→In fiction: {{Original research|section|date=March 2010}} |
Hunter2005 (talk | contribs) I appreciate my contribution standing. Moved section to near the end so there isn't a break in the text about real life concerns. As for original research, I saw the tv shows & films, that's it. |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
{{Main|Animal rights and the Holocaust}} |
{{Main|Animal rights and the Holocaust}} |
||
[[David Sztybel]] holds that the treatment of animals can be compared to the [[Holocaust]] in a valid and meaningful way. In his paper ''Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?'' using a thirty-nine-point comparison Sztybel asserts that the comparison is not offensive and that it does not overlook important differences, or ignore supposed affinities between the human abuse of fellow animals, and the Nazi abuse of fellow humans. The comparison of animal treatment and the Holocaust came into the public eye with [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]' "Holocaust on your Plate" exhibit. Sztybel equates the racism of the Nazis with the speciesism inherent in eating meat, or using animal by-products particularly those produced on factory farms.<ref>Sztybel, David ''Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?'' Ethics & the Environment - Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2006, pp. 97-132</ref> However, even among the supports of the concept of speciesism as a critical tool, such comparisons are not always supported. Y. Michael Barilan writes that speciesism is not the same thing as "Nazi racism" because Nazi racism extolled the abuser and condemned the weaker and the abused. He describes speciesism as the recognition of rights on the basis of group membership rather than solely on the basis of moral considerations.<ref>''Speciesism as a precondition to justice'' Y. Michael Barilan, MD, MA. Politics and the Life Sciences Article: pp. 22–33</ref> |
[[David Sztybel]] holds that the treatment of animals can be compared to the [[Holocaust]] in a valid and meaningful way. In his paper ''Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?'' using a thirty-nine-point comparison Sztybel asserts that the comparison is not offensive and that it does not overlook important differences, or ignore supposed affinities between the human abuse of fellow animals, and the Nazi abuse of fellow humans. The comparison of animal treatment and the Holocaust came into the public eye with [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]' "Holocaust on your Plate" exhibit. Sztybel equates the racism of the Nazis with the speciesism inherent in eating meat, or using animal by-products particularly those produced on factory farms.<ref>Sztybel, David ''Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?'' Ethics & the Environment - Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2006, pp. 97-132</ref> However, even among the supports of the concept of speciesism as a critical tool, such comparisons are not always supported. Y. Michael Barilan writes that speciesism is not the same thing as "Nazi racism" because Nazi racism extolled the abuser and condemned the weaker and the abused. He describes speciesism as the recognition of rights on the basis of group membership rather than solely on the basis of moral considerations.<ref>''Speciesism as a precondition to justice'' Y. Michael Barilan, MD, MA. Politics and the Life Sciences Article: pp. 22–33</ref> |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | In science fiction and fantasy, speciesism takes on the idea of superiority via [[Sapience]]. In science fiction, the speciesism tends to take the form of the various Sapience species—which is to say, aliens—in the [[fictional universe]] discriminating against one another. ''[[Babylon 5]]'', for instance, provides ample examples: [[human (Babylon 5)|human]]s [[Anthropocentrism#In fiction|hating]] [[Minbari]], Minbari [[Antihumanism#In fiction|distrusting]] humans, [[Centauri (Babylon 5)|Centauri]] hating [[Narn]]s(and vice-versa). In fantasy, it tends to be among the various "races" of the fictional world. A fairly representative (if flippant) example is [[Terry Pratchett]]'s explanation of speciesism in his [[Discworld]] universe: |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | One salient difference between speciesism in real life and as depicted in science fiction is that the non human species, often from other planets, usually have at least human level intelligence and sapience, actually exceeding humans on occasion. Almost always communications with non human species and humans in sci-fi is as easy as it is between humans. It is just a matter of learning each other's language (and if that is not practical a sophisticated translation device is usually available). Non human species often have highly sophisticated civilizations with their own art and belief systems as well as the ability to build sophisticated spacecraft, at times technologically superior to humans. ''[[Star Trek]]'s'' [[Vulcans]] and the above mentioned Minbari of ''Babylon 5'' are examples. There is also no controversy regarding any potential [[bestiality]] with mating or even [[Hybrid (biology)|hybridizing]] with non human species that have at least human level intelligence. This is possibly due to the fact that such creatures are fictional and when any romance is involved the alien species are often quite human appearing. [[Spock|Commander Spock]], Science officer of the [[Star Trek: The Original Series|original series Star Trek's]] ''[[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)|USS Enterprise]]'' is half Vulcan, half human. [[B'Elanna Torres]], the Chief Engineering Officer Of the ''[[USS Voyager (Star Trek)|USS Voyager]]'' on ''[[Star Trek: Voyager]]'' is half human, half [[Klingon]], ''[[Star Trek: The Next Generation]]'s'' [[Deanna Troi]] is a half human, half [[Betazoid]] (Betazeds are outwardly totally identical to humans); all progeny of the mating between a human and a non human race. There is a also the romance of [[Clark Kent]], aka [[Kal-El]] of Krypton who is Superman and [[Lois Lane]] a human. [[Kryptonian]]s are also virtually physically identical to humans. In the 2006 movie ''[[Superman Returns]]'' it is heavily hinted that Superman and [[Lois Lane]] had a child. In real life there have been no controversy depicting beings such as these or the romance between them and full humans although within the storylines of these fictional depictions prejudice akin to racism are sometimes examined. |
||
⚫ | In contrast there were bestiality concerns in the 2001 remake of ''[[Planet of the Apes (2001 film)|Planet of the Apes]]'' between Ari, a evolved human level intelligent female [[Chimpanzee]] and Capt. Leo Davidson a human astronaut, despite the film's premise of the [[Hominidae|Great Apes]] (which human beings are also classified under) achieving human level intelligence and [[sapience]] and the power of speech.<ref>[http://imaginarycinema.com/apes.html imaginarycinema.com review]</ref> Unlike the completely fictional Vulcans, Klingons, Minbari et. al., chimpanzees do exist in real life albeit not having human level intelligence. A potential love affair between Ari and Leo produced some anxiety. ''Planet of the Apes'' turns speciesism on its head with the Great Apes ruling with "Ape Supremacy", oppressing humans. Like in the original [[Planet of the Apes (1968 film)|1968 film of the same name]] (and the [[Planet of the Apes (novel)|1963 novel]] that both movies are based on), human beings are hunted for sport by the evolved Great Apes and Ari ([[Zira (Planet of the Apes)|Zira]] in the 1968 movie and 1963 book) is a human rights activist (in the same spirit as animal rights activist are in real life) fighting for the a much more charitable treatment of the humans, to be treated like apes. |
||
==Criticism== |
==Criticism== |
||
=== Philosophical === |
=== Philosophical === |
||
Line 71: | Line 58: | ||
Others take a [[secular]] approach, such as pointing to evidence of unusual rapid evolution of the [[human brain]] and the emergence of "exceptional" [[aptitude]]s. As one commentator put it, "Over the course of [[human history]], we have been successful in cultivating our faculties, shaping our development, and impacting upon the wider world in a deliberate fashion, quite distinct from [[evolution|evolutionary processes]].<ref>Starr, Sandy. ''[http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA855.htm What Makes Us Exceptional?]''. Spiked Science</ref> Constance K. Perry asserts that the use of 'non-autonomous' animals instead of humans in risky research can be based on solid moral ground and is not necessarily speciesism.<ref>''A Compassionate Autonomy Alternative to Speciesism'' Constance K. Perry Volume 22, Number 3 / June, 2001 Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics</ref> |
Others take a [[secular]] approach, such as pointing to evidence of unusual rapid evolution of the [[human brain]] and the emergence of "exceptional" [[aptitude]]s. As one commentator put it, "Over the course of [[human history]], we have been successful in cultivating our faculties, shaping our development, and impacting upon the wider world in a deliberate fashion, quite distinct from [[evolution|evolutionary processes]].<ref>Starr, Sandy. ''[http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA855.htm What Makes Us Exceptional?]''. Spiked Science</ref> Constance K. Perry asserts that the use of 'non-autonomous' animals instead of humans in risky research can be based on solid moral ground and is not necessarily speciesism.<ref>''A Compassionate Autonomy Alternative to Speciesism'' Constance K. Perry Volume 22, Number 3 / June, 2001 Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics</ref> |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | In science fiction and fantasy, speciesism takes on the idea of superiority via [[Sapience]]. In science fiction, the speciesism tends to take the form of the various Sapience species—which is to say, aliens—in the [[fictional universe]] discriminating against one another. ''[[Babylon 5]]'', for instance, provides ample examples: [[human (Babylon 5)|human]]s [[Anthropocentrism#In fiction|hating]] [[Minbari]], Minbari [[Antihumanism#In fiction|distrusting]] humans, [[Centauri (Babylon 5)|Centauri]] hating [[Narn]]s(and vice-versa). In fantasy, it tends to be among the various "races" of the fictional world. A fairly representative (if flippant) example is [[Terry Pratchett]]'s explanation of speciesism in his [[Discworld]] universe: |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | One salient difference between speciesism in real life and as depicted in science fiction is that the non human species, often from other planets, usually have at least human level intelligence and sapience, actually exceeding humans on occasion. Almost always communications with non human species and humans in sci-fi is as easy as it is between humans. It is just a matter of learning each other's language (and if that is not practical a sophisticated translation device is usually available). Non human species often have highly sophisticated civilizations with their own art and belief systems as well as the ability to build sophisticated spacecraft, at times technologically superior to humans. ''[[Star Trek]]'s'' [[Vulcans]] and the above mentioned Minbari of ''Babylon 5'' are examples. There is also no controversy regarding any potential [[bestiality]] with mating or even [[Hybrid (biology)|hybridizing]] with non human species that have at least human level intelligence. This is possibly due to the fact that such creatures are fictional and when any romance is involved the alien species are often quite human appearing. [[Spock|Commander Spock]], Science officer of the [[Star Trek: The Original Series|original series Star Trek's]] ''[[USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)|USS Enterprise]]'' is half Vulcan, half human. [[B'Elanna Torres]], the Chief Engineering Officer Of the ''[[USS Voyager (Star Trek)|USS Voyager]]'' on ''[[Star Trek: Voyager]]'' is half human, half [[Klingon]], ''[[Star Trek: The Next Generation]]'s'' [[Deanna Troi]] is a half human, half [[Betazoid]] (Betazeds are outwardly totally identical to humans); all progeny of the mating between a human and a non human race. There is a also the romance of [[Clark Kent]], aka [[Kal-El]] of Krypton who is Superman and [[Lois Lane]] a human. [[Kryptonian]]s are also virtually physically identical to humans. In the 2006 movie ''[[Superman Returns]]'' it is heavily hinted that Superman and [[Lois Lane]] had a child. In real life there have been no controversy depicting beings such as these or the romance between them and full humans although within the storylines of these fictional depictions prejudice akin to racism are sometimes examined. |
||
⚫ | In contrast there were bestiality concerns in the 2001 remake of ''[[Planet of the Apes (2001 film)|Planet of the Apes]]'' between Ari, a evolved human level intelligent female [[Chimpanzee]] and Capt. Leo Davidson a human astronaut, despite the film's premise of the [[Hominidae|Great Apes]] (which human beings are also classified under) achieving human level intelligence and [[sapience]] and the power of speech.<ref>[http://imaginarycinema.com/apes.html imaginarycinema.com review]</ref> Unlike the completely fictional Vulcans, Klingons, Minbari et. al., chimpanzees do exist in real life albeit not having human level intelligence. A potential love affair between Ari and Leo produced some anxiety. ''Planet of the Apes'' turns speciesism on its head with the Great Apes ruling with "Ape Supremacy", oppressing humans. Like in the original [[Planet of the Apes (1968 film)|1968 film of the same name]] (and the [[Planet of the Apes (novel)|1963 novel]] that both movies are based on), human beings are hunted for sport by the evolved Great Apes and Ari ([[Zira (Planet of the Apes)|Zira]] in the 1968 movie and 1963 book) is a human rights activist (in the same spirit as animal rights activist are in real life) fighting for the a much more charitable treatment of the humans, to be treated like apes. |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
<!-- Please avoid repeating links --> |
<!-- Please avoid repeating links --> |
Revision as of 16:22, 5 March 2010
Template:Alib Speciesism is the assigning of different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership. The term was created by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder in 1973 to denote a prejudice against non-humans based on physical differences that are given moral value.[1] "I use the word 'speciesism'," he wrote in 1975, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species ... Speciesism is racism, and both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against."[2]
The term is mostly used by animal rights advocates, who argue that it is irrational or morally wrong to regard sentient beings as objects or property. Philosopher Tom Regan argues that all animals have inherent rights and that we cannot assign them a lesser value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while assigning a higher value to infants and the mentally impaired solely on the grounds of being members of a specific species. Others argue that this valuation of a human infant, a human fetus, or a mentally impaired person is justified, not because the fetus is a fully rational human person from conception, nor because the mentally impaired are rational to the same degree as other human beings; but because the teleological and genetic orientation of any human being from conception is to develop into a rational human being and not any other creature, and because all humans have an implicit origination from two genetically human beings, and hence, both a primary genetic orientation and primary origination as the reproduction of other human beings, even if in a not fully developed state or if partially impaired.[3] In this view, anyone who is born of human parents has the rights of human persons from conception, because the natural process of reproduction has already been initiated in biologically human organisms. Peter Singer's philosophical arguments against speciesism are based on the principle of equal consideration of interests. Some philosophers and scientists argue that speciesism is an acceptable position as a form of human supremacy.
Proponents
Some philosophers and scientists defend Speciesism as an acceptable if not good behavior for humans. Carl Cohen, a Professor of Philosophy at the Residential College of the University of Michigan, writes:
I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.[4]
Jeffrey Alan Gray, British psychologist and a lecturer in experimental psychology at Oxford, similarly wrote that:
I would guess that the view that human beings matter to other human beings more than animals do is, to say the least, widespread. At any rate, I wish to defend speciesism...[5]
A common theme in defending speciesism tends to be the argument that humans "have the right to compete with and exploit other species to preserve and protect the human species".[6]
Opponents
Gary Francione's position differs significantly from that of Singer, author of Animal Liberation (1975). Singer, a utilitarian, rejects moral rights as a general matter and, like Ryder, regards sentience as sufficient for moral status. Singer maintains that most animals do not care about whether we kill and use them for our own purposes; they care only about how we treat them when we do use and kill them. As a result, and despite our having laws that supposedly protect animals, Francione contends that we treat animals in ways that would be regarded as torture if only humans were involved.
Richard Dawkins touches briefly on the subject in The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion, elucidating the connection to evolutionary theory. He compares former racist attitudes and assumptions to their present-day speciesist counterparts. In a chapter of former book entitled "The one true tree of life", he argues that it is not just zoological taxonomy that is saved from awkward ambiguity by the extinction of intermediate forms, but also human ethics and law. He describes discrimination against chimpanzees thus:
Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! [...] The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.[7]
Dawkins more recently elaborated on his personal position towards speciesism and vegetarianism in a live discussion with Singer at The Center for Inquiry on December 7, 2007.[8]
What I am doing is going along with the fact that I live in a society where meat eating is accepted as the norm, and it requires a level of social courage which I haven't yet produced to break out of that. It's a little bit like the position which many people would have held a couple of hundred years ago over slavery. Where lots of people felt morally uneasy about slavery but went along with it because the whole economy of the South depended upon slavery.
David Nibert seeks to expand the field of sociology "in order to understand how social arrangements create oppressive conditions for both humans and other animals". He compares speciesism to racism and sexism.[9]
Some have suggested that simply to fight speciesism is not enough because intrinsic value of nature can be extended beyond sentient beings, termed the ethic of "libertarian extension".[10] This belief system seeks to apply the principle of individual rights not only to all animals but also objects without a nervous system such as trees, plants and rocks.[11]
Ryder rejects this in writing that "value cannot exist in the absence of consciousness or potential consciousness. Thus, rocks and rivers and houses have no interests and no rights of their own. This does not mean, of course, that they are not of value to us, and to many other painients, including those who need them as habitats and who would suffer without them." [12]
Great ape personhood
Part of a series on |
Discrimination |
---|
![]() |
Great Ape personhood is a concept in which the attributes of the Great Apes are deemed to merit recognition of their sentience and personhood within the law, as opposed to mere protection under animal cruelty legislation. This would cover matters such as their own best interest being taken into account in their treatment by people.[13]
Animal holocaust
David Sztybel holds that the treatment of animals can be compared to the Holocaust in a valid and meaningful way. In his paper Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust? using a thirty-nine-point comparison Sztybel asserts that the comparison is not offensive and that it does not overlook important differences, or ignore supposed affinities between the human abuse of fellow animals, and the Nazi abuse of fellow humans. The comparison of animal treatment and the Holocaust came into the public eye with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' "Holocaust on your Plate" exhibit. Sztybel equates the racism of the Nazis with the speciesism inherent in eating meat, or using animal by-products particularly those produced on factory farms.[14] However, even among the supports of the concept of speciesism as a critical tool, such comparisons are not always supported. Y. Michael Barilan writes that speciesism is not the same thing as "Nazi racism" because Nazi racism extolled the abuser and condemned the weaker and the abused. He describes speciesism as the recognition of rights on the basis of group membership rather than solely on the basis of moral considerations.[15]
Criticism
Philosophical
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Trial_of_Bill_Burns.jpg/270px-Trial_of_Bill_Burns.jpg)
(Rev.) John Tuohey writes that the logic behind charges of speciesism fails to hold up, and that, although it has been popularly appealing, it is philosophically flawed. Tuohey claims that, even though the animal rights movement in the United States has been influential in slowing and in some cases stopping biomedical research involving animals, no one has offered a clear and compelling argument for the equality of species[16]. Nel Noddings has criticized Peter Singer's concept of speciesism for being too simplistic, and failing to take into account the context of species preference as concepts of racism and sexism have taken in to account the context of discrimination against humans.[17] Some people who work for racial or sexual equality have said that comparisons between speciesism and racism or sexism are insulting,[18] for example Peter Staudenmaier writes:
The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women’s movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, “We’re sentient beings too!” They argued, “We’re fully human too!” Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it. -Peter Staudenmaier[19]
Although Camilla Kronqvist sympathizes with Singer’s aims, she does not accept his arguments. She writes "To say that our morality rests on attending to somebody’s pleasure and pain, also seems to be a pretty crude description of what it is to be a moral being." And concludes "I also find it highly unlikely that a polar bear would care for my interests of leading a long, healthy life if it decided to have me for lunch, and I wonder if I would have time to present it with Singer’s arguments when it started to carry out this intention."[20] Singer responds that that fact that animals are not moral agents does not prevent them from being moral patients, just as humans who are not moral agents remain moral patients, so that their ability to be harmed remains the characteristic taken into consideration.
Some more radical opponents of the idea of speciesism believe that animals exist so that humans may make use of them, be it for food, entertainment or other uses. This special status conveys special rights, such as the right to life, and also unique responsibilities, such as stewardship of the environment.[citation needed]
Carl Cohen argued that racism and sexism are wrong because there are no relevant differences between the sexes or races. Between people and animals however, there are significant differences, and they do not qualify for Kantian personhood, and as such have no rights.[21] Animal rights advocates point out that because many humans do not qualify for Kantian personhood, and yet have rights, this cannot be a morally relevant difference.
Objectivists argue that giving more rights to animals means taking rights away from thinking beings who are, unlike animals, capable of creating value. Animal rights advocates respond by pointing out that not all humans are capable of "creating value" by this definition of value, so if "creating value" were the morally relevant characteristic, it would still not track along the lines of species alone. Conversely, any definition of "creating value" that included all humans would include many animals as well.[citation needed]
Religious
Some believers in human exceptionalism base the concept in the Abrahamic religions, such as the verse in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” " Animal rights advocates argue that dominion refers to stewardship and does not denote any right to mistreat other animals, which is consistent with the Bible.[22] Buddhism, despite its reputation for respect for animals, explicitly accords humans a higher status in the progression of reincarnation.[23] Animals may be reincarnated as humans, but only humans can reach enlightenment.[23] Felipe Fernández-Armesto writes that early hunter-gatherer societies such as the Innu [24] and many animist religions lacked a concept of humanity and placed non-human animals and plants on an equal footing with humans.[25]
Scientific
See also: Animal experimentation
Others take a secular approach, such as pointing to evidence of unusual rapid evolution of the human brain and the emergence of "exceptional" aptitudes. As one commentator put it, "Over the course of human history, we have been successful in cultivating our faculties, shaping our development, and impacting upon the wider world in a deliberate fashion, quite distinct from evolutionary processes.[26] Constance K. Perry asserts that the use of 'non-autonomous' animals instead of humans in risky research can be based on solid moral ground and is not necessarily speciesism.[27]
In fiction
In science fiction and fantasy, speciesism takes on the idea of superiority via Sapience. In science fiction, the speciesism tends to take the form of the various Sapience species—which is to say, aliens—in the fictional universe discriminating against one another. Babylon 5, for instance, provides ample examples: humans hating Minbari, Minbari distrusting humans, Centauri hating Narns(and vice-versa). In fantasy, it tends to be among the various "races" of the fictional world. A fairly representative (if flippant) example is Terry Pratchett's explanation of speciesism in his Discworld universe:
"Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because — what with trolls and dwarfs and so on — speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green." —Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad
One salient difference between speciesism in real life and as depicted in science fiction is that the non human species, often from other planets, usually have at least human level intelligence and sapience, actually exceeding humans on occasion. Almost always communications with non human species and humans in sci-fi is as easy as it is between humans. It is just a matter of learning each other's language (and if that is not practical a sophisticated translation device is usually available). Non human species often have highly sophisticated civilizations with their own art and belief systems as well as the ability to build sophisticated spacecraft, at times technologically superior to humans. Star Trek's Vulcans and the above mentioned Minbari of Babylon 5 are examples. There is also no controversy regarding any potential bestiality with mating or even hybridizing with non human species that have at least human level intelligence. This is possibly due to the fact that such creatures are fictional and when any romance is involved the alien species are often quite human appearing. Commander Spock, Science officer of the original series Star Trek's USS Enterprise is half Vulcan, half human. B'Elanna Torres, the Chief Engineering Officer Of the USS Voyager on Star Trek: Voyager is half human, half Klingon, Star Trek: The Next Generation's Deanna Troi is a half human, half Betazoid (Betazeds are outwardly totally identical to humans); all progeny of the mating between a human and a non human race. There is a also the romance of Clark Kent, aka Kal-El of Krypton who is Superman and Lois Lane a human. Kryptonians are also virtually physically identical to humans. In the 2006 movie Superman Returns it is heavily hinted that Superman and Lois Lane had a child. In real life there have been no controversy depicting beings such as these or the romance between them and full humans although within the storylines of these fictional depictions prejudice akin to racism are sometimes examined.
In contrast there were bestiality concerns in the 2001 remake of Planet of the Apes between Ari, a evolved human level intelligent female Chimpanzee and Capt. Leo Davidson a human astronaut, despite the film's premise of the Great Apes (which human beings are also classified under) achieving human level intelligence and sapience and the power of speech.[28] Unlike the completely fictional Vulcans, Klingons, Minbari et. al., chimpanzees do exist in real life albeit not having human level intelligence. A potential love affair between Ari and Leo produced some anxiety. Planet of the Apes turns speciesism on its head with the Great Apes ruling with "Ape Supremacy", oppressing humans. Like in the original 1968 film of the same name (and the 1963 novel that both movies are based on), human beings are hunted for sport by the evolved Great Apes and Ari (Zira in the 1968 movie and 1963 book) is a human rights activist (in the same spirit as animal rights activist are in real life) fighting for the a much more charitable treatment of the humans, to be treated like apes.
See also
References
- Ryder, Richard D. Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research. Davis-Poynter, 1975.
- —. "All beings that feel pain deserve human rights: Equality of the species is the logical conclusion of post-Darwin morality." The Guardian, 6 August 2005.
Notes
- ^ Ryder, Richard. "All beings that feel pain deserve human rights", The Guardian, August 6, 2005.
- ^ Ryder 1975, p. 16. Thirty years later, Ryder later wrote that he prefers the word "painient." In a piece for The Guardian in 2005, entitled, "All beings that feel pain deserve human rights", he wrote, "Our concern for the pain and distress of others should be extended to any 'painient'—pain-feeling—being regardless of his or her sex, class, race, religion, nationality or species. Indeed, if aliens from outer space turn out to be painient, or if we ever manufacture machines who are painient, then we must widen the moral circle to include them. Painience is the only convincing basis for attributing rights or, indeed, interests to others" (Ryder 2005).
- ^ Benedict Ashley, Albert Moraczewski The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Summer, 2001, Vol.1 No.2 http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/ash/ash_01cloningaquinas1.html
- ^ C. Cohen (1986) The case for the use of animals in biomedical research, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 315, No. 14.
- ^ J. A. Gray (1980) In defense of speciesism, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 13 No. 1.
- ^ D. Graft (1997) Against strong speciesism, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol.14, No. 2.
- ^ Dawkins, Richard (1996) [1986]. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.
- ^ Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism, December 7, 2007.
- ^ Humans and other animals: sociology's moral and intellectual challenge David Nibert. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. Year: 2003 Volume: 23 Issue: 3 pp. 4–25.
- ^ 1999 The Puzzle of Ethics. London: Harper Collins. Vardy, P., and P. Grosch
- ^ IN NEED OF NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS FOR TOURISM? Andrew Holden. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 94–108, 2003.
- ^ (Ryder 2005)
- ^ Should apes have human rights?
- ^ Sztybel, David Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust? Ethics & the Environment - Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2006, pp. 97-132
- ^ Speciesism as a precondition to justice Y. Michael Barilan, MD, MA. Politics and the Life Sciences Article: pp. 22–33
- ^ Fifteen years after “Animal Liberation”: Has the animal rights movement achieved philosophical legitimacy? Journal of Medical Humanities. Volume 13, Number 2 / June, 1992. John Tuohey
- ^ Comment on Donovan's "Animal Rights and Feminist Theory" Nel Noddings Signs, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Winter, 1991), pp. 418-422
- ^ The ethics of speciesism
- ^ Ambiguities of Animal Rights Peter Staudenmaier COMMUNALISM: International Journal for a Rational Society ISSUE 5 | MARCH 2003
- ^ Speciesism – Arguments for Whom? Camilla Kronqvist. Ethics, Agency & Love.[1]
- ^ The case against animal rights, Carl Cohen
- ^ See, for example, Scully, Matthew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. St. Martin's Griffin, 2003. Also see Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, and Jonah 4:11: " “Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?” "
- ^ a b The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals, by Paul Waldau. American Academy of Religion, Academy Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
- ^ The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers By Richard B. Lee, Richard Heywood Daly
- ^ Ideas that changed the world Felipe Fernández-Armesto. human exceptionalism . Page: 138
- ^ Starr, Sandy. What Makes Us Exceptional?. Spiked Science
- ^ A Compassionate Autonomy Alternative to Speciesism Constance K. Perry Volume 22, Number 3 / June, 2001 Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
- ^ imaginarycinema.com review
Further reading
- Dunayer, Joan. 2004. Speciesism. Ryce Publishing: Illinois. ISBN 0-9706475-6-5
- Why should anti-speciesism concern me?", Rights for Animals.
- Anti-speciesism
- Les Cahiers Antispécistes (in French)
- The Struggle for Animal Equality