Quote of the Day: Peter Singer on Speciesism
by Jasmin Malik Chua, Jersey City, USA 
on 09.22.07
The argument, in essence, is that we have, over centuries of history, expanded the circle of beings whom we regard as morally significant. If you go back in time you'll find tribes that were essentially only concerned with their own tribal members. If you were a member of another tribe, you could be killed with impunity. When we got beyond that there were still boundaries to our moral sphere, but these were based on nationality, or race, or religious belief. Anyone outside those boundaries didn't count.
Slavery is the best example here. If you were not a member of the European race, if you were African, specifically, you could be enslaved. So we got beyond that. We have expanded the circle beyond our own race and we reject as wrongful the idea that something like race or religion or gender can be a basis for claiming another being's interests count less than our own.
So the argument is that this is also an arbitrary stopping place; it's also a form of discrimination, which I call "speciesism," that has parallels with racism. I am not saying it's identical, but in both cases you have this group that has power over the outsiders, and develops an ideology that says, Those outside our circle don't matter, and therefore we can make use of them for our own convenience.
That is what we have done, and still do, with other species. They're effectively things; they're property that we can own, buy and sell. We use them as is convenient and we keep them in ways that suit us best, producing products we want at the cheapest prices. So my argument is simply that this is wrong, this is not justifiable if we want to defend the idea of human equality against those who have a narrower definition. I don't think we can say that somehow we, as humans, are the sole repository of all moral value, and that all beings beyond our species don't matter. I think they do matter, and we need to expand our moral consideration to take that into account."
—Peter Singer, author and ethicist, in a 2006 interview with Salon.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Why Building Community is the Greenest Thing You Can Do
- Focus on Focus Earth: The Beginning of Eco-Terrorism (Video)
- Focus Earth: June 27, 2009: The Roots of Eco-Terrorism and Saving the Whales
- The Green Message Behind Michael Jackson's Death
- Green Glossary: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
- Obama Swats a Fly Ninja-Style; PETA Gets Fired Up (Video!)
I agree 100% with this, even if I am violating it by having cats as pets and eating meat.
Still, I would hope to strive for this. I try to respect all life no matter what it is.
The question then becomes one of where we stop applying this logic. If the arguement is for one of a vegan lifestyle, than we are kingdomists and descriminate against the plant kingdom by saying it is ok to eat plants because they are not the same as our fellow animals. It is a kind of false logic, and there is a necessity to recognize humans as being entitled to different treatment from us than any other species on the planet. I see no cognitive dissonance in eating other animals and otherwise making use of them, even though I wouldn't do the same to another human. I do however see the prejudice voiced against those of us who accept our status as omnivores as illogical and based on imature emotion rather than mature analysis. However, I do agree we can do a better job in the way we treat livestock, and think eating less meat is resonable.
Old Wolf, Singer is not saying that we can't eat other species. He is saying that there is no logical reason why we should not afford them moral consideration.
We use human beings for our own convenience, too. Who really wants want to scrub out sewer pipes for a living? We find it more convenient to pay others to do that task, but we require certain moral considerations for our privilege. They must be paid a certain wage, they must have certain hours of work and holidays, we may not recklessly endanger their lives.
It is your logic that is false, when you state that we must treat humans differently. You have no logic that can prove that; you must go on faith alone. Perhaps God told you that you shouldn't eat humans, but it was okay to treat animals in any way you think reasonable.
We should accept that we have a moral obligation to the other species on this planet, and act in a way that will allow us to look ourselves in the mirror.
If an animal is not self aware what difference does it make, to the animal, if I manipulate or destroy it?
Dealing with a creature that is not self aware is the equivalent of dealing with a computer program, a plant, or any other complex device. The animal is nothing but a series preprogrammed responses, it doesn't care what happens to itself because it does not have a self.
When Peter Singer says, "We recognize the chicken as another conscious being", he is incorrect. It is as much a conscious being as my Roomba is.
A chicken does not suffer when it is killed. It experiences pain but, that is just a biological defense mechanism, it doesn't have any feelings, it isn't angry that we are killing it, it's family doesn't watch in horror knowing that they are next in line to be slaughtered. All the chicken is doing is executing a protection mechanism that evolution provided it.
I don't care about the chicken being killed as much as I don't care about termites being exterminated, or bacteria being destroyed when I wash my hands.
I guess my whole philosophy boils down to this: Animals that don't have feelings and aren't self aware don't deserve any special protection or treatment.
It's the reason I eat chicken, fish, beef, but not dog, gorilla, dolphin...
> The question then becomes one of where we stop applying this logic. If the arguement is for one of a vegan lifestyle, than we are kingdomists and descriminate against the plant kingdom by saying it is ok to eat plants because they are not the same as our fellow animals.
'kingdomists', and? Are you saying people would consider that wrong? Sorry, but your comment is little more than a 'plants have feelings too!1!' troll.
Yawn
Please pass this wisdom on to a certain Middle Eastern faction that sees a totally opposite picture. http://daflikkers.blogspot.com/
Andrew, I don't even know what your reasoning is based on. It makes as much sense as the following:
"If Andrew is not self aware what difference does it make, to Andrew, if I manipulate or destroy Andrew?
Dealing with a creature that is not self aware is the equivalent of dealing with a computer program, a plant, or any other complex device. Andrew is nothing but a series preprogrammed responses, it doesn't care what happens to itself because it does not have a self. "
Both are ridiculous, and the same line of reasoning has been used to subjugate humans.
It's unfortunate really.
Yes, animals and vegetables are living beings and have the same right to live as humans.
However, the fact remains that ALL organisms eat other organisms, whether they are amoebae or blue whales. it has nothing to do with speciism or purposeful oppression. it is natural.
Perhaps we should send Peter to the Savanna so lions and hyenas can teach him a little something about the food chain.
"If an animal is not self aware..."
Please provide your criteria for determining whether an organism is self aware or not.
I agree with your reasoning that below a certain point it is ethically acceptable to eat animals (thus, the use of yeasts and molds and bacteria for the liks of bread, cheese and yogurt are acceptable). The difficulty is in determining where the line is and how wide the error margin should be.
"A chicken does not suffer [..] it doesn't have any feelings, [...] it isn't angry"
Fascinating. You've made quite a number of assertions like this, but you haven't given any indication how you know these things. Perhaps you've made a detailed study of chicken psychology to determine that they cannot suffer or experience emotion? We'd love to see the data you've collected supporting these statements.
You seem to class cattle with chickens, asserting that cattle do not have the capacity to experience, that they are non-sentient automata. I think it more likely that you have never really tried to understand them and so dismiss them because it is easy to do so, or because you blindly defend your habitual behavior because you do not want to entertain the idea that you are wrong about something so fundamental.
>Yes, animals and vegetables are living beings and have the same right to live as humans.
No. Nice try. Vegetables and other plants don't have the same rights, and only a meat industry shill or troll would suggest as much. Seriously, please try to be less ridiculous.
> Perhaps we should send Peter to the Savanna so lions and hyenas can teach him a little something about the food chain.
You're now saying lions and hyenas are capable of the level of thought involved in ethical reasoning? So they are equal to humans? Make up your mind. The point is humans can go without meat so what reason is there for us to eat it? As humans we are fortunate in that we can make such decisions. Lions cannot, obviously.
Yawn again
The point is humans can go without meat so what reason is there for us to eat it?
So you believe in subsistence living? Start with turning off your computer and cancelling your Internet service. Move on to selling your car, home, and other non-essential possessions.
> So you believe in subsistence living? Start with turning off your computer and cancelling your Internet service. Move on to selling your car, home, and other non-essential possessions.
In case you're being serious, and not just trolling (hard to believe but who knows):
Not eating meat is easy in the western world - big gains for little effort. Anybody can do it. Personally I do without a lot of things (car being one) but if people aren't willing to give up their car/internet for example, why should that stop them from not eating meat for environmental/ethical reasons? Answer in case you really didn't know (yeah right): it shouldn't.
Everything counts, it's not a matter of 'everything or nothing'.
P.S. I forgot to ask wth 'subsistence living' had to do with my previous comment. Try again.
Well speciesist is an interesting word..
does it mean that we are discriminating against animals rasied and bred to be eaten..
or does it mean that we choose to be speciesist in the species that we eat...
such as we would eat a chicken but not swan ?
April, 13