7: Use of Animals - Readings Flashcards
speciesism
” form of discrimination favoring those who belonged to a certain species (or group of species) against other individuals”
- coined in 1970 by Ryder
- key role in debates about moral consideration of nonhuman animals
T or F: there is one single use of the term speciesism
F: there is no single use of the term
- philosophers and animal advocates use in different ways
- barely any work has been done to clarify its meaning
features found in all forms of discrimination (therefore found in speciesism too)
- Being COMPARATIVELY Worse for Someone
- to be discriminated against, need to be treated or considered worse than others, even if they are not harmed or treated badly
○ Ex. Donating $ to Asian children but more $ to European children because they’re more important … not harming Asian children (helping) but still = discrimination - Lacking Justification
- not all comparatively worse treatment = discrimination
- treating/considering someone worse than others needs to be INJUSTIFIED to be discriminatory - Involving Consideration or Treatment
- standard discrimination = discriminatees interests are disadvantageously affected
- some forms NOT connected to consideration of discriminatees’ interests
ex. Epistemic discrimination: Testimony from a woman is given deflated credibility based on prejudicial associations
ex. Epistemic speciesism:. Idea that nonhuman animals have cognitive capacities lower than they actually are out of a disregard for them
- discrimination = complex phenomenon occuring in different spheres
○ Actions treating someone in accordance to speciesist moral views = speciesist practices = instances of speciesism themselves, even when agents are not consciously holding speciesist views
Speciesism (simple)
- needs elaboration
unjustified comparatively worse consideration/treatment of those who do not belong to a certain species
3 reasons why simple speciesism definition needs to be refined
- Speciesism can discriminate against those who do not belong to a single species (ex. Homo Sapiens)
- can have discrimination against those who don’t belong to a single group of species
- can discriminate against some nonhuman animals but not others (pets vs ones we eat)
- Anthropocentric speciesism: discrimination against those who are not humans - Definition is merely exclusion-oriented
- Exclusion-oriented: focuses on discrimination against those who do not belong to some species that is favored
- inclusion-oriented: discrimination against those who belong to a disregarded species
* Animals can be discriminated against for exclusion x inclusion
ex. Treat animals worse than humans bc they’re not humans (exclusion-oriented) AND treats rats even worse bc they’re rats (inclusion-oriented) - Concept of species is difficult itself to define, and it is not clear if and in what sense it names actual natural kinds
Speciesism (wide/evaluative)
* philosophically preferable
unjustified comparatively worse consideration/treatment against those not classified as belonging to a certain species whose members are favoured, or belonging to a certain species whose members are disregarded
**avoids 3 criticisms
**any form of discrimination against those who don’t belong to a certain species is speciesist
Speciesism (moderately narrow)
discrimination against those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species, or belonging to a certain species whose members are disregarded, when carried out for reasons different from those individuals’ verifiable individual capacities
- all views will be speciesist except some of those that appeal to intrinsic nondefinitional and verifiable attributes
Speciesism (radically narrow)
discrimination based on mere species membership
- only definitional defenses of speciesicm will be speciesist
ways that unequal consideration of beings of different species has been defended (narrow)
- tend to favour humans over animals
- merely definitional way: claiming membership to a certain species makes some beings worthy of respect (and others not) without further consideration
- Only those who belong to a certain species possess some allegedly morally relevant attributes
- some existence of attributes CAN’T be empirically verified or falsified in any way (possession of a soul)
- some existence of attributes CAN be empirically verified or falsified
(intrinsic) = complex cognitive capacities or command of
language
(extrinsic) = relations of power or sympathy
- mix different criteria
- claim justified to treat comparatively worse those who fail to either
i. Possess certain cognitive capacities
ii. Have some special relation with those who do possess them that can be identified with or reducible to conspecific membership
PROS of radically narrow definition
- allow us to clearly single out criteria on which the discrimination is based
- Use the lexeme “species” in “speciesism” to name not only the line the discrimination draws, but the criterion according to which it is drawn
- Provide more information than wide definitions
**not shared by moderately narrow
- groups discriminations based on species membership & criteria different from individual capacity
descriptive accounts of speciesism
- reject claim that view must be unjustified to be speciesist
comparatively worse consideration/treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species (or group of species)
evaluative vs descriptive
- both agree that key in speciesism debate is whether treating or considering individuals of different species unequally can be justified
Descriptive: asks whether speciesism is justified or not
Evaluative: asks whether a view that considers unequally members of different species is speciesist or not
In the article by Horta and Albersmeier on Speciesism, they agree that all definitions of speciesism share what feature?
a. The protection of animals
b. They all consider it discriminatory behaviour
c. They all take a colonial view towards meat-eating in Aboriginal cultures
d. They all consider sentient behaviour as the key to personhood
b. They all consider it discriminatory behaviour
T or F: speciesism is often defined in wide/evaluative terms, while discrimination affecting humans (racism, sexism) is often defined in narrow/descriptive ways
F: speciesism is often defined in a narrow and descriptive way while the racism/sexism are defined in wide and evaluative terms
wide vs moderately narrow vs radically narrow
wide: any of these views can be speciesism as long as it is UNJUSTIFIED
moderately narrow: all of them will be speciesist except some that appeal to INTRINSIC NONDEFINITIONAL and VERIFIABLE ATTRIBUTES
radically narrow: only DEFINITIONAL positions will be speciesist
