Species discrimination (syn. speciesism) is the infringement of the interests or rights of one species by another, based on the belief in their own superiority. The concept and the appropriate philosophical concept emerged and were developed in the works of philosophers Richard Ryder and Peter Singer. In accordance with this concept, the contemporary human society carries out such discrimination against animals. In accordance with this philosophy, the presumption of human superiority over other species are unjustified.
There are two directions of upholding the rights of animals. Utilitarians repeat after Bentham that moral beings deserve attention because of the sensitivity, but not due to the reason. All sensitive beings can feel pain and therefore may have rights and interests. The neglect of these interests leads to the suffering.
Utilitarianism is behind the satisfaction of interests, whether they are the interests of a human or animal. In some cases, human interests are clearly distinguished, for example, exactly people, not pigs or mice, need to go to schools. But if both pig and man experience the pain, and there is a pain reliever for one, it can arise a dilemma – to whom this facility should be given. Utilitarians, in general, allow experimentation on animals, for example, if it will help people to find salvation from AIDS. However, utilitarians also ‘stand’ for the experimentation among the mental retardation children if it will bring the benefit.
Another type of ensuring the rights of animals is deontological. The ethics of this type equates the rights of individuals and the rights of animals. These rights are inalienable and can not be manipulated by them. Deontological direction is the more radical direction. Peter Singer believes that this direction ‘requires more altruism than any other liberation movement, since the animals are not able to claim for the exemption for themselves or to protest against their exploitation by voting, demonstrations or bombs. Is a person ready for a genuine altruism?’
In the chapter ‘Equality for animals?’ the philosopher says about the immorality of racism, sexism, putting the term ‘speciesism’ on a par with such concepts. The term ‘speciesism’ refers to the advantage of one species over other living beings, in this case, the advantage of people over non-people. P. Singer believes that we live in a time of the radical speciesism, when even the trivial interests of the people are more important than the vital interests of other creatures. Our concern for others should not depend on what abilities are inherent for them (Singer).
Defending the rights of animals, Singer says, that they have identical to human nervous system. ‘And their reactions in response to pain are remarkably similar to ours, although they do not have enough (as far as we know) the philosophical and moral tones. The emotional element is also very obvious, mainly in the form of fear and anger’ (Singer).
However, people who experience pain, have one distinguishing mark, which do not have animals - developed speech. But here as the example, P. Singer speaks about the human infant is six months old as about the analogy - if it can not speak, it does not mean that it does not feel pain and can not suffer (Singer).
Thus, if the old movement to protect animals (XIX - mid XX century) had its idea of the condemnation of human cruelty, then for a new movement Singer proposed the legal aspect of the relationship between man and natural species. He finds it necessary to extend the great principles of liberty, equality and fraternity among animals too that is to recognize the animals’ natural rights to life, liberty and happiness.
Works Cited
Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print.
