This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
I realize that in writing about "old speciesism" I failed to define this term that Dunayer uses. I think of "old speciesism" as analogous to racism and sexism in that it is exploitation based on species. The advocacy component of old speciesism isn't the campaign to end that exploitation, however.
Does it perpetuate linguistic-based speciesism? The lesson: If you pick the right phonemes (memorable, fit with existing ways of making words, etc.), Any thoughts on the speciesism or un-veganness of "bullshit"? Here's an e-mail from a linguistics junkie for your consideration. Is using the word "bullshit" un-vegan?
This morning I posted " On California's Animal Abuse Registry Proposal " over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression and welcome any discussion about it. What a fitting addition to discussions about speciesism!
I've been blogging here less partly because I've been blogging at Animal Rights & AntiOppression (check out my latest post " On Corporate Personhood and Animal Rights " and the better-than-the-post comments) but also because I've been feeling like a broken record and I don't want to bore anyone. Where do people get that idea?
All of the former animal farmers come to the same conclusion: that what they were doing wasn't right. I didn't have to do the slaughtering to know what it feels like to have participated in something for a good chunk of my life that wasn't right. But that doesn't matter because it's the betrayal that I identify with. For all of us.
A key reason RPA's 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign to get our universities out of the meat industry "exemplifies animal rights advocacy" -- as scholar & author Joan Dunayer put it her important book Speciesism -- is that people cannot understand basic autonomy rights applied to nonhuman animals without a critical perceptual shift, and it is universities' (..)
On the traditional position, justification of vegetarianism was in terms of animal welfare, happiness, rights, and so on. In recent years another type of justification has been given: vegetarianism has been justified in terms of human suffering, rights, etc.
I finally read SPECIESISM , by Joan Dunayer, which was published a couple of years after ANIMAL EQUALITY , which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago. Old-speciesists have a rights view of at least some humans but a utilitarian view of nonhumans (18). In some sense, of course, many (perhaps most) humans don't know right from wrong.
The result is that on one level he knows that hurting sentient nonhumans isn't right, but if it's done in a certain respectful way (oxymoron, anyone?) I suppose speciesism/human exceptionalism is at the heart of the matter. it's not so bad.
We do that with cats and dogs already, right? Tags: Books Ethics Language parenting publishing speciesism veganism. We need language that doesn't support a divide between "pet" animals and everyone else. We need to start referring to animals as "he" and "she," even if we might not be correct. I'm a terrible fiction writer.
The Argument from Speciesism If there is some doubt whether the arguments from monkeys and from glass walls should be considered moral arguments, there can be no doubt about the moral import of the argument from speciesism. Just as racism and sexism are to be morally condemned, so is speciesism.
It's one that's brought on, no doubt, by the acts of vandalism and intimidation of radical animal-rights groups, but I think it also serves to insulate the research community from any responsibility it might otherwise have to increase transparency and public engagement with the work. Maybe on paper. Part IV: Brown Dogs and Red Herrings.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content