Speciesist and proud
Watching HBO the other day I saw a promo for an upcoming documentary on PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk. The HBO website has little right now on the film, titled I Am an Animal: The Story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA, but the tenor of the trailer seemed to imply that the piece might be quite unflattering to Newkirk, or at least not completely sympathetic. As you can imagine, I find this quite agreeable, and am eagerly awaiting its broadcast.
The timing of this documentary couldn’t be better, as only a few weeks ago the home of a UCLA scientist was flooded by animal rights extremists (the scientist in question, Edythe London, defends her animal research here). Apparently the extremists of the Animal Liberation Front (the IRA to PETA’s Sinn Fein) planned on burning her house down but demurred in the face of the Southern California wildfires. How sweet.
Mark Hoofnagle at Denialism blog does a thorough review of the situation, noting again how PETA and its ilk continue to lie about the utility of animals in medical research. I’d like to take a quick look at a favorite accusation of the animal rights crew, namely that scientists like Dr. London and those that support them are speciesist. To which I say: but of course.
Speciesism is not like racism and sexism, no matter what Pamela Anderson tells you. The latter two prejudices are without any empirical basis, in fact such beliefs fly in the face of all we know about differences in skin color and gender. Additionally, racism and sexism claim differences where there are none, relying on only bias to posit disparities in intelligence, demeanor, and ability that science doesn’t confirm (Andrew Sullivan’s defense of bad science notwithstanding).
Conversely, speciesism is based off an undisputed biological fact: humans and animals are of a different class of organisms. I don’t need to hearken to Genesis to know that our species is set apart from all others on this planet. We’re the only ones who could even possibly debate this question, for fuck’s sake. Pure and simple, to advocate species equality is to devalue human life to a point where the life of a puppy is of equal value to that of an infant. Call me speciesist or what have you, but such a stance is morally abhorrent.
18 comments so far
Leave a reply
I’m sure if the Internet was around 60 years ago, we’d have a blog titled “Racist and Proud.”
The underlying principle in animal rights is that all living beings deserve respect and to be treated well. Of course, animals are different from people. But that doesn’t make them any less important.
Seems someone didn’t even bother reading my post, otherwise they would have read how equating speciesism with racism doesn’t fly. Kudos on getting here so quickly, though.
So I take it you oppose medical research on animals, then?
No one has claimed that “speciesism” is exactly the same as racism or sexism. (For the record though, your argument doesn’t exactly hold up because as you know there ARE differences in genders, and not just the obvious ones. But we’ve come to accept that even though there are differences, those differences don’t matter in deciding how women ought to be treated).
Animal protectionists don’t believe that there aren’t differences between humans and other animals, just that those differences don’t mean that we have the right to treat animals as we wish. As creatures capable of feeling pain and experience joy, fear, agony, and a host of other things, we ought to have some compassion.
I oersonally don’t care for the word “speciesism” and I think that attempting to ascribe rights to animals at a point becomes purely acedemic. But there is a line that we as humans have crossed, which is why I find most anti animal protectoinists quibble about words like “speciesist” and “rights” rather than addressing the fundamental issues.
Most people oppose many of the cruel things that are done to animals. And many people simply don’t know what is done to them. But when you ask people if it’s wrong to confine a pig in a crate so small she can’t turn around or lie down comfortably, or whether it’s wrong to confine a veal calf in the same manner and deny him proper nutrition so his flesh will be lighter, or whether it’s wrong to force feed a goose simply for a delicacy, most people will say it is. This is demonstrated by the public’s willingness to pass laws protecting farm animals when the chance arises, and the recent support for cage free eggs, which has been tremendous.
No one has claimed that “speciesism” is exactly the same as racism or sexism.
Peter Singer did. PETA does.
But when you ask people if it’s wrong to confine a pig in a crate so small she can’t turn around or lie down comfortably, or whether it’s wrong to confine a veal calf in the same manner and deny him proper nutrition so his flesh will be lighter, or whether it’s wrong to force feed a goose simply for a delicacy, most people will say it is. This is demonstrated by the public’s willingness to pass laws protecting farm animals when the chance arises, and the recent support for cage free eggs, which has been tremendous.
None of this is what I’m talking about. I’m fine with advocating for more humane treatment of animals and in fact support doing so. Like you said there’s a line; there’s a difference between saying that and saying that human and animal lives are of equal value. I completely comfortable with medical research on animals, because we simply have no other option, and I hold human life in higher regard than I do animal life.
Racism and sexism are not prejudices–they are systems of oppression. Systems of oppression like speciesism, sexism, and racism aren’t based on rational categories, but rather on one group having power over and benefiting from the exploitation of another group. These systems are not the same, but rather use similar logics and feed off of one another. For example, the exploitation of women is facilitated by animalizing them, and when we want to consume animals, we feminize them. (See Carol J. Adam’s The Pornography of Meat for a good exposition on that topic.)
It doesn’t matter that there aren’t morally relevant differences between people of color and whites or women and men. Women and people of color are still oppressed, and men and whites still benefit from their oppression. Similarly, nonhuman animals are systematically exploited to benefit humans.
Certain groups of humans are currently (as well as in the past) systematically exploited for the benefit of other humans. For example, drugs are tested on poor people and people living in Third World nations. Young women of color in this country are constantly subject to experimental reproductive controls. Drug companies use Native Americans to test vaccines (see Conquest by Andrea Smith). The logic that a powerful group can experiment on a less powerful group to benefit themselves is the problem. Working to eliminate that logic helps us value all life, human and nonhuman.
speciesism, sexism, and racism all come from the same place – human ignorance.
Quote: Conversely, speciesism is based off an undisputed biological fact: humans and animals are of a different class of organisms
Actually thats totally incorrect. Humans are a species of Mammals, mammals are a category of animal as opposed to veg or mineral. If you said Humans and Insects are of a different class of organisms you’d have been right. As it is, you’re as wrong about this as years past when ‘cultural guardians” tried to claim white superiority based on science fiction rather than science fact. Today with the cracking of the genetic code, we know for a scientific fact the differences between humans and other mammals are nearly nil, while the differences between human populations (red white yellow black red etc) are even smaller.
Hazel, I am aware there’s specific biological classification called “class”. I was using the word in the more colloquial sense. I should have been more clear about that.
I personally feel that dolphins are the most intelligent species on the planet. Discuss.
coast 2 coast I totally agree!.
Cain, Hmmm biological classification of class? Don’t think so. Class distinctions are a human social thing, not a biological thing. Unless of course you mean class as in classification?
Hazel,
John uses “class” to mean “category” as in “in a class by herself”.
I don’t see why we should treat animals as moral beings equal to humans; I have no problem viewing animals (at least most complex mammals) are ethically deserving of protection from suffering–but only insofar as it can reasonably be avoided and isn’t capricious (i.e. no factory farms, no veal, humane slaughtering). That means that medically necessary studies (and some other forms of animal testing) are okay when weighed against (or to prevent) possible human suffering.
Put very crudely, I’ll quote from a comedy bit I remember:
“If hooking up a chimpanzee to car battery is going to save someone from dying from AIDS in five years, I only have two things to say: the red is positive and the black is negative.”
Yeah real funny. I say somethings are worse than death, leave the monkey alone!
I say somethings are worse than death, leave the monkey alone!
And here we come to the horrifying truth about animal rights activists. If people have to die to fuel Hazel’s sense of self-righteousness, so be it.
Hazel,
And I say human death is morally worse than animal suffering. You haven’t explained why animals are deserving of equal moral status as humans, or at least the same sorts of rights and protections.
Cain, Hmmm biological classification of class? Don’t think so.
You’re an idiot. The taxonomy goes Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Subphylum, Class, Subclass, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
John Cain, you are an idiot.
How exactly, Marcelo? Do you usually leave hit and run comments on blogs you don’t like months after the post was written?
No, I think you are missing the point. Speciesism is using species alone as a characteristic to treat individuals differently, rather than their actual characteristics, just as racism (as a prejudice and form of discrimination, rather than just stereotypes) is using race alone to treat individuals differently, rather than their actual characteristics.
A racist says that even through a given black person is as intelligent as a white person, he or she will not be let into the school because of skin color, even though skin color is totally irrelevant to whether they can succeed in school.
A speciesist says that even though a nonhuman animal is equally capable of suffering, he or she will still be caused to suffer because of his or her limited cognitive ability, or number of legs, even though cognitive ability and number of legs are totally irrelevant to whether they can suffer. They are equally arbitrary, irrational prejudices.
As a result of speciesism, we cause nonhuman animals today more suffering (in terms of intensity, duration, and number of victims) than we caused other humans in the worst slave trades and genocide throughout history.
Please take a moment to see Earthlings, at:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw
…and for sources, see PETA’s site:
GoVeg.com
…and the Humane Society’s site:
HSUS.org/farm/resources/research
Way to comment 8 months after the fact, Michael. Please tell me you’re keeping true to your principles and rejecting all modern medicine.