We should always avoid calling something ‘the last acceptable prejudice.’ It can be a huge red flag about the cause you’re supporting; sometimes it isn’t, but it’s still a major error. By its very nature, unless a prejudice is on the verge of dying; if it’s ingrained in the culture, you can’t even be aware that you have it, won’t think about it often, or will think it’s just a normal part of the thought process.
A term coined by the Modern Animal Rights Movement is speciesism. In short, this is being willing to mistreat or put up with mistreatment of another creature because they aren’t ‘part of your species,’ or being willing to sacrifice the needs of one species to benefit another. It is a sort of attitude that you aren’t aware is influencing you. Once you’re aware of it, you may notice a lot of double standards held for humans and non-human species put in similar positions. The person who came up with the word admitted that it was clunky, but that it was the best phrase to describe what he was talking about. A lot of people think of it as just being mean to animals. But the issue is deeper, and should be understood if we want to quit inflicting unnecessary pain and death on others.
But first, how much do these ‘tinted glasses’ so to speak color your view on issues? Sure, there is a general lack of knowledge on things that happen. The specifics of Factory Farms, Animal Experiments, Puppy Mills; if people had more knowledge, they wouldn’t put up with these things anymore. We generally don’t see the animals people eat get killed. In the past people saw animals slaughtered all the time, and were able to look at death more directly because of the idea that there was an afterlife, whereas nowadays, people find the promise of an afterlife to be less comforting, even if they believe in it. There is also apathy for animal issues. But despite all this, there is a deeply ingrained attitude that allows us to think things are just okay. This is what allows scientists who had to start doing Animal Experiments for their PHD’s to eventually be able to kill hundreds of animals; even casually forgetting to euthanize whole litters of animals sitting in garbage bags or to forget to use painkillers. They are not some different class of people from us, we’re cut from the same cloth. Culture can overcome the natural human revulsion towards torture and murder if things are pushed far enough.
Speciesism is a type of prejudice that permeates the culture and affects your views even when you’re not even aware. For example, some philosophers have stated that it’s wrong to torture and kill animals not because the animals don’t want to suffer and die, but because its bad for humans in the sense that it makes us less likely to feel compassion for other people. This is an attempt to create an after the fact explanation to justify our instinct of not wanting to kill and torture animals that still fits within a speciesist worldview. Or I heard someone say that it was wrong to kill another person’s dog – not because you’re killing them, but because they are the person’s pet, and that it would be equally wrong to destroy their pet rock.
Let’s talk about a very niche type of speciesism. Showing unfair favoritism to certain non-human animals over others. For example, being okay with doing certain things to pigs, but not being okay with those things being done to dogs. This isn’t based on intelligence the way people rationalize. While there are multiple forms of intelligence, and you can’t just come up with a single number and compare multiple species on a scale; in general we typically consider pigs to be more intelligent than dogs. Yet we do things to pigs that we would never want done to dogs, and I don’t just mean eating them. This logic can cut both ways. Rather than deciding we should treat farm animals better, some people look at cultures that eat dogs and decide that it’s just ‘their way.’ This response is more sophisticated than deciding that eating a dog is wrong, and eating a cow isn’t, since there isn’t that much of a difference morally. But even people with this attitude might hear a farm make a statement saying, ‘Our pigs’ living environment is more humane, our animals exhibit less aggression,’ and see a warehouse crammed full of pigs and think it’s normal. But if they heard a dog farm say, ‘Our dogs’ living environment is more humane, our dogs exhibit less aggression,’ then they showed a warehouse crammed full of dogs, it might make them uncomfortable.
But the main symptom of speciesism is being willing to do something to animals because they are less intelligent, but being unwilling to do those things to a human of equal intelligence. Or if you are talking about things we do to animals, and then you ask a person, ‘how would you feel if we did this thing to a human?’ and they respond, ‘but they’re not human.’ Then the question here is, on what basis do we do these things? Because they’re merely not part of our species? That is pure unadulterated prejudice.
Some people say, ‘oh, my morality isn’t required to be so rational or logical. This so-called ‘extreme logic’ is just meant to point out that there’s an issue to those trained not to see it. We try to minimize suffering for ourselves, and experience as much happiness as possible. Morality should do the same for others.
Regardless of intelligence, two creatures are capable of suffering. They may have different needs, but those needs ought to be given equal consideration. We also should not kill the less intelligent for no reason, or for reasons that aren’t justified, like turning them into hamburgers.
Most people don’t believe in a ‘might makes right’ philosophy, or that the more intelligent should have greater rights than the less intelligent. But that is the question that is posed to us. IQ is not a good way to measure intelligence. Psychologists have been arguing about what it is for a century. Intelligence is complicated and there are multiple forms so it can’t just be boiled down to a single number and objectively compared on a scale. But to simplify, the question here is, would it be beneficial for society overall, if those with an IQ of eighty and below were made into slaves? I don’t think so; and if we are willing to create a society which enslaves others based off of intelligence, then why not less important characteristics, like skin color or sex? When it comes to animals, people are willing to say things that they would never say for anyone else. For example, to justify our treatment of animals, I’ve heard people say, ‘survival of the fittest.’ Throughout history, when have people ever justified their treatment of other groups by saying ‘survival of the fittest’ and not been the bad guys?
Our culture has a tendency of wanting to promote equality. But on what basis can we advocate for human rights without also advocating for animal rights? We try to give equal consideration for people’s needs, and create equality in the political sense. But people must realize that not all people are equal in ability or character. There are even situations where people can lose some of their rights. For example, if you kill a person in self defense, you’re taking away the other person’s right to live. If you throw someone in prison, you’re taking away their right to be free. But just because someone is a horrible criminal, we don’t take their Freedom of Religion away. You can’t ethically go into a prison and force the people to convert to a different religion. Even people who believe in the death penalty would say that there are certain forms of torture that are wrong to subject criminals to if the discussion went on long enough.
Not all humans are equal in intelligence, there are children, young infants, and babies. A dog is most similar in intelligence to a two year old human, and can know up to two hundred words. Many humans have mental disabilities, birth defects, dementia, brain damage, etc. Someone below the age of five hasn’t developed basic language and abstract thinking skills, and doesn’t know that they’re going to die one day. Yet we blanket everyone under the equal status of being human. How could we justify having extended this status starting with the less intelligent, all the way to the psychopathic murderer, and then not extend it to animals?
_________
Many humans have characteristics animals do not. Groups we label as separate and discriminate against are the same way. If you mistreat a group of humans long enough, they will eventually revolt, organize, or defend themselves. Animals cannot organize themselves like this…
Many people have a paternalistic feeling towards minorities; that they will grant them rights once the white, male population is feeling enlightened enough. But the have-nots cannot be dependent on others to grant them their rights. They have to pool together their own resources, reorganize, and then put pressure on the ‘haves’ to hand over the rest of the stuff. The Middle Class can help of course, these are the ‘have a little, want some more’ group, and you still want to eventually change unjust laws, and pass helpful financial programs. But people also need the ability to form their own power base, and not have to wait around for others to grant them their rights. For the sake of your own dignity you have to eventually be able to tell these allies, ‘thanks for the help, now scram.’ In this sense, power cannot be given, it must be taken. The point of this whole digression is that you cannot let your understanding of prejudice against non-human animals mix with your feeling of being an outsider to any sort of minority group. When it comes to Animal Rights, humans will always have the status of outsider. When it comes to our crimes against animals, all humans are an interested party. Animals are rendered dependent on us, which puts them in a bad position because humans are a self-interested, willful species with the universal desire for power. There are so many institutions which torture and kill them, and if the people trying to rescue animals make a bad decision on their behalf, the animals are screwed. So none of this is to insult the mental faculties or common human dignity of minority groups. However, our feelings and actions towards non-human species are still a form of prejudice.
When talking about Animal Rights, many people will respond by saying ‘humans first.’ How would you like it if when talking about solving important societal issues, someone said ‘white’s come first.’ Also, does ‘humans first’ mean, ‘we’re busy with human issues right now, but we’ll get to the animals eventually.’ Does it mean, ‘it’s too bad about the animals, we could help them if there wasn’t so much human stuff getting in the way.’ If this is the meaning, then these things aren’t really being said in good faith, but as an excuse to ignore animals forever. Or does the phrase, ‘humans first’ really mean that human interests should always trump Animal Rights? Animals live in painful, desperate situations right now; almost completely because of humans. They experience lives of pain and boredom. Animals that can live for up to twenty five years are killed at one or two years old. That is, if they aren’t killed a few hours, days, weeks, or months after being born to be made into veal, lamb, or cabrito meat. They’re experimented on. They are forcibly bred, and made perpetually pregnant until their bodies can’t take it anymore. The list goes on and on.
It’s true that we have other societal issues to address. Not everyone can devote all of their time and energy to the same causes. But the bare minimum an activist in a different field can do to help is to at least adopt a vegetarian diet. I’ll address this more in a separate video, however to continue, this sort of dietary boycott is the best thing that you can do as an individual to fight against animal exploiting industries. Even if you aren’t up to the level of being a vegan, this is still better than doing nothing. Other Animal Rights people will disagree with me, but I typically think it’s better to try being vegetarian first before upgrading to vegan. It gives you a simpler goal to aim for while you’re still inexperienced. You don’t have to do it immediately but you should at least entertain the idea. You can even try it for a month, and if you fail, you could always try again later.
I’ve heard some people say that there’s no such thing as speciesism, because there are so many human issues and groups of people experiencing oppression; that it would be better if we lived in balance with other animals; hunting and farming in a way that was ‘in greater harmony with nature.’ This theoretically ‘less harsh’ approach misses the point, that we advance so-called human interests by harming other animals. That is, if it even worked. But as for the idea that there’s no such as speciesism because there are groups of oppressed humans, let me say this. Like it or not, animals have an impact on our society. They are very relevant to us. They’re conscious feeling beings. Even when they’re not registered by any farms, shelters, pet-shops, or government institutions, they still live in our cities and towns. Many human issues actually go hand in hand with animal issues, like workers rights, the environment, disease, and other things. For example, Factory Farms build their facilities next to minority neighborhoods because they know the residents will have a harder time fighting back. They exploit undocumented immigrants and blackmail them if they want to report a workplace injury. They encourage ethnic infighting, and a culture of workplace bullying that emphasizes citizenship status. Factory Farms dump untreated hog waste into the water supply. Overuse of antibiotics leads to antimicrobial resistance, which kills people. So does the ammonia gas produced by animals living in their own urine and feces. Farmworkers are excluded from the most worker legal protections, and farm work is amongst some of the least unionized industries in America.
So let’s say every human on earth was placed in a giant hierarchy, containing politicians, CEO’s, military, teachers, office workers, manual labor, etc. At the bottom would be the most mistreated groups of people on Earth. But beneath them, would be animals as a whole. Maybe not all animals. Some animals, like the types people keep as pets, are afforded special privileges. But even these groups are mistreated. Remember that there are puppy-mills, and dogs are used all the time in painful, lethal experiments.
Some people think that in order to be in favor of Animal Rights, you have to be an ‘animal lover,’ or feel some kind of personal sentiment towards a specific type of animal. That is not true. Animal Rights is an issue of justice. How would you feel if you expressed that you were against prejudice towards Asian people and someone accused you of being a ‘China Lover?’ Overly cautious Animal Welfare Groups that were once considered very radical for their times made too many compromises in exchange for trivial reforms; and now we think of Animal Welfare as a hobby for kindly ladies that are dotty about kittens, rather than a serious issue about morality and justice.
Pain is pain, regardless of intelligence. Anyone who’s thoroughly studied animal issues will understand that the amount of suffering caused is comparable to human issues. 100 million pigs, cattle, sheep, and billions of chickens go through Factory Farms each year. Every year, 25 million animals are experimented on. If even a thousand humans were forced to go through the type of experiments animals go through, there would be a national uproar. But there is a pervasive cultural attitude that prevents us from seeing all this. That attitude is called speciesism.
Anyways, that’s all for now, have a good day everyone.