000 amputations occur in the United States each year. (Kozak,1998). That’s 185,000 people who may be battling with finding themselves unable to connect to people in the U.S population due to their insecurities. Imagine what it is like for amputees trying to discover a companion to give them a long term loving relationship. Not everyone is accepting of someone who can unlatch their metal rod of a leg after a long day at work. In the article by Andy Greenburg, “A Step Beyond Human”, Hugh Herr tells his story about how when he was only 17 he lost both his legs due to a serious frostbite incident. According to the article “Relationships and Technology” by Joseph A. DeVito, it states that “Computer talk is empowering for those with physical disabilities or disfigurements” (DeVito, pg. 334). Through the advancements of technology, the disabled population is capable of boosting their confidence, meeting others, and bettering their quality of life.

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.

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

A clear comparison of the prejudice between speciesism and racism is presented through contemporary American philosopher Carl Cohen. Cohen is one academic who calls himself a proud speciesist. Cohen has a somewhat Darwinian approach to speciesism, arguing that every species on the planet is struggling and fighting to claw their way to the top, that this is how it should be and this is how it is. Each species should only be concerned about looking after itself, and due to humans currently being at the top, this shows we are the strongest of the species and can do whatever we please with those below us. This argument from Cohen is the exact one which slave owners used to rationalise and justify the domination over indigenous people and Africans. Cohens given defence of speciesism directly links and compares with the prejudice of racism from the slave trade, a prejudice all are disgusted with, and so presents how the prejudice of speciesism is definitely comparable to racism.

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