Shifting the Focus in Debates: Why Is Speciesism Rarely Discussed?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume VIII, p. 46 of the PDF edition · English translation

6.1. Shifting the focus

It is not uncommon, in debates about practices that harm nonhuman animals, for the defenders of such practices to try to keep the focus of the discussion on aspects that have nothing to do with the harm to animals. Below are some examples.

• If the subject is the use of animals for consumption, they will approach the topic as if what mattered for knowing whether or not such practices are justifiable were the risks to human health and the environmental impacts. They will then argue that consuming animals can indeed be healthy and sustainable.
• If the subject is animal experimentation, they will approach the topic as if what mattered for knowing whether such practices are justified were the benefits to humans. They will then argue that animal experimentation can indeed be safe for humans.
• If the subject is the killing of wild animals motivated by environmentalist ideals, they will treat the question as if what mattered for knowing whether or not such practices are justified were whether or not they help achieve environmentalist goals. They will then argue that such killing is justified because the animals belong to invasive species and pose a threat to native flora and fauna (for example, because they feed on rare plants or interbreed with native animals and produce hybrids, so that the native species is no longer “pure”), and so on.

In none of these cases is it discussed whether, even if such claims are true, these practices might still be unjustifiable because of the harm they cause to animals. Our obligations toward animals and speciesism are rarely discussed topics. It is not that these people go so far as to argue that we should not have consideration for animals, or that this consideration should be very small. The question is simply ignored completely. It is as if it did not exist.

Sometimes this is planned. For example, someone may realize that they have no good arguments to justify speciesist practices, but, since they do not intend to change their position, they shift the focus so that it does not become clear that they have no good arguments.

In other cases, however, such a shift may happen without being premeditated. Some of these people may not even have any idea that the way our decisions affect animals is an ethical question. They may find it so obvious that animals do not deserve respect that it does not even cross their minds that this idea might be mistaken.

Whether or not it is planned, the fact is that in most debates the focus ends up being shifted, and the moral consideration of animals is not discussed. As pointed out below, this result also comes about largely because of the collaboration (again, intentional or not) of the people who say they are there to defend animals.

6.2. Falling into the trap

Animal advocates’ response to the shift of focus is usually, curiously, to accept it and start discussing the other questions raised by those who seek to justify the practices that harm animals. Surprisingly, animal advocates themselves rarely discuss the moral consideration of animals (and the shift of focus often comes from animal advocates themselves!). Below are examples in the three contexts listed above

• Example 1. Defenders of consuming animals claim that it is justifiable because it can be healthy and sustainable. Animal advocates could simply reply that, even if that is the case, consuming animals would still be unjustifiable, just as killing humans in order to consume them would be unjustifiable even if it were healthy and sustainable.

Animal advocates could ask the following: “why would one act be right because it is healthy and sustainable, while another act would be wrong despite being equally healthy and sustainable?” Defenders of consuming animals would probably answer that it is because in one case the victims are human and in the other they are not. And animal advocates could ask why species would be a morally relevant criterion rather than an arbitrary criterion, as race and gender are, and so the debate would continue.

However, that is not what usually happens. Animal advocates usually focus on contesting the claim that consuming animals can be healthy or sustainable.

• Example 2. Defenders of animal experimentation claim that it is justified because it can offer benefits to humans. Again, here animal advocates could reply that the fact that a practice offers benefits to members of one group does not automatically justify that practice, especially when the harms to members of other groups are being counted in an arbitrary way (in this case, the harms to animals receive less weight, or receive no weight at all).

An analogy could be drawn with the human case. If a scientist claimed that it is justified to perform experiments on dark-skinned humans because this would benefit light-skinned humans, it would be very clear that pointing this out is insufficient to justify such a practice. One could then ask the following: “why would one practice be right because it produces benefits, despite the harms it causes, while another would be wrong because of the harms it causes, despite producing benefits?”

Again, defenders of experimentation would probably say that the difference is that in one case the victims are human, and in the other they are not. But, again, animal advocates could ask why species would not be an arbitrary criterion like skin color, and so the debate would continue.

But that is not what happens. Animal advocates usually limit themselves to arguing that animal experimentation, due to differences in physiology, is not safe for humans.

• Example 3. Defenders of the killing of wild animals motivated by environmentalist ideals claim that it is justified because these animals pose a threat to environmentalist ideals. Again, here one could reply that this seems insufficient to justify the killing. After all, there is no species that poses a greater threat to environmentalist ideals than the human species, yet this does not seem to justify killing humans en masse.

So one could ask the following: “why would one killing be right because it protects environmentalist ideals, while another would be wrong despite protecting environmentalist ideals (to a greater degree)?”

Again, defenders of the killing would say that it is because in one case the victims are human and in the other they are not. And, again, one could question the criterion of species, and so the debate could proceed.

But, again, that is not what animal advocates usually do. They choose to argue that killing animals is not good from an environmentalist point of view.

In short, animal advocates could contain the shift of focus and bring the focus back to the discussion of the moral consideration of animals. But that is not what they usually do. They usually “buy into” the shift of focus. The result is that the moral consideration of animals is rarely discussed. Why does this happen? That is what we will discuss in the next section.

6.3. Why do animal advocates accept the shift of focus?

Just as the shift of focus by those who defend practices that harm animals may or may not be planned, the acceptance of the shift by animal advocates may or may not be conscious.

Below are several hypotheses about why animal advocates accept the shift. Of course, these hypotheses are not the only possibilities. And, more importantly, these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, since the motivation may differ in the case of different people and even in the case of the same person in different situations.

Hypotheses:

1) Distraction.

Animal advocates may not notice that the focus is being shifted. When they do notice (if they notice at all), they are already tangled in the web, discussing other questions, without knowing how to bring the focus of the debate back to the moral consideration of animals.

2) Embarrassment

Animal advocates may notice that the shift of focus is taking place, and disagree with it, but be embarrassed to really defend animals. There is a considerable likelihood that this happens in many cases because of how great an influence social pressure exerts. Since society is highly speciesist, it is quite possible that some people do not defend animals out of fear of being ridiculed (this is compounded if they do not know arguments to defend their position).

3) Agreement

It is also possible that, although they present themselves as animal advocates, some of these people are not in fact advocates, and agree that the harms to animals are not decisive for knowing whether or not the practices in question are justified, and for this reason they accept the shift of focus.

For example, there are many people who call themselves vegan but who do not mean by this that they seek to avoid harming animals as much as possible and that they are against their exploitation, but rather that they do not consume animal products for environmentalist or health reasons, or out of concern for disadvantaged human beings (even though this is not what the term veganism means). Again, the change in the meaning of the concept of veganism may be intentional (to make the public think that these people are there to defend animals) or due to ignorance, because they have no idea what veganism is.

4) The belief that it is not possible to discuss ethics

Another possibility is that some people accept the shift of focus because they believe that it is not possible to discuss ethics. For this reason, they limit themselves to discussing factual claims.

The belief that “in ethics, everything is relative/subjective” and that there are no views that are more or less plausible is quite common. So someone who holds this belief might think: “these people believe it is justified to disregard animals and I disagree, end of story, there is nothing to discuss.”

According to this view, it is not possible to assess whether the goals someone pursues are right or wrong, just or unjust: all that could be done is to investigate whether or not a given action leads to the goal pursued.

Thus, if an animal advocate thinks this way, and realizes that, for the people they are talking to, all that matters is humans or environmentalist goals, they will try to show that consuming animals is not healthy or sustainable, that animal experimentation poses risks to humans, that the killing of wild animals does not achieve environmentalist goals, and so on. In short, the belief is that it is impossible for someone to come to consider animals because it is impossible for someone to change their position regarding goals, values, principles, and so on.

It is surprising that such people think this way. After all, the overwhelming majority of people who are animal advocates today were not always so. For example, the vast majority used to consume animals and at some point in their lives stopped to reflect and concluded that there was no justification for doing so. So it is strange that they believe both that there is nothing to reflect on in this regard and that it is not possible for people to change what they think about it.

Moreover, anyone who knows a little about animal ethics knows that attempts to justify speciesism have been widely discussed at least since the 1970s. When we look at this debate, it becomes very clear how problematic the attempts to justify speciesism are and how solid the arguments in favor of the equal consideration of all sentient beings are. The idea that in ethics all positions are equally plausible sounds reasonable only if we do not take the trouble to look at the arguments offered by each side.

Indeed, if a person has no good argument to defend their position and their opponent has a good argument to defend the opposite position, it is always a good excuse to claim that all positions are equally plausible and that there is no right and wrong.

5) The belief that it is possible to discuss ethics, but impossible to change people

Another possibility is that some animal advocates agree that it is possible to discuss ethics, and that it is even possible to show that speciesism is unjustifiable, but believe that it is impossible for people to change what they think, even when they know they are wrong. According to this view, “some are born good, others are born bad, period.” However, once again, animal advocates should know from their own case that things are not like this.

6) The belief that it is more efficient to limit oneself to discussing the facts

Finally, another possible motivation for animal advocates to accept the shift of focus would be that, although they recognize that there are strong arguments against speciesism and that it is possible to change what people think, they believe that not questioning speciesism (and limiting themselves to discussing the factual claims made by the defenders of speciesist practices) is more efficient for convincing the people they are talking to to stop harming animals.

For example, animal advocates might think that, since they do not have to question the goals and values their opponents adopt, it is easier to get them to change their attitude if they manage to show that the practice in question does not fit with their goals and values.

One problem with this strategy is that very often the goals and values of their opponents will be better achieved by harming animals. For example, it is true that there are many forms of animal consumption that are not healthy and whose ways of exploiting animals are not environmentally sustainable. However, there are various other forms that are (and it is always possible to try to create others that are). Animal experimentation to benefit humans poses risks to humans because of physiological differences. However, animal experimentation to benefit animals of the same species does not pose this risk. Similarly, there are cases in which the most efficient way to secure environmentalist goals is not to harm wild animals (or even to help them). However, at other times the most efficient way to achieve environmentalist goals is to harm animals.

What happens in many cases is that animal advocates insist that it is not possible to exploit animals sustainably, that food of animal origin can never be healthy, and so on. That is, they need to “stretch” the facts to make them fit what they want to defend. But this should not be the path; rather, we should not be afraid to present arguments against speciesism. We will look at something on this below:

When the discussion is limited to the facts, speciesism is never questioned. Speciesism is the reason animals are in the situation they are in. Therefore, it seems impossible to change this situation without questioning speciesism. Moreover, when someone accepts the shift of focus, they are, even if unintentionally, reinforcing the anthropocentric and environmentalist views and emphasizing that animals really do not matter in themselves (and this has a great effect on the public, especially as people notice that animal advocates simply say nothing in favor of animals). So it is not just that accepting the shift of focus may be ineffective at changing the situation of animals: it has a good chance of being counterproductive.

Finally, there is a strategic problem with this view. If we aim to be as efficient as possible at changing people’s behavior in ways that favor animals, then it is better to focus on the audience that shows greater openness to considering animals, since that way it is more likely that their values will come to be aligned with the goal of favoring animals (and we will then achieve a better result by focusing on these people). It seems that many animal advocates have the impression that it is impossible to change people’s behavior in ways that favor animals because they have chosen to focus precisely on the audience most averse to thinking about the moral consideration of animals.

6.4. Conclusion

We have seen in this chapter that, in debates about practices that harm animals, the focus is usually shifted to questions that have nothing to do with the harm to animals. This shift of focus ends up implying that the harm to animals is not decisive (or even important) for knowing whether or not such practices are justifiable.

We have seen that this shift of focus, depending on the case, may or may not be intentional on the part of those who try to justify the practices that harm animals. We have also seen that, likewise, the acceptance of the shift of focus by animal advocates may or may not be deliberate. However, we have seen that, regardless of whether or not it is deliberate, the shift of focus has the same effect: speciesism is not discussed.

There are no good reasons for animal advocates to accept this shift of focus because, as long as speciesism is not widely discussed, there will be no change in the way people see nonhuman animals and, as a consequence, the situation of nonhuman animals will hardly change, since the root of the problem will then never be attacked.