Essay
“Any society which rejects racism should also reject speciesism” – Discuss.
- Institution
- University Of Leeds (UoL)
Essay achieved a 2:1 - explores Peter Singer's opinion on speciesism and its correlation to racism
[Show more]
Content preview
The Good, The Bad, The Right, The Wrong“Any society which rejects racism should also reject speciesism” – Discuss.
In his book, ’Animal Liberation’ 21st century philosopher, Peter Singer, argues that it is fair to make
comparison between widely recognised and regulated prejudices like racism, and speciesism 1; which
he defines as ‘a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own
species and against those of members of other species’ 2. Singer suggests that it is no different to
consider a non-human animal less valuable than a human, than it is to deem the same in regards to a
white person and a non-white person 3. Of course, animal cruelty is a globally discussed, and for the
most part, a greatly undisputed issue. However, this essay will explore how its comparison to racism,
and suggestion that both should be rejected equally, is deeply misinformed.
One of the main premises of Singer’s argument against speciesism, centrals around the idea of
‘prejudice’, suggesting that human-beings possess some matter of bias against non-human animals 4.
Singer suggests that it is mere prejudice that makes individuals count humans more than non-human
animals – in the same way we recognise it mere prejudice that makes a white man racist towards a
black man. Thus, let one look at the way we can define the root of racism through mere prejudice.
Somebody who is racist, will most likely defend their position through fallacious empirical claims 5;
backing themselves up by referencing ficticious differences in intelligence or rationality between
those of White ethnic background and those of non-White ethnic background. A racist will accept
these beliefs, despite the evidence which suggests against them and without proper evaluation of
the claims that they so defend themselves with 6. This blind abandonment of any principles of
verification proves that racism is wholly rooted in prejudice. There can be no other possible
explanation for it, as there are no justified empirical facts that give example of just that 7. Now let
one apply the same logic to speciesism. When one considers whether or not humans are superior in
one way or the other to non-human animals, they are most likely appealing to moral intuition 8-
beliefs which seem to be self-evident to the person who possesses them. It is unlikely that someone
who deems humans to be superior to non-human animals, will ever seek to back themselves up with
empirical nonsense, they will instead call upon their intuition to make a judgement. Say for example
a house was burning down and there was both a baby and a dog inside, it is to be presumed that if
there was only time to save one, then the majority of people, exercising their moral intuition, would
choose to save the baby. Of course, in other matters, if one is prepared to, again, give and exercise
moral intuitions, then seemingly, it is not mere prejudice which leads one to count humans more
than non-human animals9. Therefore, in this sense racism and speciesism are incomparable, and
thus should not be rejected equally in a society.
Another of Singer’s fundamental principles against speciesism is that speciesism’s true error is a lack
of equal consideration of interests. This, he claims, is the suggestion that equal weight should be
given in one’s moral decision making, to the ‘like interests’ of all those affected by one’s actions 10.
1
Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. London: The Bodley Head, p.30
2
Singer, P. (1975). p.30
3
Singer, P. (1975). p.29
4
Singer, P. (1975). p.29
5
Kagan, S. (2015). What’s Wrong with Speciesism? (Society for Applied Philosophy Annual Lecture 2015).
Journal of Applied Philosophy, 33(1), p.2
6
Kagan, S. (2015). p.2
7
Everett, J.A.C., Caviola, L., Savulescu, J. and Faber, N.S. (2019). Speciesism, generalized prejudice, and
perceptions of prejudiced others. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), pp.785
8
Kagan, S. (2015). p.2
9
Kagan, S. (2015). p.2
10
Singer, P. (1975). p.36
, The principle of equal consideration of interests is one often referred to when considering equality
amongst humans; one should not favour the interests of white people over black people as race is a
morally irrelevant characteristic11 when it comes to evaluating the ‘like interests’ of different people.
And with this, Singer uses this principle to suggest that the human race should not favour their own
interests over those of any other species 12. Singer suggests that the interests of a being depend on
its capabilities, so for example, it is within Singer’s understanding that because both animals and
humans are capable of feeling pain, they both would have an interest to avoid it 13.
This argument is altogether deeply flawed. Where racism is indeed based on inconsequential
differences between individuals, that reflect no real variation in one’s ability or aptitude 14;
speciesism, in difference, is not. If for example, a dog was expected to live like a cat for its whole life,
then one could undeniably suggest that the owners were behaving cruelly and the specific needs
and ‘like interests’ of the dog were not being met. However, to deny people of a minority ethnic
background access to certain toilets, water fountains and so on, is not a reflection on their ability to
use those facilities, or to cater to specific needs they might have, it is plainly and simply the result of
prejudice. Species is, at the bottom line, a morally relevant characteristic as it is distinctly associated
with at least one capability that is itself morally relevant 15. Through an incredibly problematic
attempt to cast both humans and animals as equals, Singer ultimately ignores the fact that our roles
on earth are, at the bottom line, unequal and that these roles, are altogether held in species-based
differences.
In addition to this, Singer’s suggestion that the avoidance of pain is a like interest between both
human-beings and animals16, also places significant limitations on his argument. Humans, are,
undoubtedly, a considerably social species- giving that our cognitive capacities allow for us to feel
certain sophisticated emotions, unknown to many non-human animals 17. This thus makes it
borderline impossible and if not, incredibly difficult, to understand what equal consideration would
amount to for each species. Furthermore, this perception of shared like interests cannot only be
bounded to categories of human and non-human. Within the animal kingdom there is a plethora of
disparities between species18; disparities based solely on species alone. These respective interests
are simply too dissimilar to establish any one kind of method of equal consideration. And thus, this is
why it is ultimately important to note that this differs completely when considering race. There is
truly little to no disparity causing us to dwell over what equal consideration may look like for each
race – of course socio-economic constraints are not to be ignored, but the base principle and ‘like
interests’ between White people and Black people altogether remains the same- human interests
are exclusively human, something that is just inherently unrelatable to non-human animals. This
once again highlights how it is entirely incomprehensible to place speciesism on the same magnitude
as racism in any given society.
Singer responds to the argument which suggests that humans are superior to non-humans because
of their cognitive capacities, by suggesting that there are some non-human animals who have
cognitive superiority over some humans19 – for example those who are mentally disabled. Singer
11
Oberg, A. (2016). p.40
12
Singer, P. (1975). p.38
13
Singer, P. (1975). p.38
14
Oberg, A. (2016). p.40
15
Kaczor, C. (2016). Is Speciesism like Racism and Sexism? [online] Public Discourse. Available at:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com
16
Singer, P. (1975). p.40
17
Oberg, A. (2016). p.40
18
Hopster, J. (2019). The Speciesism Debate: Intuition, Method, and Empirical Advances. Animals, 9(12),
p.1054
19
Singer, P. (1975). p.55
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller phoebemason511. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £4.89. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75632 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now