"Speciesism, in applied ethics and the philosophy of animal rights, the practice of treating members of one species as morally more important than members of other species; also, the belief that this practice is justified. "
- Encyclopaedia Britannica
Coined in 1970 by Richard Ryder, the term has recently made an increasing appearance in the media mainly thanks to animal rights activists. It has roughly two forms: i) the notion that humans are superior to other animal species ii) assigning different moral values to different non-human animal species based, e.g., on how closely related they are to us
The antispecism movement argues that forms of specism are morally unjustifiable. Some even compare this to other forms of discrimination like racism or sexism. Veganism can be considered a (radical) application of antispecism, although I'm not entirely sure just how much the two relate to each other. Either way, I thought this might be an interesting topic to discuss, especially since it concerns us all, as individuals as well as a society.
The most important point here, as I take it, is that speciesist lines are morally unjustifiable, as you correctly put it. This is, of course, a different claim from their being false and shifts the burden to the speciesist who must show her position is (or, at least, can be) justified.
One way of running the justification is to claim that our moral status is conferred to us by God. So, whether we're ensouled or made in God's image or given dominion over the other animals--this is one way of explaining our moral superiority. Of course, I don't find that line very compelling. It's there, but it's not going to get off the ground for an atheist.
So what are we left with? We could take an Aristotelian approach and try to say something about our nature that is distinct from other animals. We are rational, for example. Or we are capable of flourishing in ways that non-human animals aren't. But it may be that this is more of an accidental (rather than necessary) feature of a human. Babies and adults who are severely mentally handicapped may not qualify by these standards. To me, the debate closely mirrors that of the personhood debate for abortion--it seems like every account we give is either too broad or too narrow.
I'll just leave this with one last thought for now. Maybe all that's required is that we give non-human animals due consideration. In other words, we take seriously our moral commitments and weigh our options and end up at the conclusion that it's morally permissible to eat animals without falling directly into the speciesist line. That being said, whenever I'm at a conference on ethics, most of my colleagues there are ethical vegans or vegetarians. So the above story may not be so simple.
One way of running the justification is to claim that our moral status is conferred to us by God. So, whether we're ensouled or made in God's image or given dominion over the other animals--this is one way of explaining our moral superiority.
An additional problem with this is that it hinges entirely on the belief that anything God decides is inherently justified, which is the same line of reasoning used to justify genocides, terrorism, and other atrocities.
We are rational, for example.
You could certainly argue that humans are generally more rational than members of other species, but even that would need more convincing support than absence of evidence to the contrary.
In other words, we take seriously our moral commitments and weigh our options and end up at the conclusion that it's morally permissible to eat animals without falling directly into the speciesist line.
I don't see why eating other species should even be an issue of morality. Battery farming, certainly, because it's a lifelong extrajudicial confinement, but that's another matter completely.
I don't see why eating other species should even be an issue of morality. Battery farming, certainly, because it's a lifelong extrajudicial confinement, but that's another matter completely.
The issue here is that eating meat necessarily includes the killing of an animal, whether by hunting game or slaughtering livestock. Therefore, if we consider that animals are not intrinsically inferior to humans, we need to find another way to justify their killing and consuming, on a moral level.
Eating meat is easily justified with an appeal to nature, seeing as we are heterotroph omnivores and rely on consuming organic matter animal and plant based. Even though this does nothing to justify industrial livestock farming and animal torture, it does make for a compelling narrative in favour of keeping meat in our menu. But it's hard to justify morally. I'm not saying it's impossible, but hard.
The issue here is that eating meat necessarily includes the killing of an animal, whether by hunting game or slaughtering livestock. Therefore, if we consider that animals are not intrinsically inferior to humans, we need to find another way to justify their killing and consuming, on a moral level.
I wouldn't regard it as immoral for a nonhuman to kill and/or eat a human, so the inverse shouldn't be necessarily true either. Unless they're at risk of being eaten to extinction, questions of morality should only pertain to how they are treated while alive.
I wouldn't regard it as immoral for a nonhuman to kill and/or eat a human, so the inverse shouldn't be necessarily true either.
The standard line here is that non-human animals are not moral agents. Even animals that live closely with us, like dogs, and have a complicated social structure aren't considered to make moral decisions. If you dog grabs food off your plate, we would say it's poorly trained or something like that. We might even say "bad dog". But it would seem funny to call it an immoral action. Granted, this response relies entirely on our intuitions and how we do, in fact, respond to things. But a compelling ethical theory should accommodate our intuitions. In this case, either get the result that animals are not moral agents or give some really good story as to why our intuitions are wrong.
Yes, things get a lot more complicated when we consider other primates--especially higher order primates like chimps and gorillas. I remember a story that went viral not that long ago in which a troupe of chimps killed one of their members who was being pretty crappy to everyone. And a lot of stories used the term 'murder' to describe it. But it's a tough road to generalise instances like that to non-human animals in general--especially to the kinds of animals we regularly eat (cows and chickens).
tl;dr -- The immorality only goes one way because we are moral agents while cows and chickens are not.
seeing as we are heterotroph omnivores and rely on consuming organic matter animal and plant based.
A lot of the arguments I've seen for ethical veganism rely on the fact that, thanks to technological advances, the vast majority of people do not actually need to rely on animal products for a healthy life. That being said, I know someone who has been an ethical vegan for most of her life but, because of some recent health issues, has been advised by her doctors to start consuming some meat. But as I understand it, these cases are rare.
I don't see why eating other species should even be an issue of morality. Battery farming, certainly, because it's a lifelong extrajudicial confinement, but that's another matter completely.
Wny, on your view, would lifelong confinement be a moral issue but death wouldn't?
Because death is an inevitability that is independent of suffering.
Death applies to us, too, yet we condemn murder. Why not slaughter?
What do you think about breeding animals for meat/etc.? Some argue that keeping and breeding animals for consumption is unethical as it is taking advantage of them and not respecting their dignity. As a consequence those people also don't consume eggs or wear wool.
@Moegreche
If I had to justify consumption of animal products, personally, I would try considering it as a sort of symbiosis. Under the condition that we treat them well, care about them, and provide for their needs, we are then allowed to use their products for our own needs. According to you, is there any merit to that view? I suppose it's not rock solid ethically, but it tackles one of the biggest issue, which is the lack of consideration for the animals as living beings and not just mindless consumption objects.
Death applies to us, too, yet we condemn murder. Why not slaughter?
Probably because, unlike murder, slaughter doesn't specifically have to be immoral. In any case, people killing each other is problematic for societal reasons; a community would have a hard time functioning if its members were allowed to arbitrarily kill each other without consequence, but this wouldn't really make sense in the case of humans killing cows, for example, or cows killing other cows or humans.
What do you think about breeding animals for meat/etc.?
If you mean selective breeding for traits that increase their commodity value, it's unethical if those traits are unhealthy or injurious to the animals themselves. Otherwise, it all depends on how they're being treated.
