Testing Whether an Attitude Is Speciesist

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume II, p. 39 of the PDF edition · English translation

An attitude is speciesist if it is unjust toward sentient beings who do not belong to a certain species (or species) — as, for example, when it is unjust toward those who are not human — or who do belong to a certain species (or species) — as, for example, when it is unjust toward animals classified as members of invasive species.

There are several ways to test whether an attitude is unjust. One is to check whether it violates the principle of equal consideration. Another is to check whether it passes the impartiality test.

Testing whether or not an attitude is speciesist may be simpler than we imagine. There are some questions⁴⁷ we can always ask to test whether we are being unjust toward nonhuman animals.

For example, we can ask whether we would consider the attitude in question just:

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

(2) If we did not know what 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 nonhuman animals and those harmed were humans);

(5) If we had to bear the harms it causes in order to obtain the benefits it provides;

(6) If we had to bear the harms it causes so that other individuals could obtain the benefits it provides.

If we asked these questions sincerely, it seems we would reach the following conclusions:

(1) Animal exploitation would be widely considered unjust, or even heinous.

(2) It also seems that we would reject giving differentiated degrees of moral consideration depending on the species a sentient being belongs to or on its capacities. That is, we would reject speciesism.

(3) It seems that we would consider unjust not only practices that involve actively harming nonhuman animals, but also the failure to help them when they are victims of natural processes⁴⁸ such as hunger, thirst, disease, natural disasters, and so on (which is what commonly happens to wild animals).

All of this seems to indicate not only that there is no justification for what is done to nonhuman animals, but also that we should do something to try to change this situation.