David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (3):243-266 (2010)
In spite of the considerable literature nowadays existing on the issue of the moral exclusion of nonhuman animals, there is still work to be done concerning the characterization of the conceptual framework with which this question can be appraised. This paper intends to tackle this task. It starts by defining speciesism as the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species. It then clarifies some common misunderstandings concerning what this means. Next, it rejects the idea that there are different kinds of speciesism. Such an idea may result from confusion because there are (1) different ways in which speciesism can be defended; and (2) different speciesist positions, that is, different positions that assume speciesism among their premises. Depending on whether or not these views assume other criteria for moral consideration apart from speciesism, they can be combined or simple speciesist positions. But speciesism remains in all cases the same idea. Finally, the paper examines the concept of anthropocentrism, the disadvantageous treatment or consideration of those who are not members of the human species. This notion must be conceptually distinguished from speciesism and from misothery (aversion to nonhuman animals). Anthropocentrism is shown to be refuted because it either commits a petitio principia fallacy or it falls prey to two arguments: the argument from species overlap (widely but misleadingly known as “argument from marginal cases”) and the argument from relevance. This rebuttal identifies anthropocentrism as a speciesist view.
|Keywords||Anthropocentrism Argument from Relevance Argument from Species Overlap Discrimination Misothery Speciesism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
Marc Bekoff (1997). Deep Ethology, Animal Rights, and the Great Ape/Animal Project: Resisting Speciesism and Expanding the Community of Equals. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 10 (3):269-296.
Mark Bernstein (2004). Neo-Speciesism. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (3):380–390.
Keith Burgess-Jackson (1998). Doing Right by Our Animal Companions. Journal of Ethics 2 (2):159-185.
Peter Carruthers (1992). The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Stijn Bruers (2013). Speciesism as a Moral Heuristic. Philosophia 41 (2):489-501.
Similar books and articles
Arthur Zucker (1996). Ferré: Organicistic Connectedness—But Still Speciesistic. Ethics and the Environment 1 (2):185 - 190.
Tzachi Zamir (2006). Is Speciesism Opposed to Liberationism? Philosophia 34 (4):465-475.
Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks (1996). The Origin of Speciesism. Philosophy 71 (275):41-.
Marc Bekoff & Lofe Gruen (1993). Animal Welfare and Individual Characteristics: A Conversation Against Speciesism. Ethics and Behavior 3 (2):163 – 175.
Colette Sciberras (2008). Buddhism and Speciesism: On the Misapplication of Western Concepts to Buddhist Beliefs. Journal of Buddhist Ethics 15:215-240.
Julia Tanner (2012). Anthropocentrism. In Craig W. Allin (ed.), Encyclopedia of Environmental Issues.
Bob Corbett, Bonnie Steinbock Comments and on and Criticisms of Peter Singer's "Speciesism" Argument.
Roger Wertheimer (2007). The Relevance of Speciesism to Life Sciences Practices. In Fred Adams (ed.), Ethics and the Life Sciences. Philosophy Document Center. 27-38.
Added to index2009-08-22
Total downloads113 ( #7,056 of 1,088,810 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #12,169 of 1,088,810 )
How can I increase my downloads?