(Singer, 76, second full paragraph)
In discussing animal liberation, Singer makes mention of many philosophers and others who have argued about the humanity of using animals for experiments. As humans, we don't think about doing tests on human subjects because it would be cruel and inhumane. Additionally, it isnt allowed and there are numerous laws against testing on humans. The only exception to the rule would be drug trials but that is a separate issue and the argument for or against that can take on many identities. Singers mentions that we would never attempt to experiment on a human infant because we consider them to be one of us, therefore our willingness and ease with which we experiment on animals is discrimination. It's because there is a disconnect and people do not view it in the same light. This is speciesism in action. Unless the practice of animal experimentation goes away speciesism will continue to exist. Taking this one step further, killing animals is yet another display of specisism. This ties into the response that i wrote about last night to many people's prompts. Its hard to argue that eating animals is moral in any way but it is also hard to say that it is immoral. With that said the way the animals are put into small spaces and literally piled on top of each other prior to being slaughtered is inhumane. Reading Singer's article really brought my attention to how much speciesism exists. I was aware of what it was but i never thought that just the act of eating an animal is an example of it. And honestly it really is, it is a pure form of discrimination but just not in the typical way that we view discrimination. Because typically in the human race we view discrimination as an act done unto others (humans) rather than an animal.
response to: http://parenethical.com/phil149win12/lecture-04prompt-04-introduction-to-animal-rights-and-liberation/
I did agree with your point that people tend to exhibit specieist beliefs and many have a disconnect between the value of a human and the value of an animal (if there is one), which suggests that people are also anthropocentric. I think, though, that just by ending animal testing, that is not the last of discrimination between people and animals. There are many other forms such as eating animal meat, and keeping animals as pets. Even though I feel like specieism is often wrong, it is how we have been able to survive and thrive throughout history to make it to where we are today.
ReplyDeleteWell, for drug trials, humans usually voluntarily choose to do them. Animals are unable to do so because as far as we know, they lack the intellectual capacity to make this choice. I do believe specieism has some benefits though. According to your definition, eating animals counts as specieism. However, the diet of early humans consisted greatly of animals. It is clear that a single human would most likely not have be unable to defeat a bear. However, if several humans joined together as a species and used their intellect, their chances of survival would have greatly increased.
ReplyDeleteGood post. People really are speciesists but I'm also really surprised that you don't believe human testing in forms other than drug trials exist. Experimental surgeries are a good example and in fact if you take any psychology courses at Binghamton you will have to volunteer x number of hours (it changes depending on the course) as a human test subject in the psychology labs. Human testing is prevalent in many places in our society today. My Chem 108 class was used to test the effectiveness of a new learning software just last spring and I love getting free trial sizes of new shampoos from my favorite brands before they hit markets. I also find it very telling that you describe piling animals in close quarters as very inhumane because they are not human and some animals prefer being kept close to others of their species. (pack mentality, etc)Kittens,puppies and baby chicks are good examples of animals that pile together by choice and will in fact smother the smallest ones if not manually separated.
ReplyDelete