speciesism speciesism is the unequal treatment of living beings because of their kind, the term is a neologism (from species and-ism) was only coined in 1970 by Richard Ryder.
It is found as a theoretical concept, especially in a part of the animal liberation movement, animal ethics and animal rights movement has input. The term speciesism tried inequality of living beings by their nature (the species) to make language comprehensible, since such a difference in treatment in life there is often an unconscious self-evident. It is assumed that speciesism is a social construct by the people. This speciesism is a phenomenon similar to racism or sexism seen among men. The opponents of speciesism call themselves AntispeziesistInnen. The classification of organisms into species is their view by arbitrary criteria (see Personal categorization). This includes in particular the distinction between man and the rest of the animal kingdom.
As a consequence of the rejection of speciesism, the ethical Edition of veganism considered, including the rejection of home and mounts. Because if it is unethical to kill people or imprison for economic reasons or for their own entertainment, and there was no significant difference between humans and other animals, including animal usage and maintenance is unethical.
Contents a complaint that the animal protection movement
two controversies
2.1 Definition between animals and plants 2.2 double standards
3.2 Applicability 2.4 Evolutionist criticisms 2.5 Ethical fundamental analysis
3 Literature
four criminal
complaint that the animal protection movement
The term is often used by animal rights activists to accuse animal rights activists alleged that they would treat some species preferred and exploit other species for food and material production. Cultural reasons it is such as the killing and consumption of pigs and cattle in the Western world largely accepted. The killing of dogs and cats, and eating cat or dog meat, however, refused and was declared illegal. 
controversy
distinction between animals and plants
, the attitude of the animal rights activists are interpreted as self-contradictory, with a focus on the animal kingdom where the border between the animal kingdom and other living things is itself blurred. As an example, a common definition of the term "animal" should be mentioned:
An animal is an animal which:
first multicellular is 2 a eukaryotic cell structure has
third heterotrophic
lives fourth and mobility has
The clear distinction made, as the above list shows, as extremely difficult. That aim to satisfy the mushrooms first three criteria but not the last. Amoebae meet again the last three criteria but not the first. Yet already this definition is problematic since there are living things that belong to the kingdom Animalia, but are not capable of movement (such as Sponges). This classification can only explain evolutionary theory, more precisely, from Darwin's theory of common descent, that the last common ancestor of modern sponges and the animals lived as defined above is about 600 million years later than the last common ancestor of animals and plants.
But even without this measure can be considered the above criteria in ethical terms as arbitrary. Thus, for example, ascertaining numerical consequence in the near no ethically relevant boundary between the animal kingdom and the vegetable kingdom. Frutarian try to solve this problem, they feed only on plant parts, which won can be without harming the plant. This includes fruits, fruit vegetables, seeds (and legumes) and nuts, but not root and leaf vegetables, and herbs. Also, a waiver of wood and paper is the logical consequence. Therefore, it should be noted that plants can not feel pain and suffer not capable. Thus the difference between the views of a Frutarian entirely by the convictions of a Antispeziesistische.
Many vegans define their ethics does not on the membership of the animal kingdom, but to feel on the ability of the organism, pain and suffering. It is generally assumed that this a central nervous system is necessary. Although this criteria does not include all animals, it includes all relevant in terms of human use of animals, animals, and only one; for practical purposes it is therefore tantamount to rejecting all animal use.
double standards
The charge of speciesism seems to be the only people, other animals that feed on appropriate conditions, is not accused of being speciesist. Practically, it would hardly be possible to accuse a shark or a lion, the carnivorous diet. Here you can make the concept of speciesism accusations of double standards: people should not eat meat, other animal species still be tolerated as predators, although it should be the prey no matter by whom it is killed.
A counter-argument against the charge of double standards is that ethics is not natural and the expectation of ethical practices of a being who can formulate the absence of language or intelligence, no ethics, is meaningless. So this means also that the animal is not equal to man and man occupies a special place in nature. The allegation implies that because Antispeziesistische the defense of prey to their predators unintelligent not think they apply ethical, a similar action by an intelligent predators, so a person is ethically right would be assessed. The term implies double standards continue, as it is meant not value-free, but pejorative that ethics must be independent of the actors, which would be justified. Caste systems and social status have been used repeatedly in the history of the attempt to establish hierarchies of higher ethics.
Helmut F. Kaplan argues in his book, The Undertaker's - ethical reasons for a vegetarian diet that speciesism is morally were on the same level as racism and sexism. When speciesism the violation of the equality principle is even bigger than the other two practices: While racism and sexism only similar interests would be hurt, would this even larger interests of animals are injured. For example, would the animal interests, not to be killed for a fur coat, bear no relation to the human interest, such a garment.
applicability
What speciesists accused is, including a lack of sense of the real situation, caused by the improved supply of food in developed countries, but in no way corresponds to the circumstances in developing countries or even the Western world in ancient times.
Regarding lack of sense of the real conditions objected to that existing conditions can not be a standard for ethics. Ethics must be derived from theoretical considerations, and the real situation must be judged. What remains is the inefficiency and environmental unsustainability of animal food sources, because the energy efficiency of an animal as a food source with about 10% can be specified, compared to the direct consumption of plant food. This inefficiency may make meat as a commodity attractive, may generate higher production costs, higher profits. Furthermore, in industrialized countries is more the problem of over-nutrition as the to solve the malnutrition.
Evolutionist criticisms
A fundamental criticism of speciesism is that which raises the question of why speciesism is at all worthy of condemnation. The evolution is based on competition between species, and that man is able to dominate other species and to use to his advantage, can be viewed as a positive achievement, which was not always granted.
The question of why speciesism is at all worthy of condemnation, can worsen, however, by putting the question of why racism can be wrong, because if one is in a position to exploit and oppress other countries. It can also argue that the evolution of humanity has left behind and may have formation of the relevant measure to distinguish themselves from less highly evolved beings (humans), to possibly create new transhumanism, artificial criteria. The application of humanistic ideals to Homo sapiens and the exclusion of other primates is genetically justified, but why should genetic ancestry be the major criterion? This definition suggests itself, but was ultimately chosen. A possible (future) transhuman society could meet the Homo sapiens, following the same reason and his model, even with speciesism.
Ethical fundamental analysis
critics, such as Ulrich Körtner say, an equation of speciesism with racism or chauvinism is absurd and is wrong because in their opinion is based to a unique, inviolable and sacred dignity of man solely on his ability to moral insight. The responsibility for our fellow men sprang from so this fact. Finally, one could extend the so-called speciesism with the argument of equal treatment with the same right to plants, atoms or washing machines, since could not capture any fixed boundary between animate and inanimate nature. It would be understandable that an ethics thus should be based more than formal, utilitarian principles (equal consideration of interests) to be able to ever be significant.
See also Peter Singer
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Tom Regan Richard D. Ryder http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Regan
http: / / de.wikipedia.org / wiki / Richard_D._Ryder
Jean-Claude Wolf
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Wolf
Helmut Kaplan
http://de.wikipedia.org/ wiki / Helmut_Kaplan anthropology
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropologie
Stoa
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoa
0 comments:
Post a Comment