Vladimir Harkonnen

The antispecism affirms that the criterion of the Espèce to which an individual belongs is not, in oneself, Morale lies relevant to decide in the way in which one must treat it, of the respect that one owes him, of the rights which one must grant to him, etc It follows that the antispecism is opposed to the exploitation and the ill-treatment individuals of other species on behalf of the human ones. In particular, the consumption of the meat, which implies to kill out of the animals, and, in practice, to subject them to conditions of breeding which do not take account of their interests, is called into question. Beyond such practical consequences, the rejection of the specism is often seen like carrier of implications philosophical, cultural and political major.

The word “specism” ( speciesism in English) was introduced in 1970 by the British Richard Ryder and taken again in 1975 by the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer.

Specism and antispecism

The specism (or especism ) is defined like a form of Discrimination concerning the Espèce, put in parallel with all the forms of domination of a group on another like the Racisme (discrimination concerning the Race) or the Sexisme (discrimination concerning the Sexe).

According to the antispecist point of view of, the specism is thus a condemnable ideology, and a liberation movement animal is necessary to adjust the human practices with the ethical principles.

The review '' the Books antispecists '' defines his combat thus:

In practice, the specism is the ideology which justifies and imposes the exploitation and the use of the animals by the human ones in manners which would not be accepted if the victims were human. The animals are raised and cut down to provide us meat; they are fished for our consumption; they are used as biological models for our scientific interests; they are driven out for our sporting pleasure. The fight against these practices and the ideology which supports them is the task that the liberation movement is given animal.

Peter Singer specifies, in her book the animal Release :

I support that there can be no reason - except the egoistic desire to preserve the privileges of the exploitor group - to refuse to extend the basic principle of equality of consideration of the interests to the members of the other species.

The equality which the antispecism preaches relates to the individuals, and not the species. The interests of the individuals (to be lived a happy life, not to suffer) must be taken into account in an equal way, independently of the species of these individuals. The species can intervene, but only insofar as it results from it some relevant characteristic for the determination from the interests. This is why he less serious, is written Singer, to give a snap (of the same intensity) to a horse as with a human baby; because the skin of the horse is thicker than that of the baby, and its effective suffering will be thus less.

Thus, the antispecists authors do not preach necessarily an equal treatment or equal rights; just like it would be absurd to grant to a man (male) the right to the abortion, it is absurd to grant to a hen the right to attend the university. The treatment differences or of rights are however justifiable only according to individual, and noncollective characteristics. If evil that there is to kill a being depends on capacity that has this being to project in future (thesis which Singer defends), it is more serious to kill a normal adult human being than to kill a cow; but it is more serious also to kill a cow, which has this capacity on a certain level, that to kill a human newborn, which almost does not have it (in practice, it is of course necessary to also take account of the caused possible pain with the parents and the close relations, in a case as in the other).

The antispecism does not imply any speech on the “interests of the species”; it does not appear at all obvious that a species, collective entity, have as a such interest whatever it is, including an interest to survive. Antispecism offusque step particularly of the disappearance of a species; the interest to live of the last blue whale is not more important than that of each hundred of million chickens which are cut down each day.

Peter Singer is utilitarian, but other antispecists authors reject utilitarianism, and are based on ethical theories of inspiration more Kant ienne (Tom Regan, in particular), and propose to the right animals . Do Paola Cavalieri, in its article “How much the animals count? ”, enumerates five positions morals which call in question discrimination specist. In a general way, this questioning is mainly negative: whatever the bases which one gives oneself for an ethics, the species, being a simple biological characteristic, cannot be a relevant characteristic, affirms it.

Cultural aspects

The antispecists reserve the majority of their criticisms to the cultures Judeo-Christians. Indeed, the dogma according to which the Man is created with the image of God (but not other animals) is in direct contradiction with the doctrines antispecist of the equality in dignity of the species. For a Christian , the other species were created by God to be used for the Man: even if they deserve the respect that the statute of creatures of God confers to them, they remain lower and are not entitled to the Salut, nor with the Sacrement S, etc

In fact, the food of animal origin consumption is general under almost all the latitudes, at least when it is accessible with the populations. In almost all the cultures, old or modern, the Man regards as normal exploiting or killing out of the individuals of other species, because they are regarded sometimes as advantageous, sometimes like vermin. Lastly, the primitive cultures generally practiced animal and human sacrifices. The combat antispecist thus proves like a true moral revolution, a radical change in the manner of thinking of the majority of the human beings.

Major religions have however philosophical concepts which seem to approach the antispecism. Thus the belief in the reincarnation in the Buddhism or the Hindouisme or the Jaïnisme brings to proscribe the consumption of the animals and to prevent as long as possible to kill them or make them suffer. It is because all the animals are equipped with a heart common to any living being (plants, men, etc), and that it is advisable not to kill it (see with Hindouisme, “the ahimsa, vegetarianism and the crowned cow”). All the crowned texts, that they are Hindu, Buddhist or Jaïn, teach the respect with all the creatures alive (notion of the ahimsa ) like supreme value and the highest ideal.

Practical of the antispecism

That or that which would like to put the principles antispecists into practice generally considers that it must follow a mode Végétarien, even Végétalien. The person can also decide to avoid any matter of animal source, like leather, the wool or silk, and to replace them by vegetable or synthetic matters (Vegan).

Antispecism and other ~isms

Morals antispecist can be perceived either like a generalization with all the species of humanism, therefore a kind of universalism of the compassion, but it can be also regarded as a anti-humanism, in the direction where it refuses with the human being this crowned character (not requiring the intervention of a supernatural creator) which places it above the animals.

Random links: