Speciesist or Specious?
I have just read an article by Joan Dunayer published in Vegan Voice #23 (Sep-Nov 2005) called "Reply to a Self-Proclaimed Speciesist" which was written in reply to an article written by Peter Milne called "Disagreeing with the Speciesism Theory" (2005), which was written in reply to an article called "Speciesism" (2004). I include this only so that you can look it all up if you want, and I freely admit I have not read the earlier to articles - this post is an opinion based solely on Dunayer's 2005 article.
Speciesism is, from what I understand, a political "ism" centred around the discrimination against lifeforms on the basis of species. In other words, a form of xenophobia. It has been likened in flavour to other "isms" such as racism and sexism. Specific definitions are still being formulated - it seems to be quite the flavour of the month with the animal liberation movement. Without making any judgements against Dunayer (whom I know nothing of) or Milne (who is an acquaintance) I thought I would add my two cents.
Dunayer's article is somewhat academically vituperative but intelligently written and makes sequential sense - except that it is based on a fallacy. She seems to have science confused with ethics, and while science should be governed by ethics, they are not the same thing.
She speaks often of the "right to life" of sentient creatures, in which she includes all of animalia, and excludes all flora, as being the basic principle upon which speciesism can be based, but what is the right to life? Who grants such a life? I would argue that no lifeform has any scientific inalienable rights - the concept is frankly ridiculous. "Rights" are an ethical and moral construct created by Homo Sapiens to justify their behaviour in the world - to themselves. There is no such thing as a scientific "right". According to Dunayer, it is speciesist to kill insects, with certain exceptions such as self defence, where one "right" to life is in conflict to another. This is on the basis that insects are sentient, and sentient beings have the "right" not to suffer unnecessarily. Since when? How does that stop it happening? What consequences are there to the individual who violates these "rights"?
I am a vegetarian and loathe cruelty to animals, but this is an emotional, ethical and moral standpoint. It is not scientific. Dunayer accuses Milne of a religious stance toward animals based on belief which violates the principles of non-speciesist behaviour, but in fact she is guilty of the same charge - there is nothing scientific in her argument. I also question her understanding of "Sentience" - realistically, we haven't gone beyond "I think therefore I am" and probably never will, because the subject is charged more with philosophy than fact. Has she ever talked with an insect? Communed with it's mind? Behaviour cannot be used as reliable evidence for sentience - modern scientists have observed self-organising "behaviour" on a molecular level, on a protein level - and on an insect level. Behaviour is functional - we understand only it's motivations and consequences, we do not understand its causes.
There is scientific basis for veganism, but it relates to land use and the economic (in terms of natural resources, not commercial) survival of our planet, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "rights" of animals.
The ethical arguments are substantive, useful and compelling, because we are capable of ethical and moral viewpoints, they help define who we are. I simply object to an ethical argument being posited as scientific when it is clearly not. In short, the argument of what is speciesism seems to me to be a huge waste of time - It will not convince anyone to become vegan, and merely increases infighting amongst those who would like to see us take more moral responsibility toward the animals which are within our power.
Speciesism is, from what I understand, a political "ism" centred around the discrimination against lifeforms on the basis of species. In other words, a form of xenophobia. It has been likened in flavour to other "isms" such as racism and sexism. Specific definitions are still being formulated - it seems to be quite the flavour of the month with the animal liberation movement. Without making any judgements against Dunayer (whom I know nothing of) or Milne (who is an acquaintance) I thought I would add my two cents.
Dunayer's article is somewhat academically vituperative but intelligently written and makes sequential sense - except that it is based on a fallacy. She seems to have science confused with ethics, and while science should be governed by ethics, they are not the same thing.
She speaks often of the "right to life" of sentient creatures, in which she includes all of animalia, and excludes all flora, as being the basic principle upon which speciesism can be based, but what is the right to life? Who grants such a life? I would argue that no lifeform has any scientific inalienable rights - the concept is frankly ridiculous. "Rights" are an ethical and moral construct created by Homo Sapiens to justify their behaviour in the world - to themselves. There is no such thing as a scientific "right". According to Dunayer, it is speciesist to kill insects, with certain exceptions such as self defence, where one "right" to life is in conflict to another. This is on the basis that insects are sentient, and sentient beings have the "right" not to suffer unnecessarily. Since when? How does that stop it happening? What consequences are there to the individual who violates these "rights"?
I am a vegetarian and loathe cruelty to animals, but this is an emotional, ethical and moral standpoint. It is not scientific. Dunayer accuses Milne of a religious stance toward animals based on belief which violates the principles of non-speciesist behaviour, but in fact she is guilty of the same charge - there is nothing scientific in her argument. I also question her understanding of "Sentience" - realistically, we haven't gone beyond "I think therefore I am" and probably never will, because the subject is charged more with philosophy than fact. Has she ever talked with an insect? Communed with it's mind? Behaviour cannot be used as reliable evidence for sentience - modern scientists have observed self-organising "behaviour" on a molecular level, on a protein level - and on an insect level. Behaviour is functional - we understand only it's motivations and consequences, we do not understand its causes.
There is scientific basis for veganism, but it relates to land use and the economic (in terms of natural resources, not commercial) survival of our planet, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "rights" of animals.
The ethical arguments are substantive, useful and compelling, because we are capable of ethical and moral viewpoints, they help define who we are. I simply object to an ethical argument being posited as scientific when it is clearly not. In short, the argument of what is speciesism seems to me to be a huge waste of time - It will not convince anyone to become vegan, and merely increases infighting amongst those who would like to see us take more moral responsibility toward the animals which are within our power.
posted by Brett at 4:31 pm
4 Comments:
Calling someone a speciesist because they eat meat may also just invoke anger and put them on the defensive.
Good post.
Hey honey, say 'the animals under our stewardship' rather than 'the animals which are within our power. Rampant left-wing veg*ns get quite miffy about stuff like that..:) And I don't know about this Joan person but I have spoke at length with a cockroach. I wasn't entirely straight at the time, but I'm sure it ws very real for the roach. It laughed at me a lot and muttered something about world-domination...
The speciesist argument, as an aside, comes from Peter Singers 'Animal Liberation'. It is a tome that canvasses cruelty to animals but has a well argued chapter on the philosophical argument promoting speciesism.
Your post is more like the argument of his opponent Roger Scruton (cf. 'Animal Rights and Wrongs') in which he argues that speciesism is merely based on sentiment. I recoomend both if you have a chance to read them, for my part I think they are both a good read; Scruton gets a little too 'oh, the industry is not that bad,' I believe, having faith in the market to self regulate, a dangerous faith indeed. I'd love to see the two of them debate, in fact - I have never heard Singer counter his views, and Scruton dismisses Siongers arguments, but does not give any genuine argument against, merely launching his own. It would be goo to see the twop of them go toe to toe.
I guess this curious little fantasy of mine will never occur. But its fun to think about.
Dammit write another blog post, you lazy bum. People are waiting...
Post a Comment
<< Home