Speciesism-I don't buy it
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Posted 6/16/09 , edited 6/16/09
The term Speciesism

The term Speciesism was coined by Richard D. Ryder, popularized by Peter Singer, and is used to denote prejudice based on the physical differences accompanying variant species membership. In other words, I could say that all members of the human species are superior to leoline animals, bovine animals, vulpine animals, lupine animals, swine, saurian animals, avian animals, and in fact anything that doesn’t have our unique genetic signature. This would make me a specieist, and according to Peter Singer speciesism is present all throughout human society. Anybody who isn’t a cannibal but eats meat and doesn’t consider it morally reprehensible is, according to Peter Singer and Richard D. Ryder, guilty of speciesism.

Here’s where I’m going to contradict these two individuals. Abortion, my friends, is considered by most individuals-according to gallop polls-to be acceptable in most circumstances, with only a few exceptions for very late term abortions and the likes:

The interesting aspect of this is that even prenatal human specimens are still members of the human species. We simply argue that they’re not as morally significant as postnatal members of our species because they’re not a part of the human culture and are therefore not people. In other words, it is culture that makes us superior, not physical differences. It is culture, and it is the possession of higher cognition. I guarantee you that if somebody discovered a dolphin capable of subjective thought and human level sentience people would protect it with the same level of fervor, probably more, as they protect the life of any other person.

In fantasy novels and movies we event various species of sentient entities: we create Demi-deities, Elves, Dwarves, giant-but we still sympathies with them as people. They have culture, they have sentience, and they’re people even though they’re not human. We still make that connection. The Terminator movies are famous for touching on this distinction. Even though the Governator is made of metal, he’s still a person; we still get feel bad when he dies. I-Robot was very clear with its message, even though he was made of metal the robot was a person and it was morally incorrect to kill it. The other robots, which weren’t self aware or intelligent on the human level, were disposable.

This has been in our culture since the time of the ancient Egyptians. Enkidu, a monster made of beast but capable of human thought, is treated like a tragic hero in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Greeks did this with Nymphs, the Norse with their various inventions, the Irish with their folklore on brownies and Fairies and sprites.

It’s not about physical differences or genetic signatures. It’s about culture. This is still of a form of bigotry, I agree, but it’s not speciesism.

Maybe I defined it wrong? Nope, here you go, see for yourself-straight from the guy who coined it.
Posted 6/16/09 , edited 6/16/09
it sounds stupid if you ask me...
54331 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Under your skin.
Posted 6/16/09 , edited 6/16/09
2669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Right there
Posted 6/17/09 , edited 6/18/09
i think that's why it seems ok to kill and experiment on animals but not on humans..... i mean we know they suffer but they can't bitch at you, all they do is shake and make noises that we don't fully understand.... now when it is an actual person who you can relate with ....

It's like making fun of foreign and retarded people... (don't know....don't care that much .......might as well take advantage of it since its not me)

..... i just explained my theory ok? THEORY its not by any means what i consider ok....
You must be logged in to post.