Last night, distinguished guest speakers Professor Colin Blakemore and British psychologist Dr Richard Ryder spoke at a One World Forum debate about animal research at Warwick University. The debate was markedly superior to most because Dr Ryder does not accept the simplistic antivivisection notion that all animal research is fundamentally flawed, although he believes the benefits are exaggerated. This allowed room to develop common ground, at least in the belief that we should show compassion to sentient creatures, be they human or animal.
A significant part of the debate was centred on the concept of ‘speciesism’, a term which was coined by Richard Ryder in 1973 to denote a prejudice based on what he considered morally irrelevant physical differences between humans and other animals.
The case that speciesism is irrational and unacceptable has been extensively promoted by animal-rights philosophers, and is discussed for example in Wikipedia.
But it seems the case for treating animals differently from humans has not had the same depth of philosophical commitment, and is somewhat disjointed. Here then is a summary of the main arguments for treating humans morally differently to animals.
Firstly, studies of evolutionary biology show that all species put themselves first, at the expense of other species. This argument is a valid starting point. But it could be considered weak because humans are moral agents and capable of overriding their biological urges—for example in the domestication of companion animals.
Secondly, there is no clear cut dividing line at which we should ascribe animals moral rights equivalent to humans. The evidence is strong that higher animals, especially mammals, feel pain and suffering in a way which is equivalent to human pain and suffering. But further down the evolutionary tree, the evidence becomes less convincing. Eventually we reach a point where we are either sceptical that an animal can truly suffer pain, or we can be reasonably sure that it does not, say in the case of a mosquito.
Thirdly, there is the crude but pragmatic argument that all the campaigning of the animal rights groups has failed to win the case. Whilst slavery was abolished over a century ago, the vast majority of the world’s population (with notable exceptions) give little consideration to eating meat or destroying vermin.
Other criticisms of the speciesism concept have been described, again for an example on Wikipedia. Some are more philosophical in nature, others invoke religious doctrine.
We have respect and admiration for the thoughtful and intelligent way in which Richard Ryder made his case. But his speciesism argument has not caught the imagination of the public—at least not yet!
<Wrap up...>
