Speciesism: The bias for the same species
Ethics class has been one of my favorite class in my three years in college. It seems weird since I am an engineering student but like I have said in my introductory post, my interests lay more on the abstract and creative spectrum instead of the academic role. Although, I will be lying if I said that I have no academic skills because I do and I recognize that I have an edge over my coursemates since I came from a science high school but that is beside the point.
The point is that I like topics where I can think non-technical things. There is huge difference between problem solving and thinking which is why I like Ethics.
Actually, I have been meaning to share the lessons I have learned in our classes but O kept putting it off. But now I would probably do it since we have a week to review for Ethics midterm and writing about the topics will be hitting multiple birds at the same time.
Back to the topic at hand, I learned a new thing today known as speciesism. Now, I am not that great at remembering the names of the people and the reporters are not that great as well but I learned interesting things that I thought would interest you guys as well.
What is speciesism?
Based on the word itself, it is a bias for the same species usually applied to the human animals. It basically means that we, as humans, have a tendency to favor our own species over other non-humans species.
For example, many people will think that it is morally right to leave a non-human animal to a burning building if they can save the humans inside.
Parents would even leave their pets behind to ensure their child's safety.
Now, I am not saying what is morally right or wrong since Ethics class is for leqrning new perspectives in life. I am just reiteratig what I have learned.
Speciesism is saying that a human animal should inherently hold more weight in out decisions since human animals are of the same species as us and humans also have a different level of intelligence than that of nonhuman animals.
Peter Singer disagrees
I knew Peter Singer because of an earlier topic in this class. I knew him for his fundamental principle that one is morally obligated to prevent suffering if it will not cause a morally comparable sacrifice. This means that if you have the money to buy luxury thing or donate to the victims of floods, then you are morally obligated to donate your money instead of spending it for yourself. It is similar to seeing a drowning child, wherein you are morally obligated to save the child if you have the capacity to swim even if you are going to be late for an interview and your clothes will get muddy.
He came up again in this new topic about animal rights since he is of the belief that nonhuman animals must carry the same fundamental rights that we have. This means that he believes nonhuman animals should have the right to live their lives without human intereference.
Speciesism examples
The first one that I remember is that if nonhuman animals eat each other, why must humans stop themselves from doing so?
The reporters explained this by saying that nonhuman animals eat each other because they have no alternative food sources unlike human animals.
However, I would counter that humans get nutrients from animal meats that could not be found on plants. One might argue that vegans exist but from what I know they have some nutrients deficiency which is why they take supplements. But these supplements actually has animal parts since one can not just produce the nutrient out of thin air.
Even if one were to live without these nutrients, there are several consequences in their bodies too. So, do we humans really have an alternative to not eating nonhuman animals? I will leave that up to you to decide.
The next example is that humans use nonhuman animals for experimentation. This reminded me of the video that went viral before about a working rabbit. The rabbit "works" in a research lab where the researcher inject them with various substances to test the effects of the makeup. Most of the rabbits are injured this way but they can not do a thing since they are test subjects.
I can argue that humans also do human trials but those trials only happen when there is a reasonable expectation that is safe to do so. In short, humans will put through nonhumans into harm's way to ensure that humans will be safe.
Conclusion
It exists because humans believe themselves to be superior than nonhuman animals. While it may hold true, the fact exists that nonhuman animals are also deserving of being able to live freely outside the human's entertainment and needs.
Closing words
I made this right after class so I am already tired and my brain is asleep already. Still, I hope that I managed to convey some of the lessons I have learned today. It is already close to 11PM so I will be sleeping now.
Thank you for reading this article!
If you want to read some more articles of mine, I have monthly summaries here:
December 2021 Articles Summary
November 2021 Articles Summary
Personally, I see animals as the same as human, we aren't superior. I mean we can do things just like they are.