What does speciest mean. Alternative spelling of speciesist. (noun).
Richard D. Ryder coined the term “speciesism” in The term speciesism, and the argument that it is a prejudice, first appeared in in a privately printed pamphlet written by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder was a member of a group of academics in Oxford , England, the nascent animal rights community, now known as the Oxford Group.
One of the group’s activities was distributing pamphlets about areas of concern; the pamphlet titled “Speciesism” was written to protest against animal experimentation. If all organisms are on one physical continuum, then we should also be on the same moral continuum. Ryder wrote: In as much as both “race” and “species” are vague terms used in the classification of living creatures according, largely, to physical appearance, an analogy can be made between them. Similarly, it may come to pass that enlightened minds may one day abhor “speciesism” as much as they now detest “racism.
If it is accepted as morally wrong to deliberately inflict suffering upon innocent human creatures, then it is only logical to also regard it as wrong to inflict suffering on innocent individuals of other species. The time has come to act upon this logic.
Salt in his book Animals’ Rights argued against the “great gulf” between humans and other animals, claiming that we should recognize the “common bond of humanity that unites all living beings in one universal brotherhood”. Howard Moore asserted that a “provincialist” attitude towards other animals leads humans to mistreat them and compared the denial of an ethical connection between humans and animals to the “denial of ethical relations by a tribe, people, or race of human beings to the rest of the human world.
We never take the time to put ourselves in the places of our victims. Singer had known Ryder from his own time as a graduate philosophy student at Oxford. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favouring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species.
The pattern is identical in each case. Any position that allows similar cases to be treated in a dissimilar fashion fails to qualify as an acceptable moral theory. The term caught on; Singer wrote that it was an awkward word but that he could not think of a better one. It became an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary in , defined as “discrimination against or exploitation of animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind’s superiority.
Species membership, she writes, is ipso facto moral membership. The paradigm has an inclusive side all human beings deserve equal protection and an exclusive one only human beings have that status. They are offended by the suggestion that they treat people whom they do not think of as human as if they were human. When utilitarians tell them that all pleasures and pains felt by members of our biological species are equally relevant to moral deliberation, or when Kantians tell them that the ability to engage in such deliberation is sufficient for membership in the moral community, they are incredulous.
They rejoin that these philosophers seem oblivious to blatantly obvious moral distinctions, distinctions that any decent person will draw. Nonhumans do possess some moral status in many societies, but it generally extends only to protection against what Cavalieri calls “wanton cruelty”.
According to the argument from marginal cases , if infants, the senile, the comatose, and the cognitively disabled marginal-case human beings have a certain moral status, then nonhuman animals must be awarded that status too since there is no morally relevant ability that the marginal-case humans have that nonhumans lack. American legal scholar Steven M. Wise states that speciesism is a bias as arbitrary as any other. He cites the philosopher R.
Frey — , a leading animal rights critic, who wrote in that, if forced to choose between abandoning experiments on animals and allowing experiments on “marginal-case” humans, he would choose the latter, “not because I begin a monster and end up choosing the monstrous, but because I cannot think of anything at all compelling that cedes all human life of any quality greater value than animal life of any quality.
He compares former racist attitudes and assumptions to their present-day speciesist counterparts. In the chapter “The one true tree of life” in The Blind Watchmaker, he states that it is not only zoological taxonomy that is saved from awkward ambiguity by the extinction of intermediate forms but also human ethics and law.
Dawkins states that what he calls the “discontinuous mind” is ubiquitous, dividing the world into units that reflect nothing but our use of language, and animals into discontinuous species:  The director of a zoo is entitled to “put down” a chimpanzee that is surplus to requirements, while any suggestion that he might “put down” a redundant keeper or ticket-seller would be greeted with howls of incredulous outrage.
The chimpanzee is the property of the zoo. Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody’s property, yet the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible rationale at all.
The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.
Where lots of people felt morally uneasy about slavery but went along with it because the whole economy of the South depended upon slavery. Michael Barilan, an Israeli physician, states that speciesism is not the same thing as Nazi racism , because the latter extolled the abuser and condemned the weaker and the abused. He describes speciesism as the recognition of rights on the basis of group membership, rather than solely on the basis of moral considerations.
Thus, rocks and rivers and houses have no interests and no rights of their own. This does not mean, of course, that they are not of value to us, and to many other painients, including those who need them as habitats and who would suffer without them. Between people and animals, he states, there are significant differences; his view is that animals do not qualify for Kantian personhood, and as such have no rights.
Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, “We’re sentient beings too! Conversely, when it comes to how animals should be treated by humans, Williams observed that it is only possible for humans to discuss that question.
Williams observed that being a human being is often used as an argument against discrimination on the grounds of race or sex, whereas racism and sexism are seldom deployed to counter discrimination. Williams then states that the only way to resolve this would be by arguing that these properties are “simply better” but in that case, one would need to justify why these properties are better if not because of human attachment to them.
Grau states that to claim these are simply better properties would require the existence of an impartial observer, an “enchanted picture of the universe”, to state them to be so. Thus Grau states that such properties have no greater justification as criteria for moral status than being a member of a species does.
Grau also states that even if such an impartial perspective existed, it still wouldn’t necessarily be against speciesism, since it is entirely possible that there could be reasons given by an impartial observer for humans to care about humanity.
Grau then further observes that if an impartial observer existed and valued only minimalizing suffering, it would likely be overcome with horror at the suffering of all individuals and would rather have humanity annihilate the planet than allow it to continue.
Grau thus concludes that those endorsing the idea of deriving values from an impartial observer do not seem to have seriously considered the conclusions of such an idea. To demand that man defer to the ‘rights’ of other species is to deprive man himself of the right to life. This is ‘other-ism,’ i. Maclean thus suggests that morality only makes sense under human relations, with the further one gets from it the less it can be applied.
Scruton argues that if animals have rights, then they also have duties, which animals would routinely violate, such as by breaking laws or killing other animals. He accuses anti-speciesism advocates of “pre-scientific” anthropomorphism , attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter -like, where “only man is vile. Wells also states that the capacity to suffer, Singer’s criteria for moral status, is one of degree rather than absolute categories; Wells observes that Singer denies moral status to plants on the grounds they cannot subjectively feel anything even though they react to stimuli , yet Wells alleges there is no indication that non-human animals feel pain and suffering the way humans do.
John Tuohey, founder of the Providence Center for Health Care Ethics, writes that the logic behind the anti-speciesism critique is flawed, and that, although the animal rights movement in the United States has been influential in slowing animal experimentation, and in some cases halting particular studies, no one has offered a compelling argument for species equality.
They state that this special status conveys special rights , such as the right to life , and also unique responsibilities, such as stewardship of the environment. This belief in human exceptionalism is often rooted in the Abrahamic religions , such as the Book of Genesis “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
Proverbs says that “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel. Studies have found that speciesism is a stable construct that differs amongst personalities and correlates with other variables.
Moderate positive correlations were found with social dominance orientation and sexism. Research suggests laypeople do indeed tend to infer similar personality traits and beliefs from a speciesist that they would from a racist, sexist or homophobe. However, it is not clear if there is a link between speciesism and non-traditional forms of prejudice such as negative attitudes towards the overweight or towards Christians.
It provided the right to incriminate and enforce protection with regards to animal cruelty. The act, which has since been revised to suit modern cases state by state, originally addressed such things as animal neglect, abandonment, torture, fighting, transport, impound standards and licensing standards. Bills such as Humane Slaughter Act , which was created to alleviate some of the suffering felt by livestock during slaughter, was passed in Johnson , was designed to put much stricter regulations and supervisions on the handling of animals used in laboratory experimentation and exhibition but has since been amended and expanded.
Ryder and Peter Singer would later popularize in the s and s. Great ape personhood[ edit ] Further information: Great ape personhood and Great Ape Project Great ape personhood is the idea that the attributes of nonhuman great apes are such that their sentience and personhood should be recognized by the law, rather than simply protecting them as a group under animal cruelty legislation.
Awarding personhood to nonhuman primates would require that their individual interests be taken into account.
Speciest meaning Alternative spelling of speciesist.
One who is wilfully ignorant and or has an unfounded hatred or fear of space. Invented by DeadMau5.
What does speciest mean? Alternative spelling of speciesist. (noun)
ProviderPortal. A fast, easy way to access AIM Specialty Health In a busy practice like yours, you need to deliver quality, appropriate care efficiently to your patients.
Train Sim World 2: Southeastern High Speed: London St Pancras – Faversham Route Add-On
specist A person who is prejudiced to a certain species. "Man, Sloppy was being such a specist, he was totally kicking that sloth’s ass just coz he isn’t a turtle." by Sloppy Sailor March 29, 2006
France, 5th of April 2020 The COVID-19 crisis by Nigel Franks – Read more here. France, 2 January 2020 Fires in Australia, speciesism and climate change – Read more here. France, 1 January 2020 We wish you all a very HAPPY and HEALTHY 2020 – Read more here. France, 20 December 2019 We are not from another planet, we are from the future, part 2 – Read more here