Speciesism - a Moral Obligation

Max Bauer

Phil 121

Paper 1

Speciesism is a "prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of the members of other species." (Singer) Often many people argue against speciesism by claiming similarities to other bigotry related theories such as racism and Nazism. Many philosophers argue that group membership alone does not grant moral consideration or moral relevance. However Michael Barilan claims, "Spesiecism, the recognition of rights on the basis of group membership rather than solely on the basis of moral consideration at the level of the individual creature, embodies this assertion but is often described as a variant of nazi racism." (Barilan). Speciesism rather may be used as a precondition to justice and for moral consideration.

Many philosophers believe, "moral considerability must be based solely on a morally relevant trait or traits." (Barilan). This shuns the idea that more membership of a species or group can be deemed a trait. Barilan brings a complex yet fitting argument to these philosophers. "M" is a set of attributes that are morally considerable. If attribute M is lacking in a creature known to be human and a creature known to be non-human, they are both not morally considerable. This means they contain no morals and are not bound to moral law. According to non-speciesism, any creature M-negative will not be morally considerable and any creature M-positive will be morally considerable. Non- speciesism ultimately strips certain humans that lack attribute M of their moral considerability based on their lack of a character trait. Suppose all humans contained attribute M deeming humans morally considerable. "If M positive creatures do not have M negative creatures to eat and to exploit, M positive creatures will have to eat and exploit other M positive creatures." If the moral considerable do not have creatures that are not morally considerable, then they will feed off of and exploit other morally considerable people deeming them immoral. However, we must present the morally considerable species with a species that is not morally considerable in order to keep the justice and balance of the world. As often speceisists feel that humans have the right to eat and exploit other species to preserve and protect the human species. For those who claim eating and exploiting creatures that are M negative are immoral are incorrect. Based on the grounds of morality, if a creature is not morally considerable then there are no moral implication to be violated. Without any moral conditions established it is impossible to act immorally, whether it be eating it or exploiting it. Furthermore, it is certainly immoral to eat and exploit M positive creatures. Thus, we need speciesism to instill a moral considerability to creatures.

Another

...