How to test whether an attitude is speciesist

Speciesism is a form of discrimination

Speciesism is a term created to draw an analogy with other forms of discrimination, such as racism and sexism.¹ It consists of unjustly disfavoring members of certain species. Speciesism, racism, and sexism are forms of discrimination because they involve unjustly disfavoring members of certain groups.

Given this, an important question is: how do we know when disfavorment is unjust? We will discuss this point in the next section.

How to know when an attitude is unjust

There are several methods that can be used to assess whether an attitude is unjust. Below we will see two of them, widely used in ethics and political philosophy: the principle of equal consideration² and the principle of impartiality.³ Both principles explain not only what is wrong with speciesism, but also with racism, sexism, or any other form of discrimination.

The principal of equal consideration

The principle of equal consideration prescribes giving equal weight to harms and benefits of similar magnitude, and prescribes giving greater weight to greater harms and benefits. That is, according to this principle, what matters is the magnitude of harms and benefits, not who they would affect. It is a guarantee that we are not biased in our decisions.

Given this, it could be objected that there are cases where there is justification for prioritizing lesser harms. This would be the case, for example, if the individual suffering the greater harm did something to deserve that harm. However, this is not the case with someone’s species, skin color, or gender, as these are all factors that depend on the natural lottery – that is, they are not the result of merit or demerit. Therefore, giving different weight to each individual’s well-being

The principle of impartiality

The principle of impartiality reaches the same conclusion as the principle of equal consideration, but takes a different path. The reasoning it starts from is this: for an attitude to be just, it must be impartial, and to be impartial, it would have to be approved by rational agents under conditions where they did not know what position they would occupy among those affected.

If they did not know which species they belonged to, rational beings would see no reason to give greater or lesser weight to the well-being of individuals according to the species they belong to. This shows that the standard attitude of giving greater weight to humans is only approved because those who do so know they belong to the human species and therefore know they will not be victims of this attitude. If this is so, then this attitude is unjust because it would not be approved under conditions of impartiality.

Important aspects of the concept of speciesism

The concept of speciesism is often misunderstood, even by animal rights activists. Below are some clarifications about these confusions.⁴

Speciesism is not against species

The victims of speciesism are not species, but rather the sentient beings who are members of those species. The same occurs with other forms of discrimination. For example, the victims of racism and sexism are humans belonging to certain groups, not the groups themselves.

However, it is not uncommon to claim that speciesism is discrimination against other species. Of course, this may simply be a way of abbreviating “against animals of other species.” However, defining speciesism this way can create the mistaken understanding among the public that speciesism is against species, not against individuals. We will see an example of this below.

Let’s imagine that someone mistakenly understands that rejecting speciesism involves being equally concerned with each species. Such a person might think, for example, that in practice this implies trying to preserve all species equally, but that it’s okay to give different degrees of consideration to individuals, depending on the species they belong to. For example, let’s imagine this person argues that, regarding non-human animals, it’s okay to kill them as long as their species is not made extinct, but that it’s not correct to do the same with humans. This person’s position is speciesist, as it treats non-human animals worse than humans. This example illustrates that speciesism is against members of a species, not against the species themselves.

For a position to be speciesist, it is not necessary to completely disregard

Another common misconception is the belief that for an attitude to be speciesist, it must completely disregard the victim’s well-being. As we have seen, the principles of equal consideration and impartiality show that an attitude is unjust whenever it gives different weight to individuals’ well-being based on arbitrary factors.

Therefore, speciesism also occurs when less weight is given to the well-being of individuals of certain species, even when they are not completely disregarded. The same happens in the case of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.

Speciesism includes anthropocentrism, but there are non-anthropocentric forms of speciesism

The most common speciesist attitude discriminates against those who do not belong to the human species. For example, non-human animals are exploited for consumption, as test subjects, for clothing, entertainment, transportation, etc. Furthermore, when they are victims of natural processes such as diseases, natural disasters, hunger, and thirst, the standard position is that we should not help them. Such attitudes would be widely condemned if the victims were human. This indicates that an anthropocentric speciesist pattern is in effect.

However, there are also non-anthropocentric forms of speciesism that establish hierarchies among non-human animals. One example is giving greater weight to the well-being of animals of endangered species (as opposed to animals of abundant species) and to native fauna animals (as opposed to animals that are members of species that did not originate in the region). Another example is giving greater weight to animals of species that have a close relationship with us (such as dogs and cats) compared to those of other species with whom we do not have such a relationship.

Speciesism is not limited to animal exploitation

Animal exploitation is a speciesist practice because it gives less weight to the well-being of non-human animals compared to humans, and also because it would not be approved if we did not know whether we would be born as humans or as the animals that are exploited.

However, there are also speciesist attitudes that do not involve exploitation. One example is, again, the fact that when animals are victims of natural disasters, hunger, thirst, and diseases, the standard attitude is that we should let nature take its course, whereas when humans are the victims, the standard attitude is the opposite. This type of attitude is speciesist because it also violates the principles of equal consideration and impartiality.

Speciesism occurs not only when the stated reason is membership in a certain species

An attitude is speciesist not only when the stated reason for discrimination is membership in the species in question, but also when it is any other unjust reason. For example, it is certainly speciesist to maintain that “non-human animals should receive less consideration because they do not belong to the human species.” But it is also speciesist to maintain that they should receive less consideration because they do not possess certain capacities, because they do not have certain relationships, or because there is an intutively natural tendency to discriminate against them.

Questions we can always ask to test whether an attitude is speciesist

There are a series of situations that we can always imagine, allowing us to test whether an attitude is speciesist or not. For example, we can ask whether we would consider the attitude in question just:

(1) If we did not know the species of those harmed and benefited by it

(2) If we did not know which species we belong to

(3) If its victims were human, suffering harms of the same magnitude

(4) If the roles were reversed (for example, if the beneficiaries were non-human animals, and those harmed were humans)

(5) If we had to endure the harms that the attitude causes in order to achieve the benefits obtained by it

(6) If we had to receive the harms it causes so that other individuals could achieve the benefits obtained by it

With just these questions, it is already possible to perceive that animal exploitation and negligence toward the situation of animals that are victims of natural processes are speciesist attitudes.

---

Notes