Reading Notes by Christopher Lay

Los Angeles Pierce College

Department of History, Philosophy, and Sociology

 

 

Peter Singer's 1974 "All Animals are Equal"

 

 

 

 

 

Singer

"All Animals are Equal"

 Philosophical Exchange 1: 103-16. 

 

 

 

The Racially Oppressed

In the 1960's "Black Liberation" movements began to achieve success. 

 

An oppressed group made at least semi-successful steps towards forcing an end to oppression. 

 

Other oppressed groups took note. 

"In recent years a number of oppressed groups have campaigned vigorously for equality. The classic instance is the Black Liberation movement, which demands an end to the prejudice and discrimination that has made blacks second-class citizens. The immediate appeal of the black liberation movement and its initial, if limited, success made it a model for other oppressed groups to follow."

 

 

 

The Sexually Oppressed

"When a majority groupÐwomenÐbegan their campaign, some thought we had come to the end of the road."  

 

 

 

 

The Last form of Pervasive Discrimination

(?)

"Discrimination on the basis of sex, it has been said, is the last universally accepted form of discrimination, practiced without secrecy or pretense even in those liberal circles that have long prided themselves on their freedom from prejudice against racial minorities."

 

 

 

 

Singer

But Singer objects: the elimination of racial and sexual oppression does not equate to the elimination of all forms of class oppression or discrimination. 

"One should always be wary of talking of 'the last remaining form of discrimination.'"

 

 

 

Human Oppressors

Humans sometimes oppress without really recognizing it; it can be very difficult to "be aware of latent prejudice in our attitudes to particular groups until this prejudice is forcefully pointed out."

"If we have learnt anything from the liberation movements, we should have learnt how difficult it is to be aware of latent prejudice in our attitudes to particular groups until this prejudice is forcefully pointed out."

 

 

 

Reinterpretation of the Principle of Equality

"A liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons and an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality."

 

 

 

 

Result

Once we have reinterpreted the principle of equality, we can uncover "unjustifiable prejudice."

"Practices that were previously regarded as natural and inevitable come to be seen as the result of an unjustifiable prejudice."

 

 

 

Pro-Oppression or Anti-Oppression

"If we wish to avoid being numbered amongst the oppressors, we must be prepared to re-think even our most fundamental attitudes."

 

 

 

 

Sympathy

&

Empathy

We need to learn how to adopt alternative perspectives, both emotionally and intellectually:

 

"We need to consider them from the point of view of those most disadvantaged by our attitudes, and the practices that follow from these attitudes. If we can make this unaccustomed mental switch we may discover a pattern in our attitudes and practices that consistently operates so as to benefit one groupÐusually the one to which we ourselves belongÐat the expense of another."

 

 

 

 

Singer's Professed Aim

"My aim is to advocate that we make this mental switch in respect of our attitudes and practices towards a very large group of beings: members of species other than our ownÐor, as we popularly though misleadingly call them, animals."

 

 

 

 

Singer's Professed Aim Restated

"In other words, I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species."

 

 

 

 

Historical Resonance with Taylor's Parody

/

Slippery Slope

Against a previous attempt to minimize sexual oppression (carried out by Wollstonecraft), Taylor argues that the arguments in favor of ending sexual oppression can be extended to ending animal oppressionÐin an attempt to dismiss both. 

"[I]n the past the idea of 'The Rights of Animals' really has been used to parody the case for women's rights. When Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of later feminists, published her Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, her ideas were widely regarded as absurd, and they were satirized in an anonymous publication entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. The author of this satire (actually Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher) tried to refute Wollstonecraft's reasonings by showing that they could be carried one stage further."

 

 

 

Taylor's Reasoning

"If sound when applied to women, why should the arguments not be applied to dogs, cats, and horses? They seemed to hold equally well for these 'brutes'; yet to hold that brutes had rights was manifestly absurd; therefore the reasoning by which this conclusion had been reached must be unsound, and if unsound when applied to brutes, it must also be unsound when applied to women, since the very same arguments had been used in each case."

 

 

 

 

Possible Reply to that Slippery Slope

Extending the right to vote to women does not entail extending the right to vote to immature humans or nonhuman animals since immature humans and nonhuman animals don't have the needed rational capacities. 

 

Nonhuman animals are significantly different in a number of aspects, and so "should not have equal rights." 

"One way in which we might reply to this argument is by saying that the case for equality between men and women cannot validly be extended to nonhuman animals. Women have a right to vote, for instance, because they are just as capable of making rational decisions as men are; dogs, on the other hand, are incapable of understanding the significance of voting, so they cannot have the right to vote. There are many other obvious ways in which men and women resemble each other closely, while humans and other animals differ greatly. So, it might be said, men and women are similar beings and should have equal rights, while humans and nonhumans are different and should not have equal rights."

 

 

 

Singer's Evaluation of that Possible Reply

"The thought behind this reply to Taylor's analogy is correct up to a point, but it does not go far enough. There are important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have."

 

 

 

 

Not Having the Same Rights ­ Not Having Any Rights

We can recognize that humans and nonhuman animals may not have the same rights. 

 

But recognizing that does not mean that nonhuman animals don't have any rights. 

"Recognizing this obvious fact, however, is no barrier to the case for extending the basic principle of equality to nonhuman animals. The differences that exist between men and women are equally undeniable, and the supporters of Women's Liberation are aware that these differences may give rise to different rights. Many feminists hold that women have the right to an abortion on request. It does not follow that since these same people are campaigning for equality between men and women they must support the right of men to have abortions too."

 

 

 

Men

&

Pigs

"Since a man cannot have an abortion, it is meaningless to talk of his right to have one."

 

"Since a pig can't vote, it is meaningless to talk of its right to vote."

 

 

 

 

Equality

Doesn't Mean ...

"The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups."

"The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups. Whether we should do so will depend on the nature of the members of the two groups."

 

 

 

Equality of Consideration

"The basic principle of equality, I shall argue, is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights."

 

 

 

 

Singer's Reply to the Taylor Parody/Slippery Slope

Singer argues that we will discover that we can see our basic equality with animals if we philosophically examine why we are opposed to the oppression of races or sexes. 

 

When we discover why we are opposed to the oppression of races or sexes, we'll see that we cannot consistently endorse the oppression of animals. 

"So there is a different way of replying to Taylor's attempt to parody Wollstonecraft's arguments, a way which does not deny the differences between humans and nonhumans, but goes more deeply into the question of equality and concludes by finding nothing absurd in the idea that the basic principle of equality applies to so-called 'brutes.' I believe that we reach this conclusion if we examine the basis on which our opposition to discrimination on grounds of race or sex ultimately rests. We will then see that we would be on shaky ground if we were to demand equality for blacks, women, and other groups of oppressed humans while denying equal consideration to nonhumans."

 

 

 

Examination of Equality

What does it mean to assert equality? 

"When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed, or sex, are equal, what is it that we are asserting?"

 

 

 

Factual Inequality

Non-egalitarians often point out that factually humans are not all equal. 

 

Humans differ in size, shape, and abilities both physical and intellectual. 

 

Thus, "if the demand for equality [is] based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality." 

"Those who wish to defend a hierarchical, inegalitarian society have often pointed out that by whatever test we choose, it simply is not true that all humans are equal. Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilities, differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, differing abilities to communicate effectively, and differing capacities to experience pleasure and pain. In short, if the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. It would be an unjustifiable demand."

 

 

 

Factual Equality

One can nevertheless assert equality by finding factual equivalences (like having a human body). 

"Still, one might cling to the view that the demand for equality among human beings is based on the actual equality of the different races and sexes."

 

 

 

Relevant, Common Equality

Despite Irrelevant  Differences

"Although humans differ as individuals in various ways, there are no differences between the races and sexes as such."

 

"From the mere fact that a person is black, or a woman, we cannot infer anything else about that person."

"Although humans differ as individuals in various ways, there are no differences between the races and sexes as such. From the mere fact that a person is black, or a woman, we cannot infer anything else about that person. This, it may be said, is what is wrong with racism and sexism. The white racist claims that whites are superior to blacks, but this is falseÑalthough there are differences between individuals, some blacks are superior to some whites in all of the capacities and abilities that could conceivably be relevant. The opponent of sexism would say the same: a person's sex is no guide to his or her abilities, and this is why it is unjustifiable to discriminate on the basis of sex."

 

 

 

Reason #1 Against Basing Opposition to Racism or Sexism on Any Kind of Factual Equality

Basing opposition to racism or sexism on factual equalities can force one to accept "a most inegalitarian society." 

"This is a possible line of objection to racial and sexual discrimination. It is not, however, the way that someone really concerned about equality would choose, because taking this line could, in some circumstances, force one to accept a most inegalitarian society."

 

 

 

Relevant Differences? 

The "opponent of equality" could grant that race or sex does not track a relevant difference and still argue for preferential treatment according to some other difference. 

"The fact that humans differ as individuals, rather than as races or sexes, is a valid reply to someone who defends a hierarchical society like, say, South Africa, in which all whites are superior in status to all blacks."

 

 

 

I.Q.

A "more sophisticated opponent of equality" could argue that we should prefer the interests of "those with I.Q. ratings above 100." 

"The existence of individual variations that cut across the lines of race or sex, however, provides us with no defense at all against a more sophisticated opponent of equality, one who proposes that, say, the interests of those with I.Q. ratings above 100 be preferred to the interests of those with I.Q.s below 100."

 

 

 

Singer:

"Would a hierarchical society of this sort really be so much better than one based on race or sex? I think not."

 

 

 

 

The First Problem with Appeals to Factual Equality

"But if we tie the moral principle of equality to the factual equality of the different races or sexes, taken as a whole, our opposition to racism and sexism does not provide us with any basis for objecting to this kind of inegalitarianism."

 

 

 

 

Reason #2 Against Basing Opposition to Racism or Sexism on Any Kind of Factual Equality

"[W]e can have no absolute guarantee that these abilities and capacities really are distributed evenly, without regard to race or sex, among human beings."

"There is a second important reason why we ought not to base our opposition to racism and sexism on any kind of factual equality, even the limited kind which asserts that variations in capacities and abilities are spread evenly between the different races and sexes: we can have no absolute guarantee that these abilities and capacities really are distributed evenly, without regard to race or sex, among human beings."

 

 

 

Factual Inequality Exists

"So far as actual abilities are concerned, there do seem to be certain measurable differences between both races and sexes."

 

 

 

 

On Average

"These differences do not, of course, appear in each case, but only when averages are taken."

 

 

 

 

Whence the Differences

Do these differences stem from genetic differences, or do they stem from environmental differences? 

 

We don't know, yet at least. 

"More important still, we do not yet know how much of these differences is really due to the different genetic endowments of the various races and sexes, and how much is due to environmental differences that are the result of past and continuing discrimination."

 

 

 

 

Those opposed to discrimination tend to hope that the differences stem from environmental factors, as those can be changed "a lot easier" ... but this is a "dangerous" position. 

"Perhaps all of the important differences will eventually prove to be environmental rather than genetic. Anyone opposed to racism and sexism will certainly hope that this will be so, for it will make the task of ending discrimination a lot easier; nevertheless it would be dangerous to rest the case against racism and sexism on the belief that all significant differences are environmental in origin."

 

 

 

 

If differences in relevant abilities are connected to race, then "racism would in some way be defensible." 

"The opponent of, say, racism who takes this line will be unable to avoid conceding that if differences in ability did after all prove to have some genetic connection with race, racism would in some way be defensible."

 

 

 

Scientific Finger-Crossing

"It would be folly for the opponent of racism to stake his whole case on a dogmatic commitment to one particular outcome of a difficult scientific issue which is still a long way from being settled."

"While attempts to prove that differences in certain selected abilities between races and sexes are primarily genetic in origin have certainly not been conclusive, the same must be said of attempts to prove that these differences are largely the result of environment."

 

 

 

Factual Equality and Science

If one pins their argument against those who are against equality on facts, then one must appeal to science (the study of facts), but the sciences have not determined if differences in ability stem from genetic or environmental factors. 

"At this stage of the investigation we cannot be certain which view is correct, however much we may hope it is the latter."

 

 

 

Singer on the Significance of the Facts

"Fortunately, there is no need to pin the case for equality to one particular outcome of this scientific investigation."

 

 

 

 

On the Relevance of Facts for Claims of Equality

"[T]he claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact."

"The appropriate response to those who claim to have found evidence of genetically-based differences in ability between the races or sexes is not to stick to the belief that the genetic explanation must be wrong, whatever evidence to the contrary may turn up: instead we should make it quite clear that the claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact."

 

 

 

A Moral Ideal

"Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact."

 

 

 

 

 

"There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests."

 

 

 

 

Singer:

Principle of Equality is a Prescription

"The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans."

 

 

 

 

Bentham's

Version of the Principle of Equality

Bentham: "'Each to count for one and none for more than one.'"

 

Singer on Bentham: "In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being."

"Jeremy Bentham incorporated the essential basis of moral equality into his utilitarian system of ethics in the formula: 'Each to count for one and none for more than one.'"

 

 

 

Sidgwick's Version of the Principle of Equality

Sidgwick: "'The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view (if I may say so) of the Universe, than the good of any other.'"

 

 

 

 

Principle of Equality

"It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possessÐalthough precisely what this concern requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do."

 

 

 

 

This Principle of Equality Supports the Opposition Against Racism and SexismÐand Speciesism

"It is on this basis that the case against racism and the case against sexism must both ultimately rest; and it is in accordance with this principle that speciesism is also to be condemned."

 

 

 

 

From Human Equality to Animal Equality

"If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans?" 

 

 

 

 

Suffering

/ The Source of Equality

In line with Bentham, Singer considers the role of suffering.

 

It is the capacity to suffer that "gives a being the right to equal consideration." 

"Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration."

 

 

 

Suffering and Happiness,

Negatively

Having the capacity to suffer and be happy "is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language, or for higher mathematics."

"The capacity for sufferingÐor more strictly, for suffering and/or enjoyment or happinessÐis not just another characteristic like the capacity for language, or for higher mathematics."

 

 

 

Suffering and Happiness,

Positively 

Those capacities are prerequisites for "having interests at all." 

"The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way."

 

 

 

The Non-Suffering

"It would be nonsense to say that it was not in the interests of a stone to be kicked along the road by a schoolboy."

 

"A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer."

 

"Nothing that we can do to it could possibly make any difference to its welfare."

 

 

 

 

Animals

Animals have interests in "not being tormented, because it will suffer if it is."

"A mouse, on the other hand, does have an interest in not being tormented, because it will suffer if it is."

 

 

 

If You Can Suffer, Your Interests Must Be Considered

"If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration."

"No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like sufferingÐin so far as rough comparisons can be madeÐof any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account."

 

 

 

Non-Arbitrary

It is for this reason, Singer argues, that suffering is the only non-arbitrary way to mark out a boundary of non-consideration:" This is why the limit [the ability to suffer or be happy] ... is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others."

"This is why the limit of sentience (using the term as a convenient, if not strictly accurate, shorthand for the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To mark this boundary by some characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be to mark it in an arbitrary way. Why not choose some other characteristic, like skin color?"

 

 

 

Racist/Sexist Analogy

Racists and sexists violate the principle of equality "by giving greater weight to the interests of members of" their own groups. 

 

"Similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of other species."

"The racist violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of his own race, when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of other species."

 

 

 

How the Speciesists Violate the Principle of Equality

Speciesists most frequently violate other species' equality with their mouths. 

 

Some speciesists violate other species' equality by condoning experiments on those species. 

 

Philosopher-speciesists violate other species' equality by not questioning the basic assumption of our times, anthrocentrism. 

 

(In the interest of time we'll focus on the third violation.)

 

 

 

 

Philosophy

Ought

Singer asserts that philosophy "ought to question the basic assumptions of the age" so that what is taken for granted can be discovered as just that. 

"Philosophy ought to question the basic assumptions of the age. Thinking through, critically and carefully, what most people take for granted is, I believe, the chief task of philosophy, and it is this task that makes philosophy a worthwhile activity."

 

 

 

Philosophy

Is

But philosophers are the products of their culture, and they too can be blind to their own presuppositions. 

"Regrettably, philosophy does not always live up to its historic role. Philosophers are human beings, and they are subject to all the preconceptions of the society to which they belong."

 

 

 

Singer's Indictment of 1974 Philosophy

"[P]hilosophy as practiced in the universities today does not challenge anyone's preconceptions about our relations with other species."

 

 

 

 

Focus within Philosophy on Equality

Singer focuses in on the failure of academic philosophy to uncover its own unwarranted speciesism within its focus on equality.   

"I think it would be [an] appropriate conclusion to this article ... if I concentrated on the problem with which we have been centrally concerned, the problem of equality."

 

 

 

Equality Just Means Human Equality (Wrongly)

"It is significant that the problem of equality, in moral and political philosophy, is invariably formulated in terms of human equality."

 

 

 

 

Claiming Human Equality

/

Not Factual Characteristics

When arguing for human equality, one cannot appeal to factual "capacities, talents or other qualities." 

" ... if humans are to be regarded as equal to one another, we need some sense of 'equal' that does not require any actual, descriptive equality of capacities, talents or other qualities."

 

 

 

Factual Equality

/

Lowest Common Denominator

When the equality of humanity is based off of factual characteristics, "these characteristics must be some lowest common denominator, pitched so low that no human lacks them ... ."

 

But when the bar is set so low, it will include some nonhuman animals. 

"If equality is to be related to any actual characteristics of humans, these characteristics must be some lowest common denominator, pitched so low that no human lacks themÐbut then the philosopher comes up against the catch that any such set of characteristics which covers all humans will not be possessed only by humans."

 

 

 

 

"In other words, it turns out that in the only sense in which we can truly say, as an assertion of fact, that all humans are equal, at least some members of other species are also equalÐequal, that is, to each other and to humans."

 

 

 

 

Claiming Human Equality

/

Prescriptively

If we instead claim human equality with a prescriptive understanding of equality then "it is even more difficult to exclude non-humans from the sphere of equality."

"If, on the other hand, we regard the statement 'All humans are equal' in some non-factual way, perhaps as a prescription, then, as I have already argued, it is even more difficult to exclude non-humans from the sphere of equality."

 

 

 

Singer on Philosophical Speciesist in General

"[M]ost philosophers try to reconcile their beliefs in human equality and animal inequality by arguments that can only be described as devious."

 

 

 

 

Frankena E.G.

Frankena "proposes the principle that 'all men are to be treated as equals, not because they are equal, in any respect, but simply because they are human.'"

 

Frankena continues: "'They are human because they have emotions and desires, and are able to think, and hence are capable of enjoying a good life in a sense in which other animals are not.'"

"As a first example, I take William Frankena's well-known article 'The Concept of Social Justice.' Frankena opposes the idea of basing justice on merit, because he sees that this could lead to highly inegalitarian results. Instead he proposes the principle that 'all men are to be treated as equals, not because they are equal, in any respect, but simply because they are human. They are human because they have emotions and desires, and are able to think, and hence are capable of enjoying a good life in a sense in which other animals are not.'"

 

 

 

 

By "'the good life'" Frankena admits that he "means 'not so much the morally good life as the happy or satisfactory life.'" 

 

Singer takes this to mean that thought is not necessary for the good life. 

 

Singer: "This makes it difficult to see what Frankena's principle of equality has to do with simply being human."

"Frankena goes on to admit that by 'the good life' he means 'not so much the morally good life as the happy or satisfactory life,' so thought would appear to be unnecessary for enjoying the good life; in fact to emphasize the need for thought would make difficulties for the egalitarian since only some people are capable of leading intellectually satisfying lives, or morally good lives. This makes it difficult to see what Frankena's principle of equality has to do with simply being human."

 

 

 

Singer on The Capacity for Happiness

"Surely every sentient being is capable of leading a life that is happier or less miserable than some alternative life, and hence has a claim to be taken into account."

 

 

 

 

Continuum

"In this respect the distinction between humans and nonhumans is not a sharp division, but rather a continuum along which we move gradually, and with overlaps between the species, from simple capacities for enjoyment and satisfaction, or pain and suffering, to more complex ones."

 

 

 

 

Philosophers

Philosophers tend not to face this challenge well. 

 

Philosophers try and invent ways to show that humans are morally distinct from nonhuman animals. 

"Faced with a situation in which they see a need for some basis for the moral gulf that is commonly thought to separate humans and animals, but can find no concrete difference that will do the job without undermining the equality of humans, philosophers tend to waffle."

 

 

 

Philosophers Waffling:

"They resort to high-sounding phrases like 'the intrinsic dignity of the human individual;' they talk of the 'intrinsic worth of all men' as if men (humans?) had some worth that other beings did not, or they say that humans, and only humans, are 'ends in themselves,' while 'everything other than a person can only have value for a person.'"

 

 

 

 

The Allure of "'intrinsic dignity'" of All Humans

"[W]hen one thinks only of humans, it can be very liberal, very progressive, to talk of the dignity of all human beings."

"Why should we not attribute 'intrinsic dignity' or 'intrinsic worth' to ourselves? Fellow-humans are unlikely to reject the accolades we so generously bestow on them, and those to whom we deny the honor are unable to object. Indeed, when one thinks only of humans, it can be very liberal, very progressive, to talk of the dignity of all human beings."

 

 

 

It Does Sound Good

"In so doing, we implicitly condemn slavery, racism, and other violations of human rights."

 

"We admit that we ourselves are in some fundamental sense on a par with the poorest, most ignorant members of our own species."

 

 

 

 

 

But the elevation of our entire species as equal lowers the "relative status of all other species." 

"It is only when we think of humans as no more than a small sub-group of all the beings that inhabit our planet that we may realize that in elevating our own species we are at the same time lowering the relative status of all other species."

 

 

 

Singer on Appeals to Human Equality from Intrinsic Dignity

"The truth is that the appeal to the intrinsic dignity of human beings appears to solve the egalitarian's problems only as long as it goes unchallenged."

 

 

 

 

Challenging the Invocation of Intrinsic Dignity

But why should it be that all humans including "mental defectives, psychopaths, Hitler, Stalin, and the restÐhave some kind of dignity or worth that no elephant, pig, or chimpanzee can ever achieve?"

 

When we ask that question, Singer argues that we see that answering it is as difficult as answering the original question:

 

What is the "relevant fact that justifies the inequality of humans and other animals"?

"Once we ask why it should be that all humansÐincluding infants, mental defectives, psychopaths, Hitler, Stalin, and the restÐhave some kind of dignity or worth that no elephant, pig, or chimpanzee can ever achieve, we see that this question is as difficult to answer as our original request for some relevant fact that justifies the inequality of humans and other animals."

 

 

 

 

Singer argues that these two questions boil down to one: if there is some intrinsic human dignity, then "some relevant capacities or characteristics that all and only humans possess" would need to be identified and argued for. 

"In fact, these two questions are really one: talk of intrinsic dignity or moral worth only takes the problem back one step, because any satisfactory defence of the claim that all and only humans have intrinsic dignity would need to refer to some relevant capacities or characteristics that all and only humans possess."

 

 

 

 

 

"Philosophers frequently introduce ideas of dignity, respect, and worth at the point at which other reasons appear to be lacking, but this is hardly good enough."

 

 

 

On Fine Phrases

"Fine phrases are the last resource of those who have run out of arguments."

 

 

 

 

Humans that Lack

Consider the existence of humans "who quite clearly are below the level of awareness, self-consciousness, intelligence, and sentience, of many non-humans." 

 

Their existence challenges "those who still think it may be possible to find some relevant characteristic that distinguishes all humans from all members of other species ... ."

"In case there are those who still think it may be possible to find some relevant characteristic that distinguishes all humans from all members of other species, I shall refer again, before I conclude, to the existence of some humans who quite clearly are below the level of awareness, self-consciousness, intelligence, and sentience, of many non-humans."

 

 

 

Brain Damage

Singer has in mind "humans with [non-self inflicted] severe and irreparable brain damage," amongst other types of humans. 

"I am thinking of humans with severe and irreparable brain damage, and also of infant humans. To avoid the complication of the relevance of a being's potential, however, I shall henceforth concentrate on permanently retarded humans."

 

 

 

 

First off, the philosophers that seek to in part explain human equality by excluding nonhuman animals "rarely" lump such brain-damaged humans "in with the other [nonhuman] animals." 

"Philosophers who set out to find a characteristic that will distinguish humans from other animals rarely take the course of abandoning these groups of humans by lumping them in with the other animals. It is easy to see why they do not."

 

 

 

 

If such humans were lumped in with other animals, that would "entail that we have the right to perform painful experiments on retarded humans for trivial reasons; similarly it would follow that we had the right to rear and kill these humans for food."

"To take this line without re-thinking our attitudes to other animals would entail that we have the right to perform painful experiments on retarded humans for trivial reasons; similarly it would follow that we had the right to rear and kill these humans for food. To most philosophers these consequences are as unacceptable as the view that we should stop treating nonhumans in this way."

 

 

 

Benn's Argument for Inequality with Animals

Benn is one of the philosophers that seek to in part explain human equality by excluding nonhuman animals, but Benn does not avoid considering the problem brain-damaged humans present. 

"My final example of speciesism in contemporary philosophy has been selected to show what happens when a writer is prepared to face the question of human equality and animal inequality without ignoring the existence of mental defectives, and without resorting to obscurantist mumbo jumbo. Stanley Benn's clear and honest article 'Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests' fits this description."

 

 

 

Benn's Equality

Benn's notion of equality admittedly has "only [to do with the] 'equal consideration of human interests.'"

"Benn, after noting the usual 'evident human inequalities' argues, correctly I think, for equality of consideration as the only possible basis for egalitarianism. Yet Benn, like other writers, is thinking only of 'equal consideration of human interests.' Benn is quite open in his defence of this restriction of equal consideration:"

 

 

 

Benn

/

Qualifying Condition for Equality

Benn: "' . . . not to possess human shape is a disqualifying condition. However faithful or intelligent a dog may be, it would be a monstrous sentimentality to attribute to him interests that could be weighed in an equal balance with those of human beings . . . if, for instance, one had to decide between feeding a hungry baby or a hungry dog, anyone who chose the dog would generally be reckoned morally defective, unable to recognize a fundamental inequality of claims.'"

 

 

 

 

Benn

/

Equality of Interests

Despite Difference in Capacities

Benn: "'This is what distinguishes our attitude to animals from our attitude to imbeciles. It would be odd to say that we ought to respect equally the dignity or personality of the imbecile and of the rational man . . . but there is nothing odd about saying that we should respect their interests equally, that is, that we should give to the interests of each the same serious consideration as claims to considerations necessary for some standard of well-being that we can recognize and endorse.'"

 

 

 

 

Singer

/

Whence the Inequality of Animals? 

Singer: "Benn's statement of the basis of the consideration we should have for imbeciles seems to me correct, but why should there be any fundamental inequality of claims between a dog and a human imbecile?"

 

 

 

 

Benn (According to Singer) on Animals

"Benn sees that if equal consideration depended on rationality, no reason could be given against using imbeciles for research purposes, as we now use dogs and guinea pigs." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"This will not do: 'But of course we do distinguish imbeciles from animals in this regard,' he says. That the common distinction is justifiable is something Benn does not question; his problem is how it is to be justified."

 

 

 

Benn

/

Species Differing Norms

Benn: "The answer he gives is this: ' . . . we respect the interests of men and give them priority over dogs not insofar as they are rational, but because rationality is the human norm. We say it is unfair to exploit the deficiencies of the imbecile who falls short of the norm, just as it would be unfair, and not just ordinarily dishonest, to steal from a blind man."

 

 

 

 

Benn

/

Deficiencies

vs.

Norms

Benn: "'If we do not think in this way about dogs, it is because we do not see the irrationality of the dog as a deficiency or a handicap, but as normal for the species.'"

 

 

 

 

Benn

Benn: "'The characteristics, therefore, that distinguish the normal man from the normal dog make it intelligible for us to talk of other men having interests and capacities, and therefore claims, of precisely the same kind as we make on our own behalf.'"

 

 

 

 

Benn

/

Becoming Differing Species?

Benn: "'But although these characteristics may provide the point of the distinction between men and other species, they are not in fact the qualifying conditions for membership, to the distinguishing criteria of the class of morally considerable persons; and this is precisely because a man does not become a member of a different species, with its own standards of normality, by reason of not possessing these characteristics.'"

 

 

 

 

Singer's Evaluation of Benn

Singer argues that the problem can be seen in that last sentence. 

 

Benn:  " ... a man does not become a member of a different species, with its own standards of normality, by reason of not possessing [those] characteristics."

 

Singer's interpretation of Benn:  "An imbecile ... may have no characteristics superior to those of a dog; nevertheless this does not make the imbecile a member of 'a different species' as the dog is. Therefore it would be 'unfair' to use the imbecile for medical research as we use the dog."

"The final sentence of this passage gives the argument away. An imbecile, Benn concedes, may have no characteristics superior to those of a dog; nevertheless this does not make the imbecile a member of 'a different species' as the dog is. Therefore it would be 'unfair' to use the imbecile for medical research as we use the dog."

 

 

 

Responsibility

Singer points out that neither the brain damaged person nor other nonhuman animals are "responsible for their mental level." 

"But why? That the imbecile is not rational is just the way things have worked out, and the same is true of the dogÐneither is any more responsible for their mental level."

 

 

 

Fairness

"If it is unfair to take advantage of an isolated defect, why is it fair to take advantage of a more general limitation?" 

 

 

 

 

Singer's Evaluation

Singer argues that Benn's argument is actually just an expression of interests in one's own species merely because they are of one's own species. 

"I find it hard to see anything in this argument except a defense of preferring the interests of members of our own species because they are members of our own species."

 

 

 

Singer's Substitution Challenge

To those not yet convinced Singer proposes the following substitution exercise. 

 

Assume: "it has been proven that there is a difference in the average [I.Q.] for two different races, say whites and blacks." 

 

Substitute: 

 

"'white'" for "'men'"

"'black" for "'dog'"

"'high I.Q.'" for "'rationality'"

"'imbeciles'" for "'dumb whites'"

"'species'" for "'race'"

"To those who think there might be more to it, I suggest the following mental exercise. Assume that it has been proven that there is a difference in the average, or normal, intelligence quotient for two different races, say whites and blacks. Then substitute the term 'white' for every occurrence of 'men' and 'black' for every occurrence of 'dog' in the passage quoted; and substitute 'high I.Q.' for 'rationality' and when Benn talks of 'imbeciles' replace this term by 'dumb whites'_Ðthat is, whites who fall well below the normal white I.Q. score. Finally, change 'species' to 'race.' Now re-read the passage."

 

 

 

When Substitutions Made

"It has become a defense of a rigid, no-exceptions division between whites and blacks, based on l.Q. scores, not withstanding an admitted overlap between whites and blacks in this respect."

 

 

 

 

Outrageous

But that is outrageous, according to Singer. 

"The revised passage is, of course, outrageous, and this is not only because we have made fictitious assumptions in our substitutions. The point is that in the original passage Benn was defending a rigid division in the amount of consideration due to members of different species, despite admitted cases of overlap."

 

 

 

If the Reader Missed the Outrageousness Prior to the Substitution

"If the original did not, at first reading strike us as being as outrageous as the revised version does, this is largely because although we are not racists ourselves, most of us are speciesists."  

"Like the other articles, Benn's stands as a warning of the ease with which the best minds can fall victim to a prevailing ideology."