Talk:Speciesism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Very POV article - still

The article has zero information about opposing views. It is Wikipedia's policy that no particular view should be given "undue weight or asserted as being the truth" (WP:NPOV), yet most of the article assumes speciesism to be valid, e.g. "Some religions are less speciesist than others." There should at least be a section with a sampling of the various criticisms of speciesism, such as Helene Gamburg's and Josie Appleton's essays in Spiked magazine, or perhaps some of the points from the BBC article. 169.233.72.42 18:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Statements and Probable Forgery

The paragraph given below is fundamentally untrue.

"The teachings of Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism emphasizes ideals such as sarva jeeva sama bhava (सर्व जीव सम भाव), 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 depends on the local culture."

Even a cursory glance at Hindu or Buddhist dharma (ethical) texts will make it clear that both of these religions recognize a hierarchy of worth amongst living beings. It is more wrong (in Hinduism) to kill a Brahman than it is to kill a dog, for example. In Buddhism, a monk's life is worth more than is that of an ordinary person. If specific citations are required, I can provide these.

I should also note that I do not believe the Sanskrit quote given is legitimate. It appears to have been concocted by someone with a rudimentary familiarity with the language. It is technically Sanskrit, but it is in the way "Be having equalness, beings of sentiency all do," is technically English. It was almost certainly made up for this article.

Needs improvement

I think we need more through coverage of the topic here. In reading it I'm not feeling throughly informed. Topics such as a more indepth explanation of how this is used by animal rights proponents ect. General quality of the artical could use a boost.

LMFAO at speciesism. I love you people. Left wing kooks are much more entertaining than Right wing kooks.

chauvinism -> sexism

Duh. :-) Thanks AxelBoldt

Speciesism isn't left wing. - FrancisTyers 16:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-speciesism vs. radical anti-speciesism

Article said:

, but radical anti-speciesism is extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice.

What is radical anti-speciesism? If Peter Singer isn't a radical anti-speciesist, what is one? -- SJK

Ok, by analogy: We'll define racist as someone who advocates discriminatory treatment for different races, and we'll assume that the cultural milieu under discussion is actually somewhat racist (say South Africa under apartheid or a bad area of the US south in the first half of the 20th century).

An "anti-racist" would be someone who advocates more-equal treatment for persons of all races (in a racist culture, we'd expect this to be an unpopular idea).

A "radical anti-racist" might be someone who actually attempted to practice these views (very unpopular move).

So - the default in our culture is "speciesism"; that nonhuman animals <> humans. Singer I would call an anti-speciesist (says that humans and nonhumans should have more-equal rights under the law). I'd say a radical anti-speciesist would be someone who strongly practiced what he/she preached on this.

In the real world, we do see "anti-speciesists", but as I said we don't see many radical "anti-speciesists" as defined here.

I think the difference between regular anti-speciesism and radical ant-speciesism needs to be clarified as well. -- Doc Daneeka March 19th 2006

(Or; if all animals were equal to humans, would you want your sister to marry one?)

If your sister marries, she will most definitely marry an animal. --AxelBoldt

Equality does not necessarily imply supplying housing to bees, shoes to horses and so on, but equal rights to basic needs, which then may differ depending on the species. -- Doc Daneeka March 19th 2006

Singer

Singer argues that animals should be treated equally to humans, in themselves. Of course, humans and animals have different needs -- it would be stupid to provide college education to animals, just as it is stupid to provide hay to humans. Humans may even in some circumstances be worth more than animals, due to their higher intelligence, etc. But Singer insists that, in themselves, animals are of equal moral importance as human beings. Singer would define himself as a 'radical anti-speciesist'.

And, as a matter of fact, Singer practices what he preaches to a great extent (he is a vegetarian.) He also might not mind his sister marrying one. (He has argued that there is nothing wrong with human-animal sexual relations.) -- SJK

Okay, then Peter Singer is a radical anti-speciesist, and, as I originally wrote, (the position of) "radical anti-speciesism is extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice." Do you disagree with this last statement? If not, I'm going to put it back into the Speciesism entry.

Well, I both disagree that 'radical anti-speciesism' is extremely rare -- its not just Singer, its many in the animal liberation movement, and some followers of Eastern religions (e.g. Jainism) -- and to say it is "probably unworkable in practice" is merely an opinion, at the very least it needs some evidence. -- SJK

Well, I consider myself a "weak" anti-speciesist, and I suppose I'd say devout Jains are "strong" anti-speciesists, and that "radical" is a position beyong that.

(Come to think of it, what I probably mean here is a functionalist (?) definition: An anti-speciesist position so strong as to be unworkable in practice is one I'd define as "radical".)

Well, I don't agree with the concept of "an anti-speciesist position so strong as to be unworkable in practice"? I suppose a radical anti-sexist is an anti-sexist position so strong as to be unworkable in practice? And a radical anti-racist is an anti-racist position so strong as to be unworkable in practice? You either are anti-speciesist, or you aren't. Just how you are either anti-racist or not, or anti-sexist or not. I can't see how there can be degrees of anti-speciesism. -- SJK

In many former societies (and some now) anti-sexism and anti-racism were unworkable in practice. People have been ostracized, imprisoned, and/or killed (see Ku Klux Klan) for violating these taboos. (For that matter, ask the Afghanis about sexism now).

Let me try to rephrase. "Living as a practicing anti-speciesist is probably unworkable in any existing society". What do you think about this?

I don't see how it is hard to live as a practising anti-speciesist... if you do not engage in acts of speciesism yourself, and do everything humanly and morally possible to discourage or prevent others from doing so, then you are a practicing anti-speciesist. Just because the rest of society may be speciesist, doesn't mean you must be. Just as, just because the rest of the society is sexist or racist, doesn't mean you must be. -- SJK

Well, it comes down to a distinction between what we feel in our hearts and what we do in the streets. I mean, really, Singer's announcement of his views on the subject have hardly gone without comment!

(And again, a person living in some regions of Afghanistan in the last decade really did have to live a sexist lifestyle regardless of their personal views [or be punished for their beliefs]. People in some parts of the USA in the past had to conform to racist lifestyles regardless of their personal views [or suffer the consequences].)

Tell me then -- what speciesist actions is Singer, say, forced to perform by his society? How does his society force him to live a speciesist lifestyle -- SJK

Off the top of my head - sex with persons of other races has historically been illegal in many jurisdictions. Human-animal sex is currently illegal in many places.

It is currently legal everywhere that I know of to eat nonhuman animals and to use parts of them as material for clothing, drinking cups, hat-racks, etc. It is nowhere legal (that I know of) to treat human beings in this way.

Almost everywhere in the world, society draws a sharp (and I mean sharp) distinction between humans and nonhumans in these areas, and Singer, you, me, and everyone else are expected to conform to this.

How does the legality of eating nonhuman animals, using them for clothing, or so on, make it impossible for someone to be anti-speciesist? Just because the law lets you be a racist, doesn't mean you have to be one. One can not eat or wear animal products -- there is no law saying you must eat meat, or wear leather shoes, or anything like that.

Again, how does the banning of human-animal sex make it impossible for you to be a practicing anti-speciesists? Its not you who is being speciesist here -- its the law. And even if one accepts that having sex with animals is not worse than having sex in humans, it doesn't follow that one wants to do it -- just like how it is possible to support gay rights and be straight.

And society may draw distinctions and expect us to conform to them, but does it force us in any way to personally act in a speciesist manner? Society may allow, or even encourage, us to be speciesists; but it is entirely possible to be an anti-speciesist in practice today. -- SJK

Hmm, let's try this: Believing that it's ok to eat animals but not ok to eat people is speciesist. Yes or no?

Yes, believing that is speciesist. But just because society as a whole believes it, doesn't mean any individual has to. It is entirely possible to not believe it. It is entirely possible to practice anti-speciesism, by not believing that and by publicly opposing that. -- SJK

Ok. One possible anti-speciesist view would be: "It is ok to eat animals, and equally ok to eat people." I believe we would find that examples of people practicing this view, or even seriously advocating it, are "extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice". Comments?

Yes, that would be an anti-speciesist (or maybe more accurately non-specieist) view. But calling it 'radical' implies that it is somehow more anti-specieist than the much more prevalent view that it is wrong to eat both humans and animals; when in reality it is no more anti-speciesist than the more prevalent view. And yes, such a 'radical' view would be "extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice." But what relevance has this got to the article? A 'radical' anti-racist view is that "it is okay to lynch black people, and equally okay to lynch non-black people" -- and that is indeed a radical view that would be "extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice" -- but does it deserve mention in an article on racism? I don't think so. Likewise, "it is okay to rape women, and it is equally okay to rape men" is a radical anti-sexist view which would be "extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice" -- but does this view need to be mentioned in an article on sexism? No, of course not. Then likewise the 'radical' view you mention above need not be mentioned in an article on speciesism. -- SJK

Jeez, I can't believe we've managed to drag this conversation out this long! :-) What I originally meant was: "Society treats humans and non-human animals differently. Some people say they think humans and non-human animals should not be treated differently. But in practice, really, really treating humans and non-human animals exactly the same is rarely encounted and probably unworkable."

In the event that you want to continue this discussion, do you really disagree with any of this?

I think it is a misrepresentation to say that Singer advocates equal treatment of non-human and human animals, nor does he claim that the two groups necessarily have the same rights. He says: the species a being belongs to should have no relevance for the rights attributed to it. The (mental) abilities of the being determine the rights. So if a severely mentally retarded person retains abilities comparable to those of a pig, then he or she should be treated similar to a pig. And Singer wants that to mean that pigs should be treated as well as mentally retarded, not that mentally retarded should be treated as badly as pigs. --AxelBoldt

AxelBoldt: Notice I said "equal treatment... in themselves". The "in themselves" bit is important. Singer claims that no human is more important than an animal just because he or she is a human being. Singer believes that, in themselves (i.e. considering only their species as animals or humans, and ignoring other possibly relevant features), animals and humans have equal rights and deserve equal treatment. -- SJK

What is one to make of a philosophy that looks ideal on paper but is impracticle in implementation?

Asian cultures

The claim that Asian cultures are uniformly less speciesist than European ones seems open to debate. In a brief trip to China, I had the misfortune to visit a Chinese zoo. If the PLA guys weren't so friggin scary, I would have seriously considered asking one for a quick loan of their rifle to put some of the more obviously distressed animals out of their misery. I'm told by friends that the Japanese have similar attitudes. Now, unless you're going to make the argument that the Chinese and Japanese have a similarly cavalier attitude towards cruelty to humans (and, for all the brutal things in their history, I don't think that's supportable), I can't see how you can claim that those countries are less speciesist.

I could simply delete that sentence, but their should be something more said about speciesism in different cultures. What do the rest of you think?--Robert Merkel

The despicable treatment of animals in the Kabul Zoo under the Taliban could hardly make us think that Asian cultures are less speciesist than other cultures are. -- Zoe

I was about to say, "yes, just delete it" but on second thoughts, it does seem true of much of central & southern Asia. If you read it carefully, it doesn't say anything objectionable, but (on the other hand) it gives a bad first impression. Rewording seems called for. How about: Generally speaking, cultures influnced by Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism have been ...? I.e., just leave out the word "Asian". Tannin 08:58 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

But that would simply not be true. As I understand it, most Japanese are nominally Buddhist (and Shintoist) and Buddhism was historically a major religion in China. You might say that Buddhism and Hinduism (dunno about Jainism) are less speciesist than Christianity and (I presume) Islam, but what difference is made in practice, certainly in the case of Buddhism, I'm not sure. --Robert Merkel

Well, I could argue that the Buddhist influence is obviously not very strong in those places and that the para therefor makes sense - but seeing as the original intent was to make the para seem to say what ir actually says, that would not be very helpful. Hmmm.... how about: The traditional teachings of Hinduisim and Buddhism are ... (etc.) but the extent to which this is reflected in daily life varies from one culture to another.

Tannin

Wait, where is your case? Are you arguing against culture or modernism? In actuality, Asian cultures have more anti-speciest rhetoric built into them. Also, effect that Mao's Cultural Revolution had on China would quickly explain why your Zoo case does count. The Cultural Revolution eliminated much of historical China, especially religiously, spiritually, and philosophically. Your case is against Modernist China that has appeared within the last decade, since the fall of the Soviet Union. This China does not symbolize the Asian Culture that is being referred to in this context. Also, animism is very prominent in asian cultures, which is only furthers the idea that they were more about specie-equality. Now, I'm not denying the Far West (the Americas) of not being Animistic, I'm merely saying that most anti-speciest philosophy (and rhetoric) stems from Asian philosphical and cultural influences, which is why the 60s in America are known for this - because they were influenced by Buddhism, Hinduism, and other eastern philosophies. I think far too many of you are merely accepting one argument and not doing the research.

Dante the Bard 07:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a funny discussion. Plants are species, too, are they not? It is impossible to be alive and non-speciest. (man, is there no better spelling than this?)

Those dirty kingdomists and phylumists!

This is a bizarre statement: Christanity is a "Western" [whatever that means] religion. The Copts might care to disagree.

Tats, I believe it's impossible to treat human and non humans equally. If we want to treat humans and non humans equalliy then we should stop killing anaimals for food. Would you eat another human being? I know i wouldn't. I believe we should treat animals with like how we would want to be treated.

Absolutely POV

The criticisms section is a straw man. It's given a 150 hundred words and then "refuted" with 500. C'mon. The first line of refutation reads: "A counter argument against the accusation of double standards is that ethics are not natural and to place ethical expectations on a species that lacks the language and intelligence to phrase ethics is meaningless." I don't see this as a counter-argument. That other species lack the language and intelligence to phrase ethics proves that we differ in kind from them. Marskell 12:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't removing the whole criticism section also POV? Rephrasing and editing is one thing but removing the whole issue because it tries to represent arguments and counter arguments is the position "we don't discuss the matter at all", which is a position. I wrote the phrase mentioned above and I have to agree that it may not be perfectly phrased but the whole passage was very neutral and calm in wording. When I wrote that "other species cannot have ethics and thus cannot be blamed not to follow ethical goals" that is distinguishing sentient and sapient. A sentient creature may have the right to receive ethical treatment by a sapient creature that has developed the ethics to recognize that as a necessity. (I'm referring to this version) --Fasten 15:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't remove (twas SlimVirgin) and it wasn't removed based on POV but on seeming to be OR. A modified version of it could be reinserted but with sources plz. The small criticism paragraph I've added at the bottom could be a starting point. And yes, watch for straw man arguments. Marskell 16:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fasten, the section was a personal essay. It would have to be written in accordance with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a go at reworking the article to address the POV concerns. It needed it. FT2 23:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters and critics: Bad choice of quote

The Supporters_and_critics section contains an easily refutable argument from Ingrid Newkirk. A monkey mother would rescue her own offspring over a squirrel baby because of the mother and child relationship, which is essential for the continued existance of the species and can be found in much more primitive species. Most monkeys would most probably not rescue a child of their own species if it didn't belong to their own peer group, some may be more likely to attack the child. This is, however, irrelevant to the matter in question and therefore is a meaningless statement; presenting it in the context of an encyclopedia article could be seen as an appeal to ridicule. The quote is not factual and is not intended to be factual. That's why I suggest the article might be POV.

I was passed that quote by a friend who is in animal rights, when I asked for a supporting quotre. If its not a good one, can you suggest whats a good way to fix up the "critics and supporters" section? FT2 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As regards merging the animal legal rights section into animal rights, my concern is, animal rights is often taken to mean, the animal rights movement, more than the laws governing the rights of animals. Is there an article "animal legal rights"? FT2 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That Ingrid Newkirk regularly inserts foot into mouth doesn't mean that to quote her is an appeal to ridicule. The statement notes: "Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA, writes..." If it read instead "Apparently, I'm not supposed to eat chicken because Ingrid Newkirk writes..." then I might see your point. The fact that, as it stands, this isn't presented as a fringe topic does much credit to the attempt at NPOV. I'm still wondering about sources on much of it though. Marskell 22:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion choosing a quote with severly incorrect implications like this conveys the, also illogical but conceivable, implication that the arguments of the supporters of speciesism are not well considered and exaggeratedly emotional, which is POV. --Fasten 14:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marskell, I think he's right. I also agree with Fasten, that if this is a poor argument, it conveys the impression that the best argument is a poor one. That does not make it POV; however it does make it a poor choice of material. I have removed the NPOV tag, and added a comment that clarifies that others feel there is a stronger case which newkirk could have made. if you want to insert that stronger case, or quote, please find one and do so. FT2 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents on the comparison between "Speciesism" with racism and sexism

I should state upfront that I am not a supporter of industralized meat production, or any form of animal abuse. Although not a vegan, I rarely consume meat and avoid using animal tested products. But I am rather skeptical about the extreme positions that animal rights activists tend to take.

In my view, the juxtaposition between racism (or sexism) and "speciesism" is a logical fallacy, also related to what's called a "Guilt by Association". Or to put it more plainly, comparing racism to speciesism, or vice versa, is regarded as a kind of rhetorical technique, called “analogy”. The motivation behind making an analogy is when between A and B, you want to demonstrate that there is a property of Y on B, because A and B both have the property of X, and because A has the property of Y. So take an example, let A = Adam, and let B = Bill. Let X be the property of being male, which A and B both have. And let Y be the property that someone is chauvinistic. Now here’s a false analogy, what’s called a “juxtaposition”, mentioned above: Since Adam is a man and Bill is a man- so Bill is just like Adam- and since Adam is chauvinistic, Bill must be chauvinistic like Adam too. That is clearly a false analogy, again, a “juxtaposition”. We cannot conclude that Bill is chauvinistic given that he is a male like Adam and Adam is chauvinistic. So Singer puts racism (A) next to speciesism (B)- racism is discriminatory (X), and speciesism is discriminatory too (X), although totally different in terms of the essence of the thing that they actually discriminate- Peter Singer either does not care about that essential difference (in this case, a bit like PETA, who dared to compare black people with animals, or animal farms with the WW2 Holocaust), or he failed to explain the very essence of that difference (and I think it’s the latter). So now since racism is bad (has property Y), Singer concludes that speciesism (B) is therefore also bad (Y), because they both share X, where X is the property of being discriminatory. Whilest making an analogy can be convenient for demonstrating certain externally established point, it is not an argument on its own. In this case, the comparison between Speciesism and racism is a flawed argument on its own, you cannot conclude Speciesism is bad by putting it next to racism and sexism. How about if I put racism (A) next to meritocracy (C)? meritocracy (C) is also discriminatory (has property X). So A and C shares the property of X, and since A has the property of Y after having the property of X, is C also Y?? Is meritocracy a priori bad (has the property Y)? This is pure logic, an rhetorical analysis devoid of any intricate word meaning. It should be very clear why Singer is making a false analogy when he compares racism with speciesism, or a misleading juxtaposition. If he were to substantiate B being Y elsewhere (which he did to a small extent, but I find unconvincing), then again, the burden of proof is on him. A rhetorical trick such as an analogy is not an argument on its own at all. Speciesism may be discriminatory, but it is yet to be proven that it is actually "bad".

Singer's main basis for arguing that speciesism is bad, is roughly: That non-human animals are capable of suffering, and therefore deserve equal consideration of treatment. Not doing so would be committing speciesism, since it is assumed that humans have gotten equal considerations and treatment for one another (which is a far shot at least in reality). So there're some classic boarderline cases- one is when instances of human being become incapable of suffering due to neurological diseases, but that does not say anything about the overall species because such cases are mere instantiation of one species; So yet another classic: oysters do not suffer at all. Somehow all the vegans I met don't eat them. Upon confronting them, the response, "well, the standards have changed in this case, now the line is no longer “the ability to suffer”, but rather, "having life" "- so "having life" suddenly qualify "equal consideration". Then what about rice? or spirochaete bacterium? It looks to me the key basis of not committing one to "Speciesism"- based upon Peter Singer's primary rationale stated above- is just another arbitrary line drawn by someone for something he feels like promoting, personally, almost reminiscent to the line of “having consciousness” drawn by some guy, or the line of “being human as a species” drawn by some other guy, or whatever! Nothing but fanciful speculations under ethical subjectivism. What would be the universal justification beyond one's personal attitude? I mean, except when one is in the mood of being philosophical for the mere sake of being philosophical?

My own objection to the idea of "Equal Consideration of Treatment" extended to non-human animals is, how seriously are we to take this? Knowing that the consumption of fossil fuel by humans in fact has side effects that destroy natural habitat and poison and kill millions of animals, extinct hundreds of species- clearly a negative interference by humans that deprives of non-human animals "equal consideration of treatment", that it prevents them from pursuing their own happiness (whatever it might be). So do we stop using fossil fuel? What about the massive decline of our own food production as a result and the starvation of masses of human population that may be entailed? That's just one of the things one should think about upon hearing an outlandish proposal to give animals "equal consideration of treatment". It's not because we're actually "speciest" (not even saying "speciest" is good or bad), but how do we take this seriously, as to do something truely substantial about it?

--Charlesy 13:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Consideration of Treatment

Why does equal consideration apply to humans? If it applies to anyone, why not just members of X race or Y nation? If equal consideration extends to all humans, why does it stop there?

The fact that suffering/enjoyment is NOT intrinsic to humans is established. There are gray areas when you reach some animals, and oysters are unlikely to feel pain. That does NOT excuse the torture and murder of those who DO feel pain. If you are aware of the outside world, and can suffer and/or enjoy, (the two are all but impossible to seperate), THEN you have a right to equal consideration. Your moral rights are not derived from the law (that justifies Hitler), nor from your presumed intelligence (baby steak?) nor from being human. (Why human? Why not X race, Y nation, etc.)

Through conservation and use of alternative energy, it is possible to use fossil fuels without destroying too much natural habitat. Of course, even if destroying habitat for fossil fuels were absolutely unavoidable, it wouldn't justify killing someone simply to obtain fleeting pleasure from your taste buds. Eating flesh is in no way necessary, and if we were to stop, it would drastically increase available food supplies, since food would all be available to humans, not fed to other species being raised for flesh. For the most part, this "how far do we go?" attitude is a rationalization for people who don't want to be inconvienced by having to respect others' rights.

This article is written in "he-said, she-said" style, trying to present "supporters and critics," as is described in one major section. However, I looked at the article on racism, and it contained no mention of supporters of racism in a neutral or positive light. I don't expect as much, since racism is obviously morally wrong, so why the same here? Here, people "believe that [speciesism] it is irrational or morally wrong," whereas racism is never portrayed as being solely a matter of opinion or belief. Although somewhat less wide-spread than speciesism, racism is still quite prevelant in the world today. Perhaps Palestinian terrorists should have their anti-Semitism defended in the article on racism? No, but people who are willing to murder solely for their fleeting enjoyment should not have their rationalizations addressed in the article on speciesism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.25.61 (talk • contribs)

* "Eating flesh is in no way necessary, and if we were to stop, it would drastically increase available food supplies, since food would all be available to humans, not fed to other species being raised for flesh."

Categorically untrue. If you did your research you would know that the grain used to feed animals is far inferior in qulity to what humans consume. Most of it is inedible for hums, and certainly not stuff you want to eat. Plus, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH food for everybody on this planet - the problem is distribution. Wealthy people can get it because they have money. Starving people obviously can't, as they're poor 69.120.214.255 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I've reverted to an earlier version because someone has added a lot of original research. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't all seem like OR to me. The sources weren't sufficiently explicit and verifiable but maybe that can be changed. Here's a link to the previous version. If somebody has the time and or information to provide sources may some of the material can be added to the article again. --Fasten 12:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speciesism and Religion

The article mentions the relation between speciesism and religion. According to ^[1] Buddhists in Laos buy caged songbirds in very small cages and fishes in plastic bags to release them on the new year festivities. Offering money for somebody else to cage the birds or catch the fish and then to assume that the act of releasing the animals is a benevolent act (possibly good karma) is either not anti-speciesism or an astonishing feat at holding contradictory beliefs: An animal's status as a sentient being will hardly have changed between being caught and being released. --Fasten 15:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] (german) http://www3.ndr.de/ndrtv_pages_std/0,3147,OID2206498,00.html

It is an act of compassion, but not only that. One can be compassionate to equals. However, I'll have a look at the section to see if there's anything wrong in the text. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I read your comment more carefully. It's a funny ritual developed by the local people there, and I agree it doesn't show anti-speciesism in any way. This is also anti-Buddhist in many ways. The article already says that these religions are in principle anti-speciesist, but the extent to which people follow these principles in practice varies widely. deeptrivia (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "Equal Consideration of Treatment"

> Why does equal consideration apply to humans? If it applies to anyone, why not just members of X race or Y nation? If equal consideration extends to all humans, why does it stop there?

- Assuming you were writing to me, I suspect you missed my point earlier- the reason notations such X and Y were used, is to demonstrate that the analogy of Speciesism with Racism/Sexism is a logical fallacy. The analogy in itself has no merit, and depend on external arguments to stand.

> The fact that suffering/enjoyment is NOT intrinsic to humans is established. There are gray areas when you reach some animals, and oysters are unlikely to feel pain. That does NOT excuse the torture and murder of those who DO feel pain...

- Nor was that the point I was making. The point I was making was- where do you draw the line, and why that line and not some other line? Is there a meta-justification for the justification (suffering)? Appearantly there isn't.

> If you are aware of the outside world, and can suffer and/or enjoy, (the two are all but impossible to seperate), THEN you have a right to equal consideration. Your moral rights...

- Look at the above again- that's an assertion. Nobody in history had produced a single proof on the existence of the thing called `moral rights'- it is neither a priori, nor empirical- in the positivist terminology it's metaphysical talk, which is ultimately pointless...

> Through conservation and use of alternative energy, it is possible to use fossil fuels without destroying too much natural habitat. Of course, even if destroying habitat for fossil fuels were absolutely unavoidable, it wouldn't justify killing someone simply to obtain fleeting pleasure from your taste buds. Eating flesh is in no way necessary, and if we were to stop, it would drastically increase available food supplies, since food would all be available to humans, not fed to other species being raised for flesh. For the most part, this "how far do we go?" attitude is a rationalization for people who don't want to be inconvienced by having to respect others' rights.

- Your poor attempts at ad hominem aside, let me just remind you that I did not say anything in support of eating meat. Skepticism/being critical of something does not by default entail the support for the opposite. As far as facts are concerned, we don't have a political/economic system that advocates anything you just asserted, nor are they taking place in any significant scale (conservation, alternative energy, use fossil fuels without destroying too much... etc). So I don't see how we can be serious about outlandish demands like "Equal Treatment" to animals- we might stop eating them, but that would make very marginal difference considering the magnitude of killings going on elsewhere- deforstation, pollution, and so on. You may argue for veganism by saying "well, we do the best we can", that's fine, but that is not the same as "Equal Treatment"- far from it. I find it hard to take vegans seriously when they say things like "Equal Treatment" when all they're really doing is "the best they can", not eating animals, which is a minor nuisance in the whole of animal sufferings if you look at it in terms of numbers of species or numbers overall.

> This article is written in "he-said, she-said" style, trying to present "supporters and critics," as is described in one major section. However, I looked at the article on racism, and it contained no mention of supporters of racism in a neutral or positive light. I don't expect as much, since racism is obviously morally wrong, so why the same here?...

- Because it's not the same, re first paragraph. I would propose here an alternative standard in place of "capable of suffering" to discriminate racism from speciesism- a standard in which racism would be wrong, but speciesism is perfectly fine: How about "capable of resistence" as a standard, or as a reason to treat someone/something well? In reality, if you look at history, say, the French Revolution, or October 1917, to civil rights movement, or the feminist movements, or gay/lesbian movements etc, or take the 8hr. working day law (Haymarket riot), then you will quickly discover that "rights" are not granted to people, particularly minorities, by some benevolent supreme being- be it Thomas Jefferson, your government, or God. "Rights" are fought with blood, through years and years of struggle. Now if the animals can rebel too like the blacks and women etc, then they can have their "rights". In this view, racism is bad because it incites resistence and disturbs peace, but speciesism is fine because animals can never do the same. One justification for taking this standard may be that one wants to co-exist with fellow human beings peacefully but don't have a personal regard for animals since they could never play a part in disturbing peace of society. Now, I don't particularly support this view, but that's just an alternative, showing you how arguments work. There are many other standards/lines and arguments one may present that does equally well in discerning racism from speciesism, each with their own merit that tells you something about what the advocates are interested in personally. This simply echos my earlier saying: "where is the meta-justification for the justification?", and it undermines Singer's fundamental argument for "equal treatment", showing you that it is his personal interest alone that is the bottom line, and that interest may or may not be our interests.

So the analogy between racism and speciesism is a logical fallacy in itself, while its external justification rests on somebody's personal interest. If you see it his way, that you are interested in the same thing as he, then the analogy makes sense to you. But there's no objective, a priori reason why that has to be (neither does racism or sexism, so they are the same in this respect).

marry your pet reference

irrelevant or what?

Seus hawkins 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols

I see only question marks below. Are others seeing proper symbols? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sarva jeeva sama bhava (सर्व जीव सम भाव)

Yes! If your browser / window manager / GUI / operating system has the right fonts installed, you will see proper text. I'm looking at it in Firefox / KDE / Ubuntu and it shows up for me ... and no, I haven't done anything "special" to have the system support Indic text, especially since I can't read it. --FOo 01:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Article, Counter-Arguments.

Given all the lively debate in the talk page, especially considering the counter-arguments, why is none of it manifested in the article proper or the references/external links? I think the lack of opposing viewpoints renders the article uninformative and incomplete. Detruncate 04:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else can

The term speciesism isn´t really taken seriously by moral philosophers, with the exception of a few like Singer, for the reasons I have given above in "Reply to "Equal Consideration of Treatment"".

No citations

Article is not verfiable at all and should either be rewritten or deleted as current form is unacceptable.

Not Exactly Featured Article Material

I find the basic premise of speciesism ridiculous, but when I read the article I found nothing wrong with its tone. It could use elaboration, but the point of the article is to explain what is is, not to make a case for or against, and I don't think it does either at the moment. I think it should now have the 'needs improving' and the 'does not cite its sources' templates, not the neutrality one. User:Mjgw 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]