This book was the most clarifying for me of all of the things I have read on this subject before. Carol Adams and Joan Dunayer represent a side of the argument that I am most likely to agree with, but also that I think just does make more sense in terms of philosophy. I can see that many people would think that the position of this book is radical or extreme, but I think that it is actually coherent- and that consistancy is something many moral codes lack and so it is shocking to realize the extent to which our lives would have to be changed in order to actually reflect what we say our morals are.
Dunayer defines speciesism in direct terms- It is drawing a moral distinction between humans and all other animals. This definition is a lot more broad than other definitions which have been proffered by intellegentsia in the animal rights arguement. Singer, for example, defines it as a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one’s ownspecies and against those members of other species. Dunayer is contradicting or expanding on this by saying that there is more to Speciesism than preferencing humans, and that it includes any prejudice towards or against any species on any grounds- whether it br their species or fur or color or intelligence.
Speciesism is any form of discrimination based on species- human chauvinism is just one type of speciesism.
On pg. 4 Dunayer explains that it is speciesist to give other species less consideration, just as it is sexist to give women less consideration.
Speciesists rationalize their discriminatory treatment. Discriminatory treatment is giving more weight to the interests of some than to the interests of others. SPeciesism is an attitude and a form of oppression. All of this adds up to- Speciesism is a failure, in attitude or practice, to accor any nonhuman being equal consideration and respect.
Dunayer goes through the other frameworks and philosophies for looking at the relationship between animals and humans. The first section she considers is Old Speciesist Philosophy. This philosophy sees human life as special and non humans as exploitable.
However, Dunayer pokes a whole in this idea of judging by species, viewing individuals solely in terms of their group makes no sense because experience takes place at the level of the individual.
Preferences do not translate into privileges- just because humans might want to eat the flesh of a chicken corpse does not mean they ought to have the privilege of doing so- we are not entitled to do so. This seems like a somewhat significant linguistic issue- our desires are not our rights- just because a little kid wants a lollipop does not mean they have the right to take it away from some other little kid.
Also, an absence of empathy for animals does not justify victimization. Not caring about the way something else feels is one thing, but it does not mean you are not still morally required to treat it in certain ways.
Christian doctrine is a part of this old speciesist philosophy- in that it dictates human superiority over animals- (interesting to note that it also dictates mans superiority over women and also says slavery is cool). So ultimately christian doctrine is incompatible with animal equality.
Old Speciesist philosophy denies the individuality of animals- which is actually something easily disproved, as Dunayer does later in the book.
Dunayer points out that there is no objective sense in which human life has more value than nonhuman life. Intelligence is clearly an ineffective irrational basis from which to justify the oppression of animals because requiring human like intelligence in non humans is inherently biased as different creatures have differen habitats, needs etc. There are different types of intelligences that we don’t understand, different sorts of knowledge that humans lack- there is no clear way to discern what sort of smarts is the best. It should also be pointed out that the sorts of things that make one successful under capitalism are perhaps, ultimately, not that valuable.
