Embedded Files
ANIMAL: any living creature, including man
The concept of speciesism, which refers to the treatment and moral regard of one species as more important than another, has been long debated. The granting of greater rights to a certain group of species over another occurs across different contexts. Most human beings consider themselves to be superior, both in ability and moral consideration, to the nonhuman animal. In addition, the authority we have asserted over the natural world allows us to dictate what species of nonhuman animals possess the most value. We set the standard - cows are food, and dogs are not.
Source: Oxford English Dictionary
content warning: animal harm
There was never a time where my family didn't own a dog – more specifically, dogs that were designated to remain outdoors. Looking into the backyard at the pets from the comfort of my living room always incited a feeling of discomfort, which I could never remedy as a child who ultimately had no decisive authority. It is not my intention to suggest that outdoor dogs cannot live full, happy lives (I would like to think that my family's pets did), but there is a certain connection you form with an animal that only occurs when they live side by side with you, following you around in the kitchen and cuddling with you as a movie plays. It wasn't until I got my own puppy, a small, wide-eyed beagle named Uno, that I truly understood what it was like to form a bond with an animal. I have and continue to be surprised by the level of friendship and care that I have been able to develop with a nonspeaking, nonhuman being. Upon this year-long study of the relationship between humans and animals, I have been challenged with new ways of viewing the connection I hold to not only my dog companion, but to the world filled with dynamic beings all around me.
It was heartbreaking to find out that beagles, due to their docile and friendly nature, are the top dog breed used in experimental animal research. Fully aware of the sentience that is held by my own puppy and all other nonhuman beings alike, I was extremely troubled by the fact that approximately 70,000 to 75,000 dogs are used for research each year, most of which are beagles. Every time I come across a photo of a beagle who is caged, I keep thinking how shameful it is. As someone who consumes animal products, I have been challenged by our approach to animal ethics. I continue to think back to Uno. How can I grapple with the decision that his sentience– let alone, my own– is superior to that of another living being? If I can recognize his subjecthood and unique forms of communication, shouldn't the moral consciousness I have for him be extended to all living, nonhuman beings who possess the same qualities? What I intend to explore is how speciesism has developed and remains prevalent within our society, specifically as it relates to domestic pets.
Dogs vs. Other Species in the Legal System
Dogs vs. Other Species in the Legal System
Due to their lack of speech and inability to engage in the practice of justice, no animal has natural rights, which subsequently becomes the framework for their legal status. Those who argue that animal rights are not a necessity assert that nonhuman beings do not need to be equal to mankind in the eyes of the justice in order to be protected. They separate legal consideration from moral consideration - humans have a duty to care for other living creatures who are viewed as vulnerable and subordinate. This perspective is rooted in the idea that man retains ultimate authority over the natural world, and therefore has the ability to set the standards for the welfare of other living beings. However, just as the principal idea of speciesism is present within this anthropocentric perspective, it is also embedded in our legal system, where certain animals are held in higher regards than others in terms of their protection and expected quality of treatment.
Despite their domesticity or companionship, dogs, as well as other animals, are bound to an existence as living property. Because of this, any harm done to the animal (in addition to any harm they may cause) is treated in a court of law in the same manner as a piece of furniture or any other material item. Owners are entirely responsible for their pets. They can be found guilty of criminal charges if the animal causes bodily harm to another being (CA Penal Code 399). Similarly, an individual can be charged with animal cruelty or property damage if they kill or injure domesticated animals such as dogs or cats under unreasonable circumstances. Canines are entirely devoid of autonomy under the law, which considers the idea that they are ownable before their proven sentience. Still, U.S. law holds the welfare of domesticated, companion animals to a higher standard in comparison to other nonhuman beings.
The U.S. Animal Welfare Act (1966) is regarded as the minimal standard for the treatment of animals in research, sale, and display. The regulations, however, exclude key groups that are often the victims of animal consumption practices such as rats, mice, birds, horses, and animals used for agriculture. These same animals are left out of USDA Research Numbers that detail the amount of animals used for experimental purposes, which is estimated at about 60-100 million when these groups are included— a 58.72 million difference from when they are not (Donaldson). These are the animal species that are typically considered either pests or food, the lowest of statuses that living creatures may hold, which is demonstrated by the government's disregard for their inclusion in data that speaks towards their service to human life. Dogs are among the 8 species that are given an individual category in the Annual Laboratory Usage Report provided by the USDA, most of which are domesticated animals. Nevertheless, the U.S. Animal Welfare Act does not contain regulations for the research that is performed on animals. In fact, animal law often draws the boundary for cruelty against nonhuman beings when it comes to the practices that serve mankind, even for dogs.
Made to Serve
Made to Serve
The subordination of the nonhuman animal is an idea that is heavily ingrained within society, dating all the way back to Classical Western viewpoints. In the Book of Genesis, it is established that man has dominion over the natural world as he is crafted in God's likeness and is granted to power to name all living beings. Animals were endowed by the Creator for the purposes of man. In 4th c. BCE, Aristotle established a hierarchy of souls— the nutritive, sensible, and rational— and designated anthropos (man, not including the woman or the slave), as the only being who is possessive of the ability to reason. All other living beings, particularly nonhuman animals who lacked speech and rational capacities, were designated to serve man in accordance to what Aristotle proclaimed to be a natural hierarchy. The ideas of the famous Greek philosopher would go on to influence the attitudes concerning animals all around the Western hemisphere. With the birth of the scientific method, Descartes used evidence from vivisections to create the concept of the "animal machine," in which nonhuman beings possessed a sort of mechanical sensation but no feeling or judgement. This would not only become the justification for a lack of human obligation towards animals (in fact, it was the opposite), but Descartes' vivisections would begin a longstanding practice of using animals for human innovations and research.
Although the law contains protections for domesticated and captive animals, these safeguards end when animal behavior is at odds with human interest. Dogs who are proven to be a nuisance to food production are permitted to be killed, specifically if they trespass and are "found in the act of killing, wounding, or persistently pursuing or worrying livestock or poultry" (CA Penal Code 31102). This law is rooted in the idea that animals are under the authority of mankind, and moral consideration is shifted if they are found to be out of line with human standards. In research, dogs are utilized largely for pharmaceutical testing and biomedical research, despite it having been proven that animals may be inadequate subjects in terms of whether these treatments will have an effect on human beings. A majority of dogs used in research are designed to be lab animals from birth, and may even undergo a devocalization surgery so that they may be as docile and non-disruptive as possible. In instances where animals are designated to serve humans for advancement and sustainment instead of companionship, they are rid of all agency, forced to be the "machines" that Descartes declared them to be.
The Case Against Speciesism
The Case Against Speciesism
Australian philosopher Peter Singer popularized the term 'speciesism' in his utilitarian approach to animal ethics, in which he argues that animals deserve moral consideration based on their sentiency. Within his work, Singer often refutes claims that animals have an inferior moral status in comparison to humans on the basis of several factors, such as cognitive abilities. To this specific argument, Singer asserts that the cognitive capacities of animal species such as dogs, birds, and pigs have been proven to be level with that a human (even above, in some cases). His perspective stems from the concept of utilitarianism, and he maintains that the pleasures of the majority group should not override the fundamental pleasures of another. In other words, the moral consideration of animal's capacity to think and feel should not be comprised for the sake of humanity.
The philosopher purposefully modeled the idea of speciesism after other discriminatory issues such as racism or sexism because the value of human lives and moral status over that of animals is inherently a prejudicial practice. Lucius Caviola, a researcher who studies human morality, demonstrated that speciesism is a psychological construct similar to racism and sexism. This line of research was conducted in efforts to to test whether philosophical notions such as Singer's are correct. They found a positive relationship between speciesism and other prejudicial practices, meaning that people who demonstrated racist, sexist, or homophobic tendencies, are also likely to display actions that are motivated by speciesism. Caviola and his team also found that those who received high scores on the Speciesism Scale were "more willing to help human beings than to help animals, and they prejudicially favor “superior” animals over “inferior” animals." These results demonstrate how a discriminatory viewpoint towards animals has developed in the same manner that man has created social hierarchies, which reflects the human tendency for the assertion of superiority in the attempt to place ourselves in the context of the natural world of which we are derived. Speciesism is prevalent today, and it is important that we recognize how it reveals itself within our individual practices.
Conclusion and Reflection
Conclusion and Reflection
My curiosity towards speciesism began with my need to place myself in relation to the animal world. I wanted to further understand the consideration of my dog companion's sentience in comparison to the animals who serve me in my everyday life in various ways. What I realized, however, is that by believing that domesticated pets may benefit from speciesism, I was trivializing the ways in which they are victims of it as well. According to the Anti-speciesist Action, "speciesism is not about loving nonhumans from certain species and violently exploiting others, it is the refusal to see people from other species as persons and instead valuing them only for their function." What I've learned about speciesism thus far has transformed my perspective about how humans exploit animals for societal needs— for their abilities, companionship, or food. Throughout this analysis, I wanted to demonstrate hows dogs are held in higher moral regard under certain circumstances in comparison to other animals; however, this consideration falters the moment they become a being of function for man. All living beings deserve respect, especially nonhuman animals who have the ability to create loving connections and communicate in special forms. Moving forward, I hope to extend this respect beyond my dog companion by being conscious about my consumption practices. I have gained a greater appreciation for the animal world and hope to be more mindful of how they are treated within society so that I may engage with ethical companies. As nonhuman animals are placed under the subordination of humankind, it is up to us, the beings who are said to possess reason and morality according to Western philosophy, to recognize the value of all living creatures and extend to them an equal moral status.
SOURCES
Caviola, Lucius. “Speciesism: How We Privilege Certain Animals Over Others.” Society for Personality and Social Psychology,
https://www.spsp.org/newscenter/blog/caviola-speciesism.
Caviola, Lucius, Jim A. C. Everett, and Nadira S. Faber. "The Moral Standing of Animals: Towards a Psychology of Speciesism." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol. 116, no. 6, 2019, pp. 1011-1029. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/moral-standing-animals-towards-
psychology/docview/2011637427/se-2?accountid=14509, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000182.
“Dogs in Research.” National Anti-Vivisection Society, https://navs.org/learn-more/dogs-in-research/.
Singer, Peter. "Speciesism and moral status." Metaphilosophy 40.3‐4 (2009): 567-581.
“The Problem with Dog Analogies in Antispeciesism” ANTI-SPECIESIST ACTION, https://antispeciesistaction.com/blog/dog-analogies-and-speciesism
Page updated
Report abuse