Questão
de Ética PT

Lesson plan · Volume I

Discussing Speciesism

An analysis of the main attempts to justify speciesism

See the volume

Objectives

  • What speciesism is and how it differs from anthropocentrism
  • Why species, soul, intelligence and potential do not justify disregarding animals
  • Why "it's natural," "it's tradition" and "an authority approved it" are not good reasons
  • How to respond when someone says ethics is just a human invention

It helps if the class has already seen: nothing. This is a good starting point, together with Volume XII.

A 50-minute lesson

  1. 5 min
    Opening. Ask the question and let the class answer without correcting them: Think of a practice involving animals that you consider normal. Would it still seem normal if the victims were human, with harms of the same size?
  2. 15 min
    Reading. An Overview of the Debate on the Moral Consideration of Animals (6 min read) and Is Species What Matters? (3 min read). For younger classes, read the “For kids” layer: Some people think hurting an animal is wrong only because it makes the person mean. Others think animals matter, but less. And others think pain is pain, whether it's a boy's or a dog's. Treating someone worse just because they belong to another species has a name: speciesism.
  3. 15 min
    Discussion.
    • Think of a practice involving animals that you consider normal. Would it still seem normal if the victims were human, with harms of the same size? (An Overview of the Debate on the Moral Consideration of Animals)
    • What difference between you and a pig would be relevant to deciding whether he can be locked up and killed? Why that difference and not another? (Is Species What Matters?)
    • If we found out that some people have no soul, would it be fine to make them suffer? Why does your answer change, or not, when the being is an animal? (Could Metaphysical Characteristics Justify Speciesism?)
    • What ability do you need to have for a burn to be bad for you? (Could the Possession of Capacities or Relationships Justify Speciesism?)
  4. 10 min
    Activity. Project the debate simulator. In groups, the class chooses the best reply to each objection and explains why the others are weak.
  5. 5 min
    Wrap-up. Each person writes one sentence about what changed in their thinking. Compare it with the volume summary: Why do we treat a pig and a dog, or an animal and a human, so differently? This volume examines, one by one, the most common justifications for giving animals less weight (species, soul, intelligence, nature, tradition, authority, metaethics) and shows why none of them holds up.

Exercise sheet

  1. Someone who says mistreating animals is wrong only because it “brutalizes” the person doing it holds that...

    1. animals matter in themselves
    2. animals don't matter in themselves, only indirectly
    3. animals matter as much as humans

  2. What does the chapter call a double standard?

    1. Giving the same weight to pains of the same size
    2. Accepting for animals what would be unacceptable for humans in an equivalent situation
    3. Prioritizing whoever suffers the greater harm

  3. What is the main problem with saying humans matter more “simply because they're human”?

    1. It's false that humans exist
    2. It assumes as true what it was supposed to prove
    3. It only applies to some humans

  4. Preferring members of your own species is similar to which other attitude we usually reject?

    1. Preferring those who are worse off
    2. Preferring those of your own race or gender
    3. Preferring those who suffer more

  5. According to the chapter, what is the “main” problem with appeals to metaphysical traits?

    1. They're too old
    2. They're irrelevant to whether someone can be harmed or benefited
    3. Only religious people defend them

  6. Why does the appeal to the soul also face a problem of proof?

    1. Because there's no way to prove who has a soul and who doesn't
    2. Because everyone agrees animals have souls
    3. Because science has proven no one has a soul

  7. Which of these is the first problem shared by appeals to abilities?

    1. No animal has any abilities
    2. Many humans don't have these abilities
    3. Abilities don't exist

  8. According to the chapter, what is relevant for moral consideration?

    1. Having language
    2. Being able to be harmed or benefited
    3. Having political relationships with humans

  9. Why does the chapter use the case of a child with a terminal illness?

    1. To show that suffering matters even without future potential
    2. To show that children don't feel pain
    3. To defend experimenting on children

  10. Having the potential for something is...

    1. the same as actually having it
    2. not always the same as having it
    3. the same as having no interests

Answer key

  1. b) On this view, the problem lies in the effect on humans, not in the harm to the animal itself. It's the position attributed to Kant.
  2. b) The double standard, accepting for animals what would be unacceptable for humans in an equivalent situation, is what defines speciesism.
  3. b) It's begging the question: the conclusion shows up disguised as a reason.
  4. b) The chapter compares “stick with your own kind” applied to species with the same reasoning applied to race or gender.
  5. b) Even if the trait existed, it says nothing about who can be harmed, which is what matters.
  6. a) There's no way to prove anyone has these traits, or that only humans would have them.
  7. b) Babies, young children, and humans with certain conditions don't have these abilities, and we don't think it's fair to disregard them.
  8. b) What is at stake is whether our decisions can harm or benefit those affected.
  9. a) If the child will die before developing the abilities, we still have reasons not to make her suffer. So potential isn't what matters.
  10. b) Potential and actual possession are different; treating someone according to what they might have is a further step that would need to be justified.

The lesson plan and exercises are a study layer written for this site. The texts read are by Luciano Carlos Cunha.