The concept of 'speciesism' challenged by a pro-animal research advocate

[Psychology of Rights and Wrongs]

http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/01/02/being-humane/

The website is 'Speaking of Research,' a pro-vivisection blog.  I urge AR Zone members to explore this and others sites, like Pro-Test, to understand how the pro-animal research community organizes against animal rights activism.

And can someone explain what is said about speciesism?  I don't fully understand...

[Siddharth Iyer]

The article was an interesting read. Here are my views on it.

It says that speciesism isn’t a prejudice as we are obligated to have a human perspective and put a human life ahead of that of an animal.

“The choice can only be whether animals benefit from our practices or are harmed by them.”  The animals do not have a right not to be used. They are completely dependent on our actions and whether what we do to them will improve their lives or destroy it. The writer says that speciesism is falsely modeled with racism and sexism, which are prejudices. I think the difference in his view is that racism, sexism, etc. are human prejudices and since our context has to be human oriented, one cannot go against the rights of fellow humans. Speciesism, however, is outside the realm of that context and hence outside our moral obligations. So, women oppression and racism, stemming from one group assuming superiority over another is wrong, while the use and abuse of animals, stemming from the same assumption, is correct and justified.

“Our arguments have to be grounded in a human point of view and cannot be derived from a point of view that is no one’s point of view at all.” This statement again limits our moral responsibilities to humans and not other animals. So, if a rat, a rabbit, a dog or a cat has to die so that a human can live, it is our obligation as humans to support that. The author believes that we should see the world through a human perspective and embrace the fact that we can control other animals and our planet in a way that it benefits us humans.

The human perspective is flawed in my judgment. It leaves the planet and all other species of life as mere resources to us humans. The slaughter of elephants that happen to graze on crop fields in Africa is justified as they destroy the livelihood of certain people. Hunting will go unabated as those involved could argue that they felt the animals around them were a threat to their life and the life of other humans. There is nothing to limit the abuse of such a statement. People and governments can interpret it in ways to justify deforestation, exhausting non-renewable resources, etc. if it serves human interests.

When our fundamental world view revolves around our benefit, morality fails. There is no obligation to show acts of mercy or compassion to other animals and show any restrain to our unsustainable use of natural resources if it serves human interests.

[Kerry Baker]

There is a basic flaw in this argument that animals are completely dependent on humans. They are becoming increasingly so only because we are forcing them into situations that rely on us, habitat management for example. If we left animals alone and respected their rights as independent species this argument about the end result is to serve humans would be moot.  Thanks for posting.  Interesting but I agree with you that this view can only be supported with complete absence of morality.

Siddharth Iyer said:

The article was an interesting read. Here are my views on it.

It says that speciesism isn’t a prejudice as we are obligated to have a human perspective and put a human life ahead of that of an animal.

“The choice can only be whether animals benefit from our practices or are harmed by them.”  The animals do not have a right not to be used. They are completely dependent on our actions and whether what we do to them will improve their lives or destroy it. The writer says that speciesism is falsely modeled with racism and sexism, which are prejudices. I think the difference in his view is that racism, sexism, etc. are human prejudices and since our context has to be human oriented, one cannot go against the rights of fellow humans. Speciesism, however, is outside the realm of that context and hence outside our moral obligations. So, women oppression and racism, stemming from one group assuming superiority over another is wrong, while the use and abuse of animals, stemming from the same assumption, is correct and justified.

“Our arguments have to be grounded in a human point of view and cannot be derived from a point of view that is no one’s point of view at all.” This statement again limits our moral responsibilities to humans and not other animals. So, if a rat, a rabbit, a dog or a cat has to die so that a human can live, it is our obligation as humans to support that. The author believes that we should see the world through a human perspective and embrace the fact that we can control other animals and our planet in a way that it benefits us humans.

The human perspective is flawed in my judgment. It leaves the planet and all other species of life as mere resources to us humans. The slaughter of elephants that happen to graze on crop fields in Africa is justified as they destroy the livelihood of certain people. Hunting will go unabated as those involved could argue that they felt the animals around them were a threat to their life and the life of other humans. There is nothing to limit the abuse of such a statement. People and governments can interpret it in ways to justify deforestation, exhausting non-renewable resources, etc. if it serves human interests.

When our fundamental world view revolves around our benefit, morality fails. There is no obligation to show acts of mercy or compassion to other animals and show any restrain to our unsustainable use of natural resources if it serves human interests.