Why We Should Reject Speciesism, and What That Means for Animal Research Scand-LAS 2017, Copenhagen Peter Singer, Princeton University & University of Melbourne

The Philosophical & Scientific Basis

“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832 Introduction to the Principles Of Morals and Legislation (1789), Ch. XVII, Sec. 1.

Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work worthy of the interposition of a deity, more humble & I believe truer to consider him created from animals. Charles Darwin, Notebook B, 1837-8

Can animals suffer? Are they conscious? Anatomical and physiological similarities with us. Behavioral parallels in appropriate circumstances. Shared evolutionary history

Ethics: Today’s Mainstream View We have some duties to be kind to animals and to avoid being cruel to them. Wanton cruelty is bad Animal interests count, but not comparably to ours. Their interests may be overridden by our interests, for example in eating them or using them in research.

An Alternative: Equal Consideration Equal Consideration of Interests: We ought to give equal weight to similar interests, irrespective of the species of the being whose interests they are.

Animals of different species may have different interests. The interests of these cows and their calves are fully satisfied by having enough to eat, protection from the weather and predators, and the social group natural for them. We have those interests, but additional ones as well.

Speciesism: What it is and why it is not defensible?

What is Speciesism? “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.” Speciesists disregard or discount the interests or rights of members of other species on the grounds of their species alone.

But only humans are… Rational Autonomous Moral agents Self-aware Language users… etc

“So far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties “So far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals are not self-conscious, and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.” Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Ethics.

Bentham’s Response “What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Ch. XVII, Sec. 1.

Do we need animal experimentation? If we answer “yes” then we can also ask: What if there were no (nonhuman) animals? Would we say that we need to experiment on humans at a similar mental level to the animals on which we are experimenting?

If we answer negatively… If we say that we need to experiment on animals, but would not say we need to experiment on humans at a similar mental level, how do we justify the difference?

If we answer affirmatively… Then we are not speciesists. We will be able to justify some experiments, but far fewer than we do today.