Speciesism
Speciesism refers to the belief that one’s own species, particularly humans, is superior to other species, leading to the discrimination against nonhuman animals. This prejudice often results in the unthinking treatment of animals as inferior, justifying their use for purposes such as entertainment, scientific experimentation, clothing, and food. The roots of speciesism can be traced back through history, with philosophical perspectives from figures like Plato and Descartes, who viewed animals mainly as tools for human use, and Kant, who limited moral consideration to humans. Critics argue that such views are analogous to other forms of prejudice, like sexism and racism, and advocate for equal rights for all sentient beings.
The antispeciesist movement, which gained momentum in the 1970s, challenges these entrenched beliefs and calls for a reevaluation of how humans interact with animals. Notable figures in this movement, such as philosopher Peter Singer, argue that the same moral principles applied to human suffering should extend to nonhuman animals. The ongoing debates surrounding speciesism raise complex questions about moral obligations and the rights of various species, as societal views on the treatment of animals continue to evolve.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Speciesism
DEFINITION: Prejudice in favor of one’s own species, in particular the view among humans that the human species is more important than other animal species
Advocates of animal rights often accuse their critics of speciesism, noting that such prejudice leads to the unthinking treatment of animals as inferior beings and to humans’ use of animals for entertainment, scientific experimentation, clothing, and food.
Speciesism has deep roots in anthropocentric philosophies and theologies. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato was exclusively interested in human potential and regarded animals only as tools for human goals. The seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes believed animals to be machines devoid of thought and feeling. Utilitarians have always prioritized human happiness over animal welfare. Even the eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that the duties of human beings are restricted to their own species.
Throughout history, the subjugation of nonhumans has been accepted and even institutionalized. The motivations for speciesism may come from many sources, including fear of animals, religious dictates, the drive for survival, and simple arrogance. Superiority of the human species has been one of the most pervasive and persistent assumptions of human beings. Secular reasons for believing in human superiority to other animals include personal prestige and the desire to use animals for sport, as game, or in commerce. Although all religions place some emphasis on fair treatment of nonhuman life, most, including Christianity, give some speciesist privileges to humans. To many Christians, God created animals without souls for the purpose of service to humans, his best creation.
Critics view speciesism as unwarranted anthropocentric prejudice similar to sexism and racism. Generally, they contend that every species of sentient beings should have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The antispeciesist debate about this contention began in the 1970s in England and spread around the world. In 1977 the key philosophers of the animal rights movement devoted an entire conference to speciesism at Trinity College in Cambridge, England. The outcome was the drafting of a charter titled “A Declaration against Speciesism,” which became the basis for subsequent charters ratified by groups in Great Britain and many other nations. The original document confirms an evolutionary and moral kinship between humans and their “brother and sister animals” and expresses “total condemnation” for the inflicting of suffering on animals.
Antispeciesist philosophers find no moral, linguistic, cognitive, or divine basis for the claim of superiority of humans and point out that humans are similar to other sentient beings in many ways; even the making and use of tools, the use of language, and such moral sensibilities as altruism can be observed in animals. Antispeciesists such as Peter Singer assert that if people examine their beliefs, they are often left with the startlingly simple realization that whatever is morally wrong and abhorrent for humans is probably wrong and abhorrent for nonhumans. Pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized regardless of race, sex, or species. The logic is simple and similar to a stripped-down version of the “universalization principle” that Kant used to test human morality. Singer’s interspecies version of the Kantian principle is this: If it is wrong to torture and kill humans, then it is wrong to do these things to nonhuman sentient beings. In the case of laboratory rats, for example, one should ask, Would it be right to inflict severe electrical shocks (or other experimental procedures) on unwilling men and women?
Almost all contemporary serious philosophical inquiries about speciesism have concluded that the candidates for moral consideration include other nonhuman sentient beings. The debates around speciesism are not easy to resolve and bring up many questions; for example, in what sense, if any, are people obligated to give equal moral standing to insects and rodents, populations of which, at times, wreak havoc on humankind? Such questions are difficult to answer.
Bibliography
Cavalieri, Paola. “Speciesism.” In The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Hursthouse, Rosalind. Ethics, Humans, and Other Animals: An Introduction with Readings. New York: Routledge, 2000.
Sanders, Robert. "Speciesim, like Racism, Imperils Humanity and the Planet." Berkeley News, 9 Jan. 2023, news.berkeley.edu/2023/01/09/speciesism-like-racism-imperils-humanity-and-the-planet/. Accessed 23 July 2024.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation Now. Bodley Head, 2023.