Welcome to Gaia! ::

Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species. The term was coined by Richard D. Ryder in 1970 and is used to denote prejudice similar in kind to sexism and racism. The term has not entered everyday language.

The idea of speciesism is used mostly by advocates of animal rights, who believe that it is irrational or morally wrong.

Philosophers Tom Regan and Peter Singer have both criticized speciesism. Regan rejects it because it permits unjustified violations of animals' inherent rights; Singer, because it violates the principle of equal consideration of interests.

Speciesism can be defined as a prejudice against taking the interests of members of other species into equal consideration based on the idea that all members of one's own species are more valuable than all members of other species, no matter what characteristics individuals might possess.

Great Ape personhood is a related concept, in which the various attributes of the Great Apes are deemed by some people, to merit recognition of their sentience and personhood within the law, as opposed to mere protection under animal cruelty legislation. This would cover matters such as their own best interest being taken into account in their treatment by people.

Some religions are less speciesist than others. While animists may believe in the equality of all sentient beings, monotheists tend to believe that human beings are superior to other lifeforms by divine intention. The teachings of Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism emphasizes ideals such as sarva jeeva sama bhava (सर्व जीव सम भाव), that is, "all sentient beings are equal", and are examples of religions that tilt towards being less speciesist, though the extent to which this is reflected in daily life in countries where those religions are influential depends on the local culture.

I do believe he got this from wikipedia... confused

Speciesism

Is there a discussion question, opinion or something besides this paragraph? Please give me something to work with here.

Well in that case I can see how people may be against spesiesism for animal rights purposes. It is as real as any other word. It's just less familiar to many people because it probably is not much of an issue they care to recognize in their lives. This is what I think, All living creatures have a right to life on this planet and for the most part be left alone if they want nothing to do with humans. Humans are not superior we are just an animal with some unique abilities, just like any other creature, that help us thrive. I would absolutely hold myself a higher then that of another creature because not because of superiority but just because I like myself more razz . That does not mean I would not risk my life to save my pets, they are my family, which I care for. There are some animals I tend to care for much more then others. Mammals I most identify with, avis, reptiles, and fish not so much. Weird things like jellies, sponges, and stuff like that hardly at all. They all have their place on this earth though and without them humans would not even be here.

I see how it can shape society. In one culture it is perfectly normal to use a certain species of animal as a food but in another culture they can be seen as either unclean, sacred, or as a pet. Here a guineapig is not considered a meat but in other places they are raised just for that. It goes for just about any animal I suppose. Thats all I can write for today I am too tired to think/type about anything. seeya

That's probably the most basic form of hierarchical separation we have in our society, and it's also constantly reinforced by every other hierarchical separation which exists.

When people stop internalizing a class system, and stop talking down to children, and stop bashing the elderly, and stop thinking less of the mentally handicapped, and so forth...then it's time to start working on equalizing perceptions of other species.

Until then, I'm happy if I just get my neighbor to stop beating his dog.

I'm not involved in the animal rights movement, so I don't really know what the varying positions out there are, but I can at least articulate what I've assumed the primary stance to be.

Social recognition of equality doesn't necessarily relate to political equality; for instance, a Canadian citizen in the US can't vote and a US citizen in Canada can't vote, because they aren't members of those particular political bodies. So while there are basic rights which are universal - you're still legally protected against theft and murder, for example - other things which we may consider a "right" are granted specifically by being a citizen. Most animals would probably have a recognized right to bodily integrity and some recognition of claims to property; certain populations or animal communities might have some form of governmental representation through human advocates.

I'd imagine the idea is that governments would explicitly state what species could be members of its political body while taking animal interests into account. This would allow recognition of non-human governing groups, to the extent we could communicate with them; a country might hash out agreements with dolphin pods which spend time in local waters in the same way they currently might negotiate with a neighboring country.

lollercoaster. Doesn't that make your argument self-refuting?

Plants are all species, too. I choose to eat from the plant kingdom but not the animal kingdom on the grounds that the meat industry is horribly pollutive and excessively inhumane. Personal judgement call. Who am I to suggest that others limit their freedoms because I hold highly subjective beliefs?

Most scientists seem to concur that primative humans lived primarily by hunting, not by foraging. This is why our teeth and digestive systems evolved in the way that they did. Of course, I'm referencing empiricist scientists, not the Earth First! whackjobs who spend all day manipulating numbers and suggesting presupposed crackpot theories.
"The generally prescribed proportions of protein, fat, and carbohydrate are approximately 20-35%, 30-60%, and 20-35% respectively by calories. By calories the diet is commonly around 45-65% animal products and 35-55% plant products."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

Also, many other animals eat *gasp* other animals! I'm sure that as someone who practices the duality of being a primitivist AND an animal, you can see that it's objectively irrelevent as to whether or not the ability to reason should influence dietary choices.