Speciesism and Speciescentrism
نویسندگان
چکیده
Abstract The term ‘speciesism’ was once coined to name discrimination against nonhuman animals (Ryder 1975) as well the bias that such expresses (Singer 2009 [1975]). It has sparked a debate on criteria for being morally considerable and relative significance of human animals’ interests. Many defenses preferential consideration humans have come with denial normative meaning itself (e.g., Cohen 1986, Kagan 2016). In fact, defenders moral relevance species membership their critics alike often used merely descriptive technical classifying positions in ethics. This paper argues this terminological choice severely impoverishes our ethical vocabulary conceptual scheme. obscures common ground among theorists differing views various properties consideration. is overlooked even most treatment one’s fellow members good reason hold notion originally meant be. Two distinct types concepts are involved when differential along lines addressed way, respectively. should be reserved concept kept apart from ‘speciescentrism.’ Attempts redefine speciesism something not wrong by definition shown epistemically harmful same reasons attempts racism sexism way are.
منابع مشابه
Social work and speciesism.
Jane Addams (1940) perhaps the most prominent of the founders of modern social work, describing the impetus to dedicate herself to the welfare of others and develop Hull House, wrote, "We had been to see a bull fight rendered in the most magnificent Spanish style, where greatly to my surprise and horror, I found that I had seen, with comparative indifference, five bulls and many more horses kil...
متن کاملNeo-speciesism.
Speciesists believe that membership in a particular species is morally relevant. Morally relevant properties entitle their possessors to have their interests considered preferentially relative to those individuals who lack that property. Those dispensing consideration incur obligations or, minimally, options, to act with bias. As a matter of fact, all known speciesists are human speciesists, no...
متن کاملSpeciesism Revisited
Do human non-persons have basic rights simply because they are members of a species characterized by personhood? Are we justified if we give IIDral preference to human non-persons over non-human non-persons with equivalent mental capacities, provided that the latter do not belong to a species characterized by personhood? Michael Wreen has argued for this speciesist view in his recent, important...
متن کاملIn Defense of Speciesism
The concept of a right to life has received a great deal of attention recently, chiefly because it figures so prominently in many arguments con~ cerning a wide variety of moral issues. Arguments concerning the morality of abortion, capital punish ment, infanticide, famine relief, and animal consumption and experimenta tion, for instance, frequently invoke th is con cept, so cia rity about i...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
سال: 2021
ISSN: ['1386-2820', '1572-8447']
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-021-10168-6