Site map | Search

Speciesism vs. Inalienable Rights

Speciesism

I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other...

Charles Darwin
The Origin of Species

Speciesism is the act of treating individuals according to the species to which they belong, rather than according to the characteristics they possess, such as the ability to suffer. Most people who consciously support the exploitation of nonhuman animals are speciesist.

In the past, there have been a number of definitions of what constitutes a different species. Today it is defined genetically. To the defenders of speciesism who believe that only humans have rights, this raises the following questions:

• Why should rights be granted on the basis of genes?
• If rights should be based on genes, why should the line be drawn at species rather than at race, order, phylum, or kingdom?
• Like genes that determine one’s eye color, etc., which gene(s) determines rights?

Basing rights on species is no more rational than basing rights on the pigmentation of skin or on gender (which are also determined genetically).

Animals whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equals.

Charles Darwin
Metaphysics, Materialism, and the Evolution of Mind

Animal Rights

As a society, we recognize the basic right to our lives and bodies. We consider these rights inalienable, meaning that no one can take them away.

Society grants humans the right to our lives because of our strong desire to avoid death, and our fear when our lives are threatened. We are granted control over our own bodies because we suffer pain when our bodies are mutilated, and boredom and frustration when caged for long periods of time. Since we understand how horrible these sorts of suffering are, we protect humans from being caged, killed, or mutilated. As an “enlightened” society, we condemn those who would violate these rights of other humans.

All the arguments to prove human superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals.

Peter Singer
Author of Animal Liberation

Based on common physiology and behavior, it is safe to say that cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals we raise to eat also experience fear when their lives are threatened, pain when their bodies are mutilated, and boredom and frustration when caged for long periods of time. Nonhuman animals show they value their lives and freedom by their struggles against being caged, mutilated, and killed. Depriving them of life or freedom harms them in many of the same ways that humans are harmed when deprived of life or freedom.

Since animals can feel pain and desire to live as we do, shouldn’t they be recognized as worthy of inherent rights?

Shouldn’t they be given protection for their lives and bodies?

As individuals capable of acting morally, how can we justify their continued exploitation and slaughter?

Beyond Might Makes Right, a longer essay on animal rights, is available as part of our Vegan Advocacy booklet. A Theory of Ethics is a first-principle philosophy. Animal Liberation, the classic book by Peter Singer is also available from Vegan Outreach; Singer's Practical Ethics (2nd Edition) is also an excellent resource.