In Defence of Speciesism 2

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I wanted to try this again. Unfortunately last time a couple of people trod all over the thread and we had some issues with understanding what speciesism actually is. It might be worth reading that thread (from page 3 on) if you’re new to the debate.

The view that belonging to a certain species of creature is a reason for treating certain beings as having more moral value than others is often assumed but not often explicitly defended. It would be interesting if those who have recently defended this view (if only implicity) could expand on their thoughts in this thread as to this particular issue, or indeed show how such speciesism is not necessarily a implicit part of the arguments against vegetarianism, or animal testing, or hunting…etc.

Please, this is not a thread about vegetarianism, animal testing or hunting. I’m not looking for your thoughts on those topics here.

Speciesism is essentially to argue that there are morally relevant differences between us and other animals that in turn give us ‘rights’ to put our own interests as paramount to the interests of other animals.

Speciesism in the news: Dennet and Owen Flanagan were two philosophers on a panel of 22 experts, some primatologists, some lawyers, some stem cell researchers, in which the potential consequences of stem cell research were debated.

The panel concluded that ‘to implant human stem cells into the brains of non-human primates can unintentionally change their moral status’.

The panel reportedly tried to deal with the question of ‘if there are cognitive or emotional capacities that are unique to humans in ways that make us worthy of higher moral status’.

The stem cell biologists and neurologists were apparantly unable to specify limits on what an implanted stem cell might change or effect. Apparantly the panel met with no philosophical agreement on the moral significance of changes in abilities in primates undergoing stem cell research, if they could detect any.

So the first question is if speciesism can be defended. Only after that can we look at what makes us different to non human animals and in turn look into if those differences are morally relevant. For example, that many humans have the capability for ‘abstract reasoning through the process of time-binding’ is not necessarily a morally significant difference, unless we are also to hold that humans without these capacities (of which there are many) be assigned such moral status as non human animals of similar cognitive ability.

2

First of all, animals don’t have anywhere near our cognitive abilities. So to even try to compare our morals with animals is useless.

In the long run all we know is how the animals brain is formed compared to us. The only way we would be really able to test the ‘moral’ configuration of any animal is to BE the animal. This is very similar to David Hume’s philosophy. “We are just essenses stuck in space suits” (not his exact quote).

3

Morals are something we created. Many are essential, however, to our evolutionary progression.

Our complexity compared to every other species seems reason enough to put our species above every other on the planet. No other species can experience the levels of anguish and joy, love and hatred, that humans experience, and they therefore don’t require as many rights. Nor do they care.

Don’t mistake this for meaning I feel they should have no rights, as they do have a right to be treated with more kindness the more cognitive they are. Meaning? It’s okay to smash ants. It’s not okay to smash kittens.

4

Speciesism exists as an attempted compensation, because of inequality and disunity. One species tries to put itself above the other because they each do not have oneness.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=152867
I made a note here about the OriganaOrganaterra.

If all genetic codes and knowledge was pooled, the end result would be a single super-being, far beyond any individual. But to create this, we would need superior technology compared to that which we currently have.

All life on earth is mortal, imperfect and incomplete because it is not the OriganaOrganaterra is broken.

Beings try to defend themselves from their incompleteness, but the defense that they build is just as incomplete and imperfect as the one who built that defense.

There will be NO substitute for the OrinanaOrganaterra. If they do not rebuilt this being, they will forever live incomplete, mortal and imperfect lives.

5

Moral values differ across the globe, and unless we are willing to conclude that certain types of people (that invented the cultures) are inherently immoral, then we must conclude that morals are a human regionally oriented creation.

So, when you say that a dog has a moral value what you’re really saying is that, “from my perspective” dogs have this value. So, the idea falls apart through the use of the word “moral,” which is sad.

It’s very admirable to love animals, but that’s part of being human.

6

I think if you wish to ‘prove’ that the human species is somehow better that any other species… It’s a bit cheeky to use a criterion exclusive to humanity to judge. Morality… Really.

It’s like a slice of Edam trying to prove itself superior to a slice of bacon based on a quality of ‘cheesiness’.

If there is a defence it should be the ‘big-brother’ defence. Based on a criteria of awareness, and capability of action. ie: With great power comes great responsibility etc.

what do I mean…? :laughing:

Say I’m in a room with a wildebeast, a monkey and a rhino. A big room. The cieling is gradually cranking down - its got spikes. Nasty.

Over there is a big button, next to it is a moving picture of a spikey ceiling stopping. It’s got a sturdy steel-mesh fliptop safety cover. Yippee !!! - However touching the cover gives a nasty (but none-fatal) electric shock.

Of the human, the monkey, the wilderbeast and the rhino - who is most likely to a) notice the danger before it’s too late and b) manage to push the button…?

There will come a time when all species of life on Earth will depend on our actions, even if the threat is one we have created ourselves. As such - other species can only ‘help’ by being subject to whatever weird and perverse scientific procedure we may wish to impose upon them.

“Other species… DO WHAT WE SAY !!! IT’S [size=75]er [/size]FOR YOUR OWN GOOD [size=75]in the long run[/size].”

7

Maybe try again next year, Obw? :confused:

I do have a question for you, though. It seems speciesism can be defended in two ways- one, that loyalty to one’s own species is a good in itself- wolves, humans, beetles and Alpha Centaurians should all be speciesists. The other approach would be to say that humans should be speciesist because there’s something special about humanity- this would mean that if some other species had that ‘something special’, we should include them in our preferential treatment, and it would mean that Alpha Centaurians should be respectful of us, even though we’re a different species.

Have both angles been tried? The scientists you talk about seem to be taking the second approach- that to be speciesist, there would have to be something great about humans- simply being a member of the human club is not enough. I’ve already said that I think both approaches amount to the same thing in the end, but still.

8

That was quite a post Tab.

Are you saying that humans ought to count on, and promote, our inclination to help other creatures?

As a side note, I think that there were lots of very good arguments in the other past thread sited. It does appear to me that the “species” argument is an attempt to create some kind of movement that avoids having to have an opinion.

It is perfectly fine to have an opinion and defend it.

9

Hi there!

I thought that you made good points in your post. However, I have a question for you about the above line.

Do you think that a mouse has motives, or as stated in the other thread, is simple a type of robot. The word robot is a czech word meaning worker. That’s what it seems like mice do.

If you don’t agree, then what kind of motives do mice have and how are they formed?

10

Mr. Predictable

I'm tempted to agree with Whitehead and say that the concept of the "motive" exists in grades all the way down the system- not only do mice exhibit 'motivation' in some sense, but so do molecules. I haven't really thought that much about it, though.  At the very least, I think these things are gradual somewhat- there's no sharp line where species A-D are completely for-themselves, and species E-Z are completely

in-themselves.
Mice aren’t like little four-legged people though, at the very least.

11

A person on the first page compared a worm to a blender in a factitious manner, but I believe that to be basically true. Bacteria appears to have motives, but so might an automobile if viewed by a person that didn’t know what one was. It think that comparing simple life forms to machines, or robots, makes more sense than to apply the term “motive” to the problem, as it degrades the meaning of the word.

12

Well, where do we draw the line? Do you think that humans alone have motives, and that even human-like apes are purely machines, or is it graded?

13

We like animals. We may try to keep a few around in our prosthetic world. De-fanged and Disneyfied of course.

It’s silly to have a debate about it, I’m sorry if that’s already been said. Mr. Push and Mr. Shove will eventually have the last say.

We’re ‘it’, God’s tapped us on the shoulder and run away. Our will be done, as it is done in the secret lab, or in the kitchen, with the bleach and the rubber gloves.

[size=75]Incidentally - Sorry if these days I make no sense and don’t write points at length - I’m grabbing moments in the local internet café - while babies and extremely pregnant wives sleep. As such I’ve developed this gnomic crypto-narrative style to save time.

If nothing else be re-assured, I know what I’m talking about.[/size]

On motive… Ucc. Is ‘motive’ without choice, or some form of free-will, still ‘motive’…? Does a pinball, however erratic and surprising its course, however many flashy lights and metallic pings… Have motive…?

14

I agree with the question at the bottom of Tab’s post.

A motive does imply a choice between several different options and the ability to imagine how these choices will affect outcomes. Having little experience with apes I don’t know if they are capable of the abstract thought needed to operate a motive. If they did, then I would assume that they would be less easy to manipulate, but all that anyone can say is that they don’t know.

15

Tabula,

Whitehead would say that on the level of the inanimate, motive comes through as self-determination. That is, the pinball bounces the way it does because it is in [i]it's nature [/i]as a pinball (of it's particular size and weight) to do so. To that extent, it determines it's own fate, and is not purely acted on by things outside itself.  It's crude, and I'm not sure how much I buy into it myself.  My general point was that there's no absolute cut off where free-will begins and ends- traces of it can be found outside of humanity. 
Ultimately, I think we treat animals well because of something about humans, not something about animals- that is, treating animals well is part of what it means to be a good human being.  We don't absolutely owe it to them, and they don't deserve it.  It seems to me that speciesism is required to treat animals well- without speciesism, we would only need to treat animals as well as they treat each other- which is purely as resources to be exploited.
16

The process of losing identity.
The leveling process.

First you deny any differences between men.
Then you deny any differences between tribes of men.
Then you deny any differences between men and women.
Then you deny any differences between men and animals.
Then you deny any differences between men and objects.
Then you deny any difference between man and nothing.

The obliteration of the individual.
Man made altruistic then into an object and then into nothing.

Do not discriminate. All is equal.
Tolerate all is the same.
Do not trust your sight, your senses, they are superficial.
Truth is deeper.

Love everyone, love is trivial.

17

Satry,

I basically agree with your post.

The trick is that you can, as an individual, stand up for anything that you desire.

18

So, back to Obw’s point…

We’re not debating whether or not humans are better than other animals as a species - most of us feel that they are, and horray for that. It’s nice to be the best.

Rather, we’re debating whether there is inherent value in being the same species. Is our species simply better on average, or is it always better to be human than ape, regardless of individual qualities?

Here’s a thought experiment that I think is both interesting and relevant. Humans experiment on mice, almost exclusively to their extreme discomfort and death, but for our own benefit. In fact, we have made many advances due to this practice we would not otherwise have made. Now, if you already morally object to this practice, this question is not for you - but, if like most people, you find this morally acceptable, think on this.

Aliens come to Earth. They are infected with a slow but terrible disease that will eventually wipe out their whole species. When they find humans, they are excited, for our brains are sufficiently similar to theirs so that they may usefully experiment on us, just as we experiment on mice. Further, they are so much more advanced than we are - so much smarter (no Bush), stronger, faster, kinder (no war), etc., that they seem to be as justified in experimenting on us as we are in experimenting on mice.

Are the aliens right in experimenting on us? If you choose to answer, remember that just because you don’t want them to, doesn’t mean that they’re wrong in doing it! You’ll need a good explanation.

19

Tiffy,

In your story humans and the aliens have brains that are close. That would mean that they have modes of expression that would be close too. For instance, some aliens might release smells that act as language. That would require a different brain structue.

Humans have many different modes of expression, and so they should be able to find at least one that matches the aliens’ or at least would make the aliens realise that the humans are trying to communicate.

Mice have never done this.

20

Methinks that’s a meaningless distinction. Apes can and do do this, and we still experiment on them, too. We know we can teach apes sign language in a limited fashion, and that they can use this to express basic (and even complex) desires. Even though mice can’t express basic desires, they clearly still HAVE basic desires - we can identify this easily. As we see the unsophisticated mouse (or ape if you prefer), so too would the aliens see us. Just because our brains are similar enough to the alien’s to be worth experimenting upon means nothing. Mouse brains are similar enough to ours to make them worth experimenting upon, and yet they don’t have language or any abstract thought.