I am putting below two arguments I have been playing with this year where the rational conclusion seems to be a more equal (relative to humans) treatment of animals. The first argument is a classic utilitarian argument which, as good as it is, suffers from some flaws but it’s nevertheless interesting to see. The second one is a personal argument I came up with after spotting flaws in the classic utilitarian argument.
1. Sentience
The argument goes like this:
Axiom 1: the basis of equality is sentience where “sentience” means ”the ability to feel pain”
Statement 1: all beings that are sentient are equal to each other (derived from Axiom 1)
Axiom 2: humans are sentient
Axiom 3: some non-human animals are sentient
Statement 2: humans and some non-human animals are equal to each other (derived from Statement 1, Axiom 2 and Axiom 3)
Possible criticism to this argument:
- What about those affected by a condition that makes them unable to feel physical pain?
Answer: the notion of pain as used above is not limited to physical pain.
- What about those affected by a condition that makes them unable to feel any type of pain? Are they unequal to us?
Answer: “equality” as used above means “same rights”. Those unable to feel any type of pain are indeed unequal to us in the sense that they are not entitled to rights where the criteria of entitlement is dependent on the ability to feel pain. But they still hold the rest of rights. This is no different to the right of entering university where the criteria of entitlement is dependent on the ability to pass the appropriate entrance exams. Or the right to access a physically demanding job where the criteria of entitlement is dependent on possessing certain physical capabilities. Given the fact that not everybody is entitled to everything, it might be worth redefining the notion of equality as “the state of affairs where entitlement to something is only dependent on passing the relevant criteria”. So when we say that university entrance applies a policy of equality we mean that anybody passing the criteria for holding the right to enter university is equally entitled to enter university. Or when we say that a particular job position applies a policy of equality we mean that anybody passing the criteria for holding the right to get the job is equally entitled to get the job. This would mean dropping the idea of general equality (and embracing the idea of relative equality). So one would simply state that two individuals are equal in respect to something if they both pass the criteria of entitlement.
***
2. Discrimination
The idea of “relevant criteria” is used again here. This argument uses the fact that discrimination (as in racism, sexism, ageism) is rejected to conclude that all forms of discrimination are to be rejected as well. The idea here is that disregarding the idea that humans and animals are not equal (as a general rule) is discrimination.
This argument is a bit more lengthy and has two parts. The first part shows the rational argument for rejecting racism/sexism and the second part uses the same argument to reject speciesism.
Part 1 — Rejecting Racism and Sexism
Racism: non-reverse discrimination on the basis of race.
Sexism: non-reverse discrimination on the basis of sex.
*Discrimination: non-reverse and distinguished (i.e. worse relative to other group) treatment of an individual based on their (actual/perceived) membership to a certain group on irrelevant grounds.
What it’s important to note from above is that discrimination is not rational. There might be people who claim to be racist but not sexist and viceversa. That is irrational. As a rational person, if you reject one form of discrimination, you reject all forms of discrimination*. If you reject racism, you are bound to also reject sexism and viceversa. The idea that members of two groups (in our case sex and race) are different is not flawed. The flaw comes when you separate members from different groups on irrelevant grounds. This is what makes racism and sexism unacceptable.
- Are females less smart (than males) because they don’t have male reproductive organs? No, having a certain reproductive organ does not make you less smart.
- Is the idea of “females are physically weaker (than males) so they need a male protector” a rational justification? No, just because females are physically weaker than males it does not follow that they need a male protector.
- Are white people more stupid (than X race) because they have white skin? No, having fairer skin does not make you more stupid.
Part 2 — Rejecting Speciesism
Speciesism is just like racism and sexism: a form of discrimination.
Speciesism: non-reverse discrimination on the basis of species.
What makes speciesism unacceptable is exactly the same thing that makes racism and sexism unacceptable: separating members from different groups on irrelevant grounds.
- “The reason why it is okay for us to blind rabbits so we can test new cosmetics is because humans are intellectually superior to rabbits.” The argument for y being used by x is based on the “x intellectually superior to y” idea. “So assuming this is true, if we find an intellectually inferior human, should we use him for cosmetic testing?” The answer to both is no. Intellect is an irrelevant factor when it comes to being a suitable subject for invasive and damaging cosmetic testing.
- ”The reason why it is okay for us to use monkeys for invasive testing is because humans are intellectually superior to monkeys.” Firstly, how is intellect a relevant factor when it comes to being a subject of invasive testing? If anything, intellect is only a relevant factor when it comes to being a researcher using invasive testing. Secondly, the key idea might mean : a) ”humans are intellectually superior to monkeys”. This is factually false. Not all humans are intellectually superior to all monkeys. There exist humans with neurodevelopmental problems that are intellectually inferior to monkeys. The key idea might also mean: ”humans are intellectually superior to monkeys” meaning that “the average human is intellectually superior to the average monkey”. Yes, it is true. However, in the current context it is as relevant as saying “humans have far less body hair than monkeys thus it is okay with us to use monkeys for invasive testing”.
Speciesism (just like racism and sexism) relies on separating members from different groups on irrelevant grounds. If you believe that irrelevant factors such as:
- Skin colour in a software developer position
- Sex in a managerial position
are grounds for discrimination then, it makes sense that you also believe that species membership in cosmetic testing is a ground for discrimination. But if you believe, that irrelevant factors are no grounds for discrimination, then you must also reject it for any form of discrimination. This should show to you why speciesism is not a rational stance if you reject other forms of discrimination* such as sexism and racism.
