In many countries, those who defend animals, claim that human practices involving nonhumans are 'speciesist'. Numerous activists hold the view that a focus on 'speciesism' is the most effective communication strategy available in the animal rights movement. As a result, the notion of speciesism is becoming more popular in the media and public discourse. However, presently, a few influential philosophers and authors hold the view that there is nothing wrong with speciesism. If the nature of speciesism has the potential to raise public awareness about the ethical shortcomings of common attitudes toward nonhuman animals, then the stakes regarding the existence of speciesism are high, and worthy of its defense. As cognitive scientist Lera Boroditsky puts it, 'Things that are named are the ones most likely to be thought about and to be visible in our consciousness.'
FRANCOIS JAQUET: It is a common view among animal ethicists that ours is a speciesist world. The fact is that most people relentlessly treat nonhuman animals in various dreadful manners in which they would never dare treat members of their own species. This dominant view is critical insofar as it combines neatly with another common view in animal ethics — namely, that speciesism is immoral, in the same way and for the same reason that racism is immoral. In conjunction, these two claims entail that there is something deeply wrong about the way most people treat animals. Considering the gigantic mass of speciesism’s victims and the magnitude of their suffering, our treatment of nonhumans might well constitute the worst injustice that has ever existed.
All interesting claims have their detractors. The above two are no exceptions, but not in anything like equal proportions. The speciesism debate has essentially focused on whether speciesism is unjustified, with a number of philosophers arguing that there is actually nothing wrong with it. Once in a while, however, someone denies that most people are speciesists — call their view speciesism antirealism. In this contribution, I discuss three attempts to establish this view. One is due to Travis Timmerman, another to Shelly Kagan, and the third seems to follow from a view defended by Stijn Bruers, though Bruers would not endorse it. It will be my contention that all three attempts to establish speciesism antirealism are misguided. Each of the three sections of the present paper deals with one of these attempts…
It has become a truism that words matter. As cognitive scientist Lera Boroditsky puts it, ‘Things that are named are the ones most likely to be thought about and to be visible in our consciousness. Though in principle we can think about lots of things, our actual attentional span is very limited. As a result, the kinds of things we tend to think about are the ones that are named’. No doubt this applies to the word ‘speciesism’ in particular. Having at our disposal a label to denote the form of discrimination that infuses our relationships with other animals is amazingly useful. This has created and structured a whole conceptual framework in which it is much easier for philosophers to address the ethics of our duties to nonhumans.
While some authors maintain that there is nothing wrong with speciesism, many believe that the way we treat animals is morally unjustified because it is speciesist.The point goes further. From its very first steps, animal ethics has been a source of inspiration for animal rights activists. The notion of speciesism is one of the very few instances of a philosophical concept that has leaked from the classroom to make its way into the world. In many countries, those who defend animals on the ground resort to it in their communication, claiming that many practices involving nonhumans are speciesist. The press has followed suit, and the notion is now present in the public space.
A telling illustration of this trend is the holding every year on the last Saturday of August of the World Day for the End of Speciesism. In 2023, for the ninth edition of this event, 145 actions were organized by a hundred groups in no less than twenty-eight countries. Besides such major animal rights organizations as the Humane League and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the notion is also mobilized by effective altruists in their outreach activities. In the branch of the Effective Altruism Ours Is a Speciesist World, Really movement that is dedicated to animal advocacy, many hold that a focus on speciesism is the most effective communication strategy available at this point. If the concept of speciesism has the potential to shape central debates in animal ethics and to raise public awareness about the ethical shortcomings of common attitudes toward nonhuman animals, then the stakes regarding the existence of speciesism are high. This topic is worth discussing. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEOS: