If Speciesism Is Natural, Is Speciesism Justified?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume I, p. 26 of the PDF edition · English translation

8.1. The appeal to nature

It is often argued that what makes it just to give moral consideration only to humans (or to give greater moral consideration to humans) is that this is a natural attitude for us. For example, in an attempt to justify eating animals, people commonly say "that's just how nature is: animals kill and eat members of other species"; "humans are at the top of the food chain"; "humans are naturally hunters," and so on.

Animal advocates sometimes respond by denying that eating animals is natural for humans. However, this response does not address (and instead assumes) the main problem with the argument: the assumption that, if an attitude is natural, it is justified.

Therefore, below we will look at some problems with the appeal to what is natural³¹.

8.2. Problems with the appeal to nature

The first problem is that the argument does not explain why the fact that a behavior is natural would make it just. This is simply assumed, without any explanation. But that is exactly what the argument would have to explain.

The second problem is that the expression "natural behavior" is used in a wide variety of senses. However, in whatever sense it is being used, the fact that a behavior is natural does not seem to make it just. Below we will look at some examples of what is commonly meant when it is claimed that eating meat is natural for humans. However, the same problems arise for any other appeal to what is natural.

Sometimes what is meant by "eating meat is natural for humans" is that it is possible for the human body to consume meat. However, if the mere fact that a behavior is possible made it just, any possible behavior would be just. For example, it is also possible for the human body to consume human flesh, but this does not seem to

justify such an act. In the same way, the mere fact that it is possible for the human body to consume the flesh of other animals does not imply that it is just to do so.

At other times, what is meant when it is claimed that a behavior is natural is that there is an instinctive inclination toward that behavior, as if it were something "written in our genes." However, once again, this does not seem sufficient to justify a behavior. Imagine, for example, that humans had an instinctive inclination to be biased in their judgments and to abuse the most vulnerable. The fact that there is an instinctive tendency does not make such behaviors just. It may be that, if we had such a tendency, most of us would consider such behaviors just. But the fact that, under such conditions, we would consider such behaviors just does not show that they are in fact just.

Another very common claim is that eating animals is justified because, in nature, animals eat one another. The idea behind this argument is that, if animals in nature do a certain thing, then we should do the same.

However, there are two problems here. The first is that there are animals that do not eat other animals. Since the argument aims to justify eating animals, it is biased, to say the least, to choose to imitate precisely the animals that eat other animals, and not those that do not, without giving any further reason for this choice.

The second problem is that there are animals in nature that steal, rape, kill, and eat members of their own species, including the offspring of rivals or even their own offspring. No one argues that it is right for humans to do the same just because other animals also do it. The appeal to what animals do arises almost exclusively in attempts to justify eating animals. Moreover, animals in nature also do not have hospital systems, cell phones, computers, schools, libraries, clothes, cars, and so on. It is arbitrary, to say the least, to want to imitate animals in nature only when they eat other animals, and not in everything else.

At other times, what is argued is that killing animals for food is right because humans are at the top of the food chain. It is often pointed out that, in nature, larger animals kill and eat smaller ones, and that this is what makes it right for humans to kill other animals for food. However, nothing forces humans to eat other animals. So this is no different from saying that we are justified in doing something just because we have the power to do it (and we have already seen above the problems with this view, when we discussed the definition of natural behavior as synonymous with possible behavior). For example, imagine there were a species more powerful than humans, and that its members bred humans to eat. These beings would be at the top of the food chain, but that does not seem to make their behavior just.

Finally, sometimes what is meant when a behavior is said to be natural is simply that it is right. But if so, when someone says "this behavior is right because it is natural," the claim is empty, because what is being said is that "this behavior is right because it is right," without giving any reason to think it is right.

All of this leads us to the following conclusion: there seems to be no correlation whatsoever between what is natural and what is justifiable.