SPECIESISM: A Legitmate Moral Concern That Deserves Discussion

I'd like to revive a topic I've written about before:

Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was coined by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973:

"I use the word 'speciesism'," he explained two years later, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practiced by man against other species. Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."

It is simply unjust and morally unacceptable to regard other animals (which have been acknowledged as sentient or conscious[SUP](1)[/SUP] beings) as mere objects or property. Humans tend to think and behave otherwise because we have been raised in a world where human supremacy is the normal and "good" position to follow.

All animals ought to have rights/protections and it is illogical to assign them a lesser moral value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants, young children, and the cognitively impaired solely on the grounds of them being members of the allegedly superior human species. Be it the hunting, consumption, experimentation on, or forced labor of other animals, speciesism is a very large and unspoken of blight within our so called "civilized" society. It needs to be an issue we are talking about every single day.

NOTE: Challenging "speciesism" doesn't necessarily mean one believes all species are of equal moral worth, but only that it would be irrational and unjust to deny the worth of another based solely on their species membership. There could easily be other reasons to value certain organisms less than humans and other animals such as them not possessing a capacity to feel pain and/or pleasure.

(1) Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.

Please see the video below for a brief summary of the issues surrounding this topic:

Brother AJ said:

I'd like to revive a topic I've written about before:

Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was coined by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973:

"I use the word 'speciesism'," he explained two years later, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practiced by man against other species. Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."

It is simply unjust and morally unacceptable to regard other animals (which have been acknowledged as sentient or conscious[SUP](1)[/SUP] beings) as mere objects or property. Humans tend to think and behave otherwise because we have been raised in a world where human supremacy is the normal and "good" position to follow.

All animals ought to have rights/protections and it is illogical to assign them a lesser moral value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants, young children, and the cognitively impaired solely on the grounds of them being members of the allegedly superior human species. Be it the hunting, consumption, experimentation on, or forced labor of other animals, speciesism is a very large and unspoken of blight within our so called "civilized" society. It needs to be an issue we are talking about every single day.

NOTE: Challenging "speciesism" doesn't necessarily mean one believes all species are of equal moral worth, but only that it would be irrational and unjust to deny the worth of another based solely on their species membership. There could easily be other reasons to value certain organisms less than humans and other animals such as them not possessing a capacity to feel pain and/or pleasure.

(1) Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.

Please see the video below for a brief summary of the issues surrounding this topic:

Click to expand...

Until all humans have the basic right of life isnt it a bit silly to talk about other species

I find it amusing that the people who want to guarantee a right to life to animals are usually the same ones who want to deny it to humans. Not so much pro-animal as anti-human, in other words.

Laws are already on the books mandating humane treatment of animals, but anyone who wants us to give up Big Macs, ribeye, and fried chicken has got an insurmountable uphill struggle on their hands.

Using a moral argument fails because other species are not bound by those moral "laws" of our species. Notice that the speaker used elephants, dogs and cats (pets?) rather than fish, cattle and poultry (livestock?) in his example of animals that should be spared pain and suffering. Rest assured that a bear or shark sees no moral problem when inflicting pain and suffering upon a seal chosen for a meal. They know that their bites/attacks are violent/painful and (generally) respect other members of their species - cannibalism is generally not practiced among many species of predator.

Crovax said:

Until all humans have the basic right of life isnt it a bit silly to talk about other species

Click to expand...

It is worse. It is resources that could be used to save humans.

ttwtt78640 said:

Using a moral argument fails because other species are not bound by those moral "laws" of our species. Notice that the speaker used elephants, dogs and cats (pets?) rather than fish, cattle and poultry (livestock?) in his example of animals that should be spared pain and suffering. Rest assured that a bear or shark sees no moral problem when inflicting pain and suffering upon a seal chosen for a meal. They know that their bites/attacks are violent/painful and (generally) respect other members of their species - cannibalism is generally not practiced among many species of predator.

Click to expand...

Of course, there is a building movement to reduce or maybe even stop meat consumption.

Crovax said:

Until all humans have the basic right of life isnt it a bit silly to talk about other species

Click to expand...

You demonstrate quite plainly the problem with human supremacy. If you don't wish to discuss the issue then don't bother posting.

LowDown said:

I find it amusing that the people who want to guarantee a right to life to animals are usually the same ones who want to deny it to humans. Not so much pro-animal as anti-human, in other words.

Click to expand...

Nope, I have no idea what you're talking about. I support human rights 100%.

Laws are already on the books mandating humane treatment of animals,

Click to expand...

Surely you must realize how pitiful said laws are? Especially when it comes to the treatment of farm animals. You might want to do some research.

but anyone who wants us to give up Big Macs, ribeye, and fried chicken has got an insurmountable uphill struggle on their hands.

Click to expand...

Okay? I'm not disputing whether things will be easy.

ttwtt78640 said:

Using a moral argument fails because other species are not bound by those moral "laws" of our species. Notice that the speaker used elephants, dogs and cats (pets?) rather than fish, cattle and poultry (livestock?) in his example of animals that should be spared pain and suffering. Rest assured that a bear or shark sees no moral problem when inflicting pain and suffering upon a seal chosen for a meal. They know that their bites/attacks are violent/painful and (generally) respect other members of their species - cannibalism is generally not practiced among many species of predator.

Click to expand...

That's a rather weak argument. There is no question that there are many humans that are not bound to the same laws as us all because they are unable to comprehend them. We don't throw a toddler in jail for pushing his mother down the stairs, for example. This doesn't mean that the toddler isn't still deserving of rights and protections seeing as they remain quite vulnerable.

Brother AJ said:

You demonstrate quite plainly the problem with human supremacy. If you don't wish to discuss the issue then don't bother posting.

Click to expand...

You demonstrate a disconnect with reality. Are you really blind to the biological makeup that makes us care more about our family than other families, our country more than othe countries and our species more than other species? it has nothing to do with "speciesism" If you dont wish to discuss the hard questions then dont bother posting.

Crovax said:

You demonstrate a disconnect with reality.

Click to expand...

Hah... Of course I do! Clearly anyone that disagrees with you does!

Are you really blind to the biological makeup that makes us care more about our family than other families, our country more than othe countries and our species more than other species? it has nothing to do with "speciesism"

Click to expand...

"Biological makeup?" You mean DNA? That's what binds us together as a species. That is the only thing that all humans have in common. You're saying I should place moral value upon DNA?

If you dont wish to discuss the hard questions then dont bother posting.

Click to expand...

What questions are you asking yourself? I don't assume that humans are without question more valuable than other species. Why do you? Why should I?

I do generally agree animals have some sort of rights, and they ought to be respected.

We are speciesist, but so is every other animal...

Brother AJ said:

Nope, I have no idea what you're talking about. I support human rights 100%.

Click to expand...

Sure you do, including the right to an abortion, the right to physician assisted suicide, etc.

Surely you must realize how pitiful said laws are? Especially when it comes to the treatment of farm animals. You might want to do some research.

Click to expand...

I know quite a bit about it, actually. It seems to me that most of the regulations governing the use of animals in research are designed to make research as difficult and expensive as possible in order to effect a ban on it via the back door. Making research more difficult and expensive means less of it, and people will suffer from the lack of advancements in biological sciences in ways that will be difficult to measure.

Making meat more difficult and expensive to get by increasing regulations is also clearly a goal of these animal rights advocates. In this case it's poor people and people of modest means who suffer by being unable to afford an important source of protein.

Like I said, anti-human.

Brother AJ said:

I'd like to revive a topic I've written about before:

Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was coined by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973:

"I use the word 'speciesism'," he explained two years later, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practiced by man against other species. Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."

It is simply unjust and morally unacceptable to regard other animals (which have been acknowledged as sentient or conscious[SUP](1)[/SUP] beings) as mere objects or property. Humans tend to think and behave otherwise because we have been raised in a world where human supremacy is the normal and "good" position to follow.

All animals ought to have rights/protections and it is illogical to assign them a lesser moral value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants, young children, and the cognitively impaired solely on the grounds of them being members of the allegedly superior human species. Be it the hunting, consumption, experimentation on, or forced labor of other animals, speciesism is a very large and unspoken of blight within our so called "civilized" society. It needs to be an issue we are talking about every single day.

NOTE: Challenging "speciesism" doesn't necessarily mean one believes all species are of equal moral worth, but only that it would be irrational and unjust to deny the worth of another based solely on their species membership. There could easily be other reasons to value certain organisms less than humans and other animals such as them not possessing a capacity to feel pain and/or pleasure.

(1) Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the mosquito humming around your bedroom on a hot summer night. :mrgreen:

We are the superior specie on this planet in every way. We are faster than the fastest animal on Earth, can dive deeper into the ocean than any other specie, can kill any other specie we want. We live in more extreme environments than any other specie, are better at adapting to different environments and are the top of the food chain. Having said all that, we also have the greatest responsibility to be good stewards. That means that there isn't an animal on Earth deserves to be killed for no reason, but it also means that there isn't an animal on Earth that I wouldn't see put to death to save one human's life. I will put animals to work in exchange for feeding and protecting them. I will also kill and eat an animal if it means that my family doesn't have to go hungry. I will not unnecessarily harm animals, but I will also make sure that no animal can be threat to a human (outside of being used as tool to help control people who break social covenant). The stupid idea that a rat living in the sewers has kind equivalent value to a human being is self-hate at it worst.

celticwar17 said:

I do generally agree animals have some sort of rights, and they ought to be respected.

We are speciesist, but so is every other animal...

Click to expand...

BINGO!!!!

Given a choice, a lion will make a meal out of a 3 year old child, does that make the lion "specieist"?

Very interesting and totally new to me: Somewhat opens my mind to the position based on the science outlined. It’s obvious that some or even most humans have given already assigned some rights to various animals based on their feelings or even love for them. And, I’m sure this has more to do with compassion and love for animals than it does with this science.

I am not what some people would describe as an animal lover. I have no pets nor do I want any, but do appreciate the value of them for many, many people. And, obviously, people for the most part are providing food and shelter for them, regardless of the ownership and captivity issue.

As it relates to pain, suffering and killing animals for sport, I am in agreement with you. However, using animals as a food source seems to be in keeping within the animal kingdom. I guess I can say hunger trumps intelligence (no pun intended).

I avoid harming or killing of animals with the exception of certain rodents. Some people might find this amusing, but when I’m cutting several acres of grass, I try to avoid frogs and toads with little success.

I am pro-life with one exception, and would presume that all individuals following this belief are also. I would consider anything else hypocritical. I continue to value human life over rodents, frogs, and animals used for a food source along with some exceptions I haven’t considered.

celticwar17 said:

I do generally agree animals have some sort of rights, and they ought to be respected.

Click to expand...

Yes, but to what extent?

We are speciesist, but so is every other animal...

Click to expand...

Humans possess a greater capacity for ethics than any other animal, and so we should be subject to a different standard. We don't "get" to be violent and cruel merely because other animals behave this way. This is similar to how we are subject to different standards than, say, young human children or the severely cognitively impaired.

LowDown said:

Sure you do, including the right to an abortion, the right to physician assisted suicide, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, and obviously there are disagreements as to who is actually respecting human rights in these cases, but that isn't what this thread is about. Try to stay on topic please.

Making research more difficult and expensive means less of it, and people will suffer from the lack of advancements in biological sciences in ways that will be difficult to measure.

Click to expand...

It depends on how you look at it actually. You, of course, merely beg the question that human life is more important than nonhuman life, so why would you take any other position? If other animals were not considered to be the sort of beings we could perform painful biomedical experiments on then this wouldn't be a question. We don't, for example, claim others are "anti-human" for not experimenting on non-consenting human subjects despite the great number of people it could benefit. So, why is it acceptable to experiment on other animals?

Making meat more difficult and expensive to get by increasing regulations is also clearly a goal of these animal rights advocates. In this case it's poor people and people of modest means who suffer by being unable to afford an important source of protein.

Click to expand...

What a load of crap. Meat is actually a luxury in most poor income countries as it's far more costly to produce due to requiring additional tropic levels. It's only so cheap in America because of vast amounts of government subsidies, and STILL they tend to be more expensive than fruits and vegetables (which have plenty of protein to meet our needs).

Protein in the Vegan Diet -- The Vegetarian Resource Group

faithful_servant said:

Tell that to the mosquito humming around your bedroom on a hot summer night. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I don't advocate killing bugs if you can avoid doing so, but this conversation doesn't necessarily revolve around insects at all because the science can be unclear on what it is they experience. It's much more observable that animals more similar to us, especially vertebrae, react to pain and suffering in the same way that we do.

We are the superior specie on this planet in every way. We are faster than the fastest animal on Earth, can dive deeper into the ocean than any other specie, can kill any other specie we want. We live in more extreme environments than any other specie, are better at adapting to different environments and are the top of the food chain.

Click to expand...

Most of those things cannot be accomplished without technology while other animals can do it in their natural states. Our natural senses and bodies obviously pale in comparison when placed beside those of other animals, but, of course, WE decide what makes one superior and what doesn't, right? It's all rather arbitrary at the end of the day though.

Basically, you're saying we're superior because we're able to kill and dominate other animals? Do you realize that humans have been saying this to justify violence against other humans since the dawn of our species? Might makes right? Sorry, I don't live by that credo, and I wouldn't suggest that most of us do that either. Your reasoning is rather poor, and would justify unspeakable acts towards humans if put into the right context.

Having said all that, we also have the greatest responsibility to be good stewards. That means that there isn't an animal on Earth deserves to be killed for no reason, but it also means that there isn't an animal on Earth that I wouldn't see put to death to save one human's life. I will put animals to work in exchange for feeding and protecting them. I will also kill and eat an animal if it means that my family doesn't have to go hungry. I will not unnecessarily harm animals, but I will also make sure that no animal can be threat to a human (outside of being used as tool to help control people who break social covenant).

Click to expand...

The thing is, animals do not NEED to be used in any of these ways, so you are justifying unnecessary harm. It causes no harm to humans to not kill and exploit other animals.

The stupid idea that a rat living in the sewers has kind equivalent value to a human being is self-hate at it worst.

Click to expand...

Actually, that says more about your hatred for the rat than anything else, and apparently for those that are dirty?

Brother AJ said:

Yes, but to what extent?

Click to expand...

In my opinion...

No animal should be tortured/killed unnecessarily.
Animals, if need be cultivated, must be done so in a sustainable way.
Respect an animals body(Using every bit of it for some purpose) if need be cultivated.
Animals have a right to sustainability, if a human practice destroys it's habitat enough to be unsustainable.... it's immoral.

Brother AJ said:

I don't advocate killing bugs if you can avoid doing so, but this conversation doesn't necessarily revolve around insects at all because the science can be unclear on what it is they experience. It's much more observable that animals more similar to us, especially vertebrae, react to pain and suffering in the same way that we do.


Most of those things cannot be accomplished without technology while other animals can do it in their natural states. Our natural senses and bodies obviously pale in comparison when placed beside those of other animals, but, of course, WE decide what makes one superior and what doesn't, right? It's all rather arbitrary at the end of the day though.

Basically, you're saying we're superior because we're able to kill and dominate other animals? Do you realize that humans have been saying this to justify violence against other humans since the dawn of our species? Might makes right? Sorry, I don't live by that credo, and I wouldn't suggest that most of us do that either. Your reasoning is rather poor, and would justify unspeakable acts towards humans if put into the right context.

The thing is, animals do not NEED to be used in any of these ways, so you are justifying unnecessary harm. It causes no harm to humans to not kill and exploit other animals.

Actually, that says more about your hatred for the rat than anything else, and apparently for those that are dirty?

Click to expand...

...this reflects your own self-hate, more than anything else. Our ability to use technology is part of our natural abilities and is no more or less "natural" than a bird's ability to fly. Making a completely arbitrary decision that me using a rifle is different than an otter using a rock does nothing to support your point. There are lots of animals which take advantage of other animals, we're just better at it than any other animals and that's just another "natural" ability that we possess. Your own self-hate of your specie is all that is truly being exposed here. Human beings are the superior life form on this planet. It's a simple fact. A leopard killing a monkey for dinner using it's natural abilities is no different than me using my natural abilities to kill an elk. The leopard uses the natural ability of it's stealth, strength, clams and teeth and I use my natural ability of vastly superior intelligence. You think that the leopard's natural abilities are deserving of more respect than ours, revealing your own self-hate.

Morality is a human invention. For that reason, it should serve human ends.

When we encounter another species that has developed something similar to human morality, then we can discuss expanding our definitions to include them.

celticwar17 said:

In my opinion...

No animal should be tortured/killed unnecessarily.

Animals, if need be cultivated, must be done so in a sustainable way.

Click to expand...

Animals are never "cultivated", they're slaughtered. They have their life taken away from them. Saying otherwise makes it seem as though you're trying to put a more "positive" or "gentle" spin on what actually happens. Do you realize that in today's world we absolutely do not need to kill other animals for food in order to thrive? That we do so anyway violates the principle that they shouldn't be killed unnecessarily.

faithful_servant said:

...this reflects your own self-hate, more than anything else. Our ability to use technology is part of our natural abilities and is no more or less "natural" than a bird's ability to fly. Making a completely arbitrary decision that me using a rifle is different than an otter using a rock does nothing to support your point. There are lots of animals which take advantage of other animals, we're just better at it than any other animals and that's just another "natural" ability that we possess. Your own self-hate of your specie is all that is truly being exposed here. Human beings are the superior life form on this planet. It's a simple fact. A leopard killing a monkey for dinner using it's natural abilities is no different than me using my natural abilities to kill an elk. The leopard uses the natural ability of it's stealth, strength, clams and teeth and I use my natural ability of vastly superior intelligence. You think that the leopard's natural abilities are deserving of more respect than ours, revealing your own self-hate.

Click to expand...

It's not fact that we're superior, but rather our own fat-headed arrogant delusion. You completely ignore the fact that these same arguments are used to justify the exploitation and slaughtering of humans. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. That's all you're ****ing saying here. Thinking my species isn't superior indicates that I hate my species? You are seriously ****ing deluded man. LOL! Keep thinking you should get to behave how animals behave. It'll take you far. Like Lions slaughtering cubs to have sex with the mothers? That's totally something humans should do too! BECAUSE THEY CAN! Your reasoning is foolhardy, and solely depends on an appeal to nature fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Korimyr the Rat said:

Morality is a human invention. For that reason, it should serve human ends.

When we encounter another species that has developed something similar to human morality, then we can discuss expanding our definitions to include them.

Click to expand...

Um, no. We can choose to include animals within morality if we want to. There's nothing stopping us. AND WE ALREADY DO INCLUDE THEM! Have you never heard of animal cruelty laws? Regardless, as I've already said multiple times now, we constantly include humans within the scope of morality that also do not UNDERSTAND ethical imperatives or systems. There's no reason why other animals shouldn't be included within our moral community other than speciesism.

Brother AJ said:

Animals are never "cultivated", they're slaughtered. They have their life taken away from them. Saying otherwise makes it seem as though you're trying to put a more "positive" or "gentle" spin on what actually happens. Do you realize that in today's world we absolutely do not need to kill other animals for food in order to thrive? That we do so anyway violates the principle that they shouldn't be killed unnecessarily.
.

Click to expand...

Ha, I had no intention to put any spin, sorry if I gave that impression. I have no problem calling it killing or slaughter... I have no problem killing for food either... i'm an animal myself. Killing animal for food is the circle of life, as long as it's sustainable.

celticwar17 said:

Ha, I had no intention to put any spin, sorry if I gave that impression. I have no problem calling it killing or slaughter... I have no problem killing for food either... i'm an animal myself. Killing animal for food is the circle of life, as long as it's sustainable.

Click to expand...

"Circle of life", is not an argument. Please look at this as well, as it's all too common:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Apparently you have a problem with killing other animals unnecessarily, but you don't care whether we actually NEED to kill other animals for food?

What arbitrary bull****. A life is a life. You can draw your line at sentience, or ability to feel emotion, or ability to feel pain, but you're still being arbitrary. People value some animals because they feel emotionally attached to them, not because they feel pain or whatever. Animal rights are based purely on emotion, not biology. There's no biological reason why a cute fluffy puppy is worth more than a salmonella bacterium.

spud_meister said:

What arbitrary bull****. A life is a life. You can draw your line at sentience, or ability to feel emotion, or ability to feel pain, but you're still being arbitrary. People value some animals because they feel emotionally attached to them, not because they feel pain or whatever. Animal rights are based purely on emotion, not biology. There's no biological reason why a cute fluffy puppy is worth more than a salmonella bacterium.

Click to expand...

LOL! Okay then... So do you say the same for humans? Humans are worth no more than your bacterium either? Give me a break... THINK about it for a second. It's NOT arbitrary. Possessing consciousness or awareness or SENTIENCE is necessary for an organism to care about their own well being AT ALL in the first place. You can't harm something that can't EXPERIENCE harm! THIS IS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. It's inevitable that we are going to continue to widen our moral sphere because we recognize those that are able to suffer. If you can't suffer, then why should we care about how we treat you?!

LowDown said:

I find it amusing that the people who want to guarantee a right to life to animals are usually the same ones who want to deny it to humans. Not so much pro-animal as anti-human, in other words.

Laws are already on the books mandating humane treatment of animals, but anyone who wants us to give up Big Macs, ribeye, and fried chicken has got an insurmountable uphill struggle on their hands.

Click to expand...

And so now the subject is about abortion?

I believe certain credence should be given to species on certain terms, such as population. If an animal is in danger of going extinct, as is the case for many animals they should be given precedence. The white rhino just went extinct not too long ago, I think back in 2012. Elephants, which are considered the third smartest animal on Earth are in danger of going extinct and should be prohibited from hunting. Animals like bees, plankton, etc that regulate certain functions in our environment such as pollination, the oceans ecosystem and food supply, etc should be given special protections.