Is speciesism defensible on legitimate rational grounds? Is it a form of unexamined, primitive fascism directed at nonhuman animals?

MAIN COVER IMAGE ABOVE: The dynamic of business is implacable and by definition amoral. Compassion or due respect for humans, nonhumans, and nature itself, seen as mere factors of production for profit do not enter the basic calculus. This is a downed cow, being dragged to slaughter. What kind of person can watch this and not feel empathy?  (Farm Sanctuary, flickr)

The debate on speciesism is historically new but the term seeks to define perhaps the oldest form of tyranny exercised by humans on any category of sentient living creatures. In fact, many aspects of speciesism, if not its totality, resemble a primitive and pervasive form of fascism, rather than, as has been argued elsewhere (see below) mere racism or sexism.

For one thing, the consequences of speciesism are, by any measure, far graver to the vast majority of the beings classified under this category than those suffering under sexism or racism. This is not to minimize in the least the horrible suffering that both women and "people of color" ("brown", "red", "black", "yellow", etc.) have been subjected to historically, and which in many areas and cultures of the world continue to suffer; it is just to point out that the level of victimization has never involved their being raised, on purpose, for certain early death, nor to be killed for recreational purposes, among many morally repugnant uses humans routinely assign to animals by dint of their categorization as "inferior beings"—a categorization, we might add, based on convenient unilateral declarations of moral and intellectual superiority.

Astute students of history will easily recognize the parallels with fascism, especially Nazism, whose ideology of the master race served to legitimate widespread persecution and annihilation of "inferior breeds"—from Jews to slavic peoples, the infamous "untermenschen".

The roots of speciesism sound innocuous enough. Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species. The term was coined by Richard D. Ryder in 1970 and is used to denote prejudice similar in kind to sexism and racism. The term has not entered everyday language.

The idea of speciesism is used mostly by advocates of animal rights, who believe that its practice is irrational or morally wrong.

He who says speciesism says fascism
By Patrice Greanville

The actual figure is incalculable, but responsible estimates assume that conservatively between 65 thousand million animals—yes, 65 billion creatures—and quite possibly as high as 100 billion or more die each year directly as a result of human activities ranging from factory farming to hunting, the fur garment trades, wildlife trade, commercial exploitation of various kinds, oceanic and waterways exploitation and destruction, and biomedical research. That's more than 273 million creatures every single day, including birds, cows, and hogs, many of them highly sociable animals. The way we go about killing animals, wherever they may be found or kept, land, sea or air—murdering and torturing are often better words—is astonishing. We do it with abandon and we do it in such institutionalized, "tradition" approved ways that only a minority ever realize the extent of the tragedy.

Since the era of modern fishing began 200 years ago we have decimated the oceans, ostensibly infinite reservoirs of life, converting many maritime regions into what Farley Mowat accurately decried as "seas of slaughter." In the USA alone, every year almost 50 million turkeys are killed just for Thanksgiving Day, to commemorate a date that is of questionable historical merit, and which, despite the fact that the sacrificial victims have grown from a symbolic handful to tens of millions, rarely stirs any introspection. Sadly, such incidents are but a mere drop in an invisible sea of monstrous abuse whose actual roots date back to our earliest times as a species with self-righteous "dominionistic" claims over nature endorsed by all major religions. 

Indirect causes

One hundred billion animals is a stunning figure, yet this figure, does not include animals mistreated or dead as a result of habitat destruction, widespread pollution, apparently "harmless" recreational activities such as sport fishing and boating, and the collision of animals with "modernity" (up to 250 million animals die annually as roadkill on the American highways alone). All of these lethal vectors have acquired a greater magnitude with the anthropogenic release of hydrocarbons on the atmosphere which has detonated the climate change nightmare. We have become indeed not only the most appalling tyranny over every other sentient creature on this planet, including many segments of our own breed, but also a raging, self-righteous cancer extending itself with impunity to every corner of the earth. 

Time to do some rethinking

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]oday, as a result of industrialism, ecological deterioration and other related issues, self-defined progressives can't afford to go on pretending that suffering on such egregious scale is just a peripheral issue, or the concern of affluent dilettantes with little interest in other social issues.  Due to a deeply embedded and largely unexamined 18th Century heritage of philosophical "superhumanism" ("man is the measure of all things," and the rest of all that self-celebratory rubbish which, we should recall, arose as a response to a greater form of human obtuseness, the one granting God and King total control over human agency), the Left continues to endorse or acquiesce in human supremacist attitudes toward animals. This moral blindness is inexcusable for those who wish to be seen and who doubtless see themselves as the moral vanguard of humanity.

The bottom line is that speciesism—an underhanded and primitive form of fascism applied to animals and nature in general—is by far the oldest and most pervasive form of brutal tyrannization known on our planet. I don't use the word "fascism" as hyperbole in this context or for dramatic effect. I wish it were all just hyperbole. But the fact is that fascism is distinguished—inter alia—for its unilateral proclamations of superiority by a certain race or breed, with such spurious superiority endowing said race with the "right" to dominate, exploit, and annihilate at will any group deemed "inferior." If that pretty much doesn't describe eloquently our despicable behavior toward non-human animals, I don't know what does.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] realize quite well that to raise this topic is to ask for trouble. The fight to expand the realm of moral consideration to animals—to make such inclusion a matter of right—arouses deep animosities, including in the midst of many people who, as argued above, would otherwise define themselves as card-carrying progressives or, as our opponents across the political tracks like to say, "bleeding hearts." Well, I guess the bleeding does not suffice in many cases to include other sentient beings—especially those already dismissed by tradition as "raised for food" (as if such categorization in and of itself erased all trace of what is by any reckoning a truly nightmarish form of slavery).

Arguing for animal rights among "progressives" (no need to include here those who define themselves as diehard traditionalists and reactionaries) frequently strikes a vein of resentment, and invidious commentary. Many find it odious to classify animals as victims on the same footing as women or non-whites (whatever that is since there's no real scientific base for race distinctions), considering, reflexively, and, again from their own deeply embedded speciesist thinking, that such imputed equivalency is an insult to their status, or a call to divert scarce remedial energies away from their struggles.  The upshot is usually a torrent of jealousy-tinged vituperation.

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] know this from personal experience. I've been both an animal liberationist and a leftist all my adult life so I know the score, and what I'm saying here is that I am resigned, I expect to see sarcasm, derision, flippancy, intellectual laziness, and, why not, even intellectual dishonesty in the ranks of those who define themselves as progressives, for such is the deep reservoir of human chauvinism that afflicts so many in our species. And let me repeat it here, many of these people are indeed excellent human beings in just about every conceivable category. 

The more creative will hide their prejudices by feigning alarm at my conflating the words "fascism" with "speciesism." Well, I have something to say to this easily offended crowd: You abuse a language when you turn it on its head, use the Orwellian formula to accomplish precisely the opposite of what the words originally denoted, or in furtherance of what would be, by fair evaluation, an obviously despicable pursuit.

George W Bush and his accomplices, as we all know, are a prime example of this: in The First Decider's lips the words freedom, democracy and justice, not to mention a fair shake for the disadvantaged, were but tools of manipulation to buttress the agenda of a deranged and criminal plutocracy driving the world ever closer to total war.

But what am I proposing here? Just think about it for a moment. Something that all of you should be for, an extension of compassion, or at least the benefit of the doubt when subjecting mind-boggling numbers of sentient creatures to the finality of death. In other words, I'm pleading for a reduction in the colossal amount of violence that this planet already sustains, the violence that at least our species is directly responsible for, a diminution in the sum total of unnecessary suffering inflicted across the globe...Where is the inversion of meaning here? The outrageous betrayal of the language? Or is it that by saying "fascism" and "speciesism" in one breath I manage to offend the sensibilities of too many purists who happen to land on this forsaken blog?

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]ords change, expand, become obsolete, drop and add connotations and meanings, and sometimes die, like the things and realities they were initially created for. And besides, just like there are  varieties of capitalism, socialism and communism, so you also have distinct varieties of fascism. In some, all the bells and whistles are found that connote "classical fascism" —the jackboots, the open corporatization of the state, and so on and so forth, as we have come to know it. In others, it's more of an all-encompassing worldview, a system of values, an ideology that justifies a malignant treatment code. But here's the crux of the question, as some might say. The boots, the marches, the endless wars, the nauseating violence, the paraphernalia of fascism and the fascination with death—all of that cannot happen in the absence of an ideology that starts by justifying the oppression of others by virtue of a self-serving, unilateral declaration of superiority. The concept is the same; the contexts vary. Regrettably, human chauvinism cuts very deep and pervades every nook and cranny of what we optimistically still call civilization, and has done so for millennia. As noted earlier, no one is immune to this infection, including many folks who regard themselves as impeccably "progressive". Indeed, it is from their ranks that you often hear some of the worst and most derisive epithets.

Scarce resources

A common argument is that progressives, always a thin line against barbarism, have better things to attend to than the fate of "mere" chickens and cows. While strategic considerations always play a role in the real world, and the argument, at least obliquely carries some worth, I suspect that compassion, to such individuals, has obviously left the building; it is fungible, divisible, and comfortably apportionable according to inclusion or exclusion in certain categories of privileged sentience. They obviously don't see—refuse to see—the parallels with so many other struggles they may have honored or participated in, nor do they see how the liberation of animals is an integral part of a serious environmentalist agenda. No, here they draw the line, and reason, kindness, and the most elementary fairness fly out the window.

Such narrow-minded and intellectually lazy positions may one day be exposed, moral awakenings are sometimes tardy but they do occur in many hearts and decent minds with encouraging regularity. Let us hope that such people see the light in time for the planet to contemplate at least a partial reprieve from the colossal abuse it is now experiencing, for now, in the age of an utterly deranged industrialism, and with a global system blatantly proclaiming as its organizing principle the pursuit at any cost of infinite growth in what any sensible person can see is a very finite and fragile planet, the tyranny of humans over nature has acquired monstruous proportions. The extraordinary dimensions of animal exploitation by the industrial method and the death of one species after another grimly attest to that.

In view of these incontestable facts, no one with a scintilla of decency should turn his or her back on such knowledge. It is the duty of all people who haven't yet done so, and especially of progressives, to re-examine their assumptions about animals, about their everyday conduct in choosing food and clothing and transportation modes, and to join the last struggle against the first tyranny. By doing so, they will re-invigorate the environmental movement, rendering it less abstract and more passionate, because while fighting for nature is a noble and urgent call, fighting for nature's oppressed creatures is a matter of long denied justice.

Other arguments

Philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer have both criticized speciesism. Regan rejects it because it permits unjustified violations of animals' inherent rights; Singer, because it violates the principle of equal consideration of interests.

Speciesism can be defined as a prejudice against taking the interests of members of other species into account or not giving other species their due based simply on the fact that they belong to another species.

Great Ape personhood is a related concept, in which the various attributes of the Great Apes are deemed by some people, to merit recognition of their sentience and personhood within the law, as opposed to mere protection under animal cruelty legislation. This would cover matters such as their own best interest being taken into account in their treatment by people.

Some religions are less speciesist than others. While animists may believe in the equality of all sentient beings, monotheists tend to believe that human beings are superior to other lifeforms by divine intention. The teachings of Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism emphasize ideals such as sarva jeeva sama bhava, that is, "all sentient beings are equal", and are examples of religions that tilt towards being less speciesist, though the extent to which this is reflected in daily life in countries where those religions are influential—as the Nepalese  Gadhimai festival attests—depends on the local culture.

Gadhimai animal massacre. Finally suspended. But many other idiotic cruelties remain. And this practice may actually stage a comeback.

About the author

Patrice Greanville is TGP's founding editor and publisher. Besides being an anticapitalist/imperialist, Greanville is a lifetime advocate of animal rights. 

Addendum
THE TOUGHEST FRONTIERS

Origins of Speciesism & Speciesism in biomedical research
Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]nti-vivisectionists charge that animal experimenters are speciesists, people who unjustly discriminate against members of other species. Until recently most defenders of experimentation denied the charge. After the publication of Carl Cohen's `The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research' in the New England Journal of Medicine, experimenters had a more aggressive reply: `I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible, it is essential for right conduct...'1. Most researchers now embrace Cohen's response as part of their defense of animal experimentation. Cohen asserts that both rights and utilitarian arguments against the use of animals in research fail because they `refuse to recognize the moral differences among species'.2 If we appreciate the profound differences between humans and non-human animals, he says, we would understand why animals do not and could not have rights and why animal pain does not have as much moral weight as human pain. Animal liberationists think speciesism is immoral because they mistakenly equate it with racism and sexism. Cohen claims this equation is `unsound', `atrocious', `utterly specious', and `morally offensive'. Doubtless Cohen is right that the charge of speciesism is founded on an analogy with racism and sexism. He is mistaken, however, in asserting that the comparison is categorically illicit.

Animal liberationists compare speciesism with racism to focus our attention on the human tendency to unreflectively accept contemporary moral standards. We are fallible. Even our deeply held views may be wrong. Our ancestors forgot (or never knew) this important lesson. Thus, although most were not evil people, they indisputably did evil things. We must be leery less we likewise err in our treatment of animals. Of course these historical observations do not entail that our treatment of animals is morally unacceptable. It does, however, suggest we should critically examine our treatment of animals, especially when liberationists have offered arguments which are plausible, even if, in the end, people do not find them conclusive.

This is especially sage advice given the close historical connection between speciesism and racism. Historically the two are inextricably intertwined, the former being used to bolster, explain, and justify the latter.3 Of course, it does not follow that contemporary speciesists are racists or that all forms of speciesism are indefensible. It does show, however, that speciesism and racism are sufficiently similar so that analogies between them cannot be blithely dismissed as category mistakes.

Of course experimenters could argue that there are differences between speciesism and racism differences which make speciesism morally justified and racism morally objectionable. But that must be shown. To show that the comparison between racism and speciesism is specious, apologists must argue that although we cannot justify treating blacks and whites differently simply because they are members of different races, we can justify treating humans and non-human animals differently simply because we are members of different species.

How, though, can that be shown? Humans and non-human animals are biologically distinct.4 But the issue is not whether they are different, but whether they are different in morally relevant respects. Morality requires that we treat like cases alike. A teacher should give equal grades to students who perform equally; she should give unequal grades only if there is some general and relevant reason which justifies the difference in treatment. For instance, it is legitimate to give a better grade to a student who does superior work; it is illegitimate to give her a better grade because she is pretty, wears pink, or is named `Molly'.

Hence, to determine if speciesism is morally defensible, we must first determine if species differences are morally relevant. Speciesism, though, comes in either of two forms. The bare speciesist claims that the bare difference in species is morally relevant. The indirect speciesist claims that although bare species differences are not morally relevant, there are morally relevant differences typically associated with differences in species. We can illuminate that distinction by analogy: a bare sexist might claim that we should give men given certain jobs because they are men, while indirect sexists might contend men should be given certain jobs because they have certain traits which distinguish them from women.

In science fiction

Speciesism is a popular theme in science fiction, referring to a prejudice against other intelligent species, equivalent to racism. For example, during the reign of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars, many alien species were oppressed by the ruling government, which consisted mainly of humans. In this context, it is sometimes referred to as xenophobia.

NOW PLEASE READ THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, properly footnoted, HERE. 

<:>