Lecture 08: A Brief Summary

Humans are now the biggest threat to the survival of other animal species. Rapid human population growth and the rapid pace of the development of human society have led to what scientists call the ‘sixth mass extinction’.

We humans usually view non-human animals either as pets, or pests, or a source of food. In doing so, we often ignore the interests and well-being of animals.

‘Speciesism’ can be understood as the prejudice for one’s own species and against other species. Differential (unequal) treatment is justified by assigning different moral status, value or rights to different beings on the basis of their species membership.

Opponents of speciesism argue that so- called ‘species’ is simply a way of classifying living organisms in the study of biology. Such classifications do not have any real moral significance (i.e. not a relevant reason for differential treatment).

POINT: Humans have full moral status POINT: Humans have full moral status. Non-human animals have lower moral status or no moral status at all. COUNTERPOINT: Speciesism, like racism and sexism, is a form of discrimination and, as such, is morally unacceptable.

POINT: Humans are unique and set apart from other animal species, according to Descartes and Kant. COUNTERPOINT: According to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, the difference between humans and other animals is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

POINT: Humans possess certain capacities that are not possessed by other animals. COUNTERPOINT: Marginal humans, such as human infants and the severely retarded, may not possess these capacities either.

POINT: All animals favor members of their own species in various ways. COUNTERPOINT: Species membership (group membership) is not a relevant reason for differential treatment.

‘Anthropocentrism’ is the view that nature (i. e ‘Anthropocentrism’ is the view that nature (i.e. everything in the natural world except humans) has no value, meaning or purpose in itself. Only humans are valuable intrinsically because only humans exist for purposes of their own.

The basic assumptions of anthropocentrism include: A sharp dividing line can be drawn between humanity and the natural world. Nature has no value, purpose or meaning in itself.

Non-human animals, as part of the natural world, do not exist for any purposes of their own. Only humans exist for purposes of their own. Anything in the natural world, including non-human animals, can be used as means to human ends.

On the other hand, scientists who support Darwinian evolution, such as Frans de Waal, argue that: Moral behavior and emotions (e.g. reciprocity, empathy, fairness) can also be observed in our primate cousins (e.g. monkeys and chimpanzees).

Human morality evolved from a primitive form of morality that can still be found in non-human animals. There is no sharp dividing line between animal nature and human nature. The difference between humans and other animals is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

The ‘argument from marginal cases’ calls into question the superior moral status of humans. If rationality, intelligence or language, etc. are necessary conditions for moral consideration, should human infants or the severely retarded be excluded from moral consideration?

P1 Unequal treatment is not justified unless some relevant difference exists. P2 There is no morally relevant difference between (some) marginal humans and (some) non-human animals. C Thus, treating (some) marginal humans more favorably than (some) non-human animals cannot be justified.

Do animals have rights? If non-human animals do have rights, there are certain things that we humans cannot do to them, no matter how much benefit such actions might bring us. Any action or practice that violates the rights of others (including non-human animals) cannot be morally justified.

Regarding the debate over animal rights, there are 3 possible positions: Non-human animals have equal rights as humans. (e.g. The ‘strong animal rights position’ of Tom Regan.)

Non-human animals do not have rights Non-human animals do not have rights. (It can be argued, for example, that the concept of ‘rights’ is meaningless outside the human moral community.) Non-human animals have rights, but they have fewer or weaker rights than humans. (What rights do non-human animals have? Why?)