Cedric Sueur | Université de Strasbourg (original) (raw)

European Federation of Animal Science Newsletter, 2019

Introduced by Ryder in 1970 1 , "speciesism" is defined as a form of discrimination based on spec... more Introduced by Ryder in 1970 1 , "speciesism" is defined as a form of discrimination based on species. This concept echoes racism and sexism. First formulated to show the superiority (i.e., the superior rights) that humans attribute to themselves compared to other animals, speciesism then took on board the differences that people attribute to other species. These species differences are based on multiple criteria such as body size, culture, proximity, utility. Whilst we mostly do not like invertebrates compared to vertebrates, we still have preferences inside this taxon, as we love bees but hate wasps 2. Another instance is based on food culture. It is difficult, and even impossible, for Europeans to eat dogs, yet they eat pork. However, these two species are comparable at multiple levels such as body size, longevity or intelligence. Developing these ideas, Peter Singer 3 questions the consideration humans should give to animals as well as the criteria that could assess whether one species should prevail over another one. Peter Singer stipulated that "all animals are equal". This is not a factual equality between animals, human included, but an equality based on rights. Indeed, humans are not factual equals among themselves, they differ in several ways, but we treat them in the same way and give them the same rights. Peter Singer is not only talking here about skin color, sexual orientation or cultural difference and body size between humans, he is talking about real human differences, for example handicapped or injured persons. These persons, despite lacking sensory awareness and consciousness, and no longer suffering continue to have the same rights as other humans. Peter Singer then asks why humans should not behave in the same way with other animals. Peter Singer's views on equal consideration Even if Peter Singer argues for an animal equality, he differentiates between equal consideration based on interests and equality of treatment or equality of lives. Indeed, animals do not all have the same interests. It is a Simple fact that a bird has an interest in flying whilst a fish has an interest in swimming. However, all animals, or at least all vertebrates, have an interest in not suffering. Following this principle, if a mouse suffers or feels pain as strongly as a human feels it, why should we make painful biomedical experiments on this mouse whilst we would not use humans for the same purpose? This is how Peter Singer defines equal consideration of interests. Equal consideration of interests (such as not suffering) is not the same as equality of lives for animal philosophers. Peter Singer suggests that the life of an animal which is self-aware, capable of complex thinking, of a theory of mind (the ability to attribute mental states-beliefs, intents, emotions, knowledge-to oneself and to others), to think about the future and to communicate, etc., is more valuable than the life of an animal without all these capacities. Peter Singer gives the argument of marginal cases. Think about a comatose human, who will never regain consciousness, who feels no pain and who unfortunately will do nothing more in his or her lifetime: why should one not do biomedical experiments on this person instead of on a conscious and sensitive macaque? Here Peter Singer does not encourage biomedical experiments on comatose humans but wants to illustrate the moral schizophrenia of humankind and to define