What is Speciesism

Richard Ryder
Coined the term Speciesism
Species pitted against one another
Speciesism = outdated, stupid
Believes we are all equal, regardless to gender, race, etc
We should stop exploiting them; they are all out cousins
Darwin school of thought
Connection between Speciesism and slavery in
humans
Animals are equal to us
Morally
Animals do experience pain in the same way as us
Pain in other animals matters as much as it does in
humans
Pain is the same all across the board
Argument other people make
Humans are religious, smarter, etc, - rightful
differences that put humans above
Ryder = doesnt matter
We all experience pain
Suffer important criterion for morality,
not intelligent
We dont give extra rights to priests
or professors, so why would we do this animals
His appeal is not emotional
Appealing through logic - Logos
Speciesism not logical
Some appeal to ethics - Ethos
Ethically, what should our response be

Peter Singers and Richard Dawkins

Started animal rights movement
Appeals mostly to ethos, not much pathos
Argument
Singer
We do recognize that humans are animals, then
why do we think that were different
Human intelligence and reasoning
doesnt matter
Horses are more erasonable in
some ways
Crucial that animals can suffer
Dawkins
Embryo dont feel pain
Inconsistency
Where do we draw line
Singer

Abortion: Why should we not support abortion

Humans eat ham despite the pain these animals go

Reasons = trivial
Who is to say that lettuce and vegetables dont feel

through

pain

Their nervous system = rudimentary

Argument not about that
Argument = animals no doubt feel pain
We shouldnt continue this suffering

Dawkins

Oysters dont feel as much pain as a horse

People = where do you draw the line
Why do we need to draw a line?
Continum of moral responsibilities
Less responsibility to
oysters than a pig, and etc
Humans feel pain, but
intelligence doesnt matter
Justifies eating meat
If killed more humane and the
animals dont know
Animals clearly know; loaded into
slaughterhouses
Singer
Cant turn heads around and pretend nothing is
happening
Living ethically
Not just living for yourself
Considering the consequences of
your actions to others
Religion
Christian, Jews =
comes from bible
But found in other
cultures in many areas
Believes universal
thought and point that in order to live ethically, need to
think of others and your actions
Why is
one persons feelings more important than
someone else
Dawkins
No good defense for eating meat
Slavery
Societal norm
Everybody did it no matter how they
felt

Relates to eating meat b/c

everybody cant really defend it but continue to do it anyway
Need to have paradigm shift
Singer
Culture of conformity
There are more alternatives now
Views are gradually changing
Maybe one day = thing of a past

Through the Eyes of an Animal

Gary Yourofsky
More pathos
Easy for meat eaters to push aside issues
Easy for bullies to minimize and ignore the
victimization of weak (animals)
Ex. Slavery - looked at blacks as inferior
Ex. Hitler and Jews
Need to use compassion, kindness, empathy
Golden Rule - in all religions and everywhere - treat
others like you want to be treated
This should be applied to animals
We wouldnt animals to treat us the
way we treat them
Violent excuses that people use to oppress animals are the same
as reasons people use to oppress people
Comments he gets
Make good points except youre talking about
animals
They dont look like humans, arent
smart like us, etc.
This is the same line of thinking slave owners had
about blacks
Same thing men said about women when they
wanted rights
Asinine
Theyre just (blank)
stupid ,idiotic excuse to harm someone else
Violence = violence
We have the audacity to think we are civilized despite what we do
to animals
Animals dont do anything to us to deserve what
they get
Meat = dead body
Used to use the same excuses
God made it us for us
Tastes so good

Used same violent excuses just to

eat sandwich
Not pretentious anymore to think humans are more
worthy than animals
Capitalism
Humans dont directly kill animals
Cant get knife and
slice into flesh of animal
Supply and Demand
We determine what
happens to animals
People dont think
they affect this - that they arent directly encouraging a
massacre
Lip service - Everyone are smooth talkers about peace
Only oppose atrocities, but dont take any actions
Respond to this discussion forum with a post that is at least 2 paragraphs long (shoot for 400-500
words); in your post, address the following:

Although each is unique, all 3 videos and all the speakers are basically

addressing the same content/issues

Briefly summarize the three videos, introducing the speakers
in each (you will have to do some research to find this out)

What use of logos did you see in their arguments?

What use of pathos did you see in their arguments?

What use of ethos did you see in their arguments?

What specifics did you notice between they way they delivered their
message?

In particular, the tone of Ryder/Singer/Dawkins is quite different than that of

Yourofsky.

Give some specific examples of words or phrases used, or

some other part of the delivery, that made the tone so different
For the purposes of your own Advocacy Project, which tone
do you think you should adopt--- one more like Ryder/Singer/Dawkins or
more like Yourofsky? Why?
Identify one idea (or a statistic, example, etc... one excerpt) that one of them

said that you found very persuasive--summarize or quote it, and then reflect on why you
think it's persuasive

How might you use something said in these videos in your own advocacy
project?
even though they may not have directly addressed your
specific topic, what kinds of broad arguments did they use that could also
work for you?
Once you've posted your own response, read the responses of a few of your classmates and leave a
reply on at least one post. Respond to someone who gave you an idea, or who is thinking in a

similar way to yours, or who maybe brought up something you didn't notice--in your response (a few
sentences long) just converse with the original post. NOTE: If someone already has a couple of
replies, please do not also reply to that person--look for others you might respond to (let's spread the
love).

All three videos contained similar content, and at their core, delivered similar messages.
However, each speaker took different routes in delivering that message. In What is Speciesism
by Richard Ryder, a psychologist; writer; and animal rights advocate, Ryder described his term
speciesism and how it is ridiculous to believe humans are above all other species for any
reason. He elaborated to say that all species are equal to one another because they all feel
pain. Likewise, in Vegetarianism, Animal Rights, and Living Ethically by Peter Singer, an
Australian philosopher and Bioethics professor at Princeton University, and Richard Dawkins, an
English ethologists and evolutionary biologist, Singer and Dawkins believe that humans need to
recognize that there is a spectrum of pain felt by different species, and humans should take that
into account when we eat and kill them. When an animal indubitably feels pain, they didnt think
killing them inhumanely or through a slaughterhouse was justifiable. Finally, in Through the
Eyes of an Animal: A Lecture by Gary Yourofsky, a radical animal rights activist, Yourofsky
shares similar beliefs but went further to say that eating meat on any level was wrong. All three
videos brought up the idea of slavery being related to how humans treat animals, and how
humans try to create distinctions to create superior and inferior groups.
Each video used varying degrees of ethos, logos, and pathos, with Ryders utilizing mostly
logos. and ethos, Singer and Dawkins mostly using ethos and logos, and Yourofsky mostly
using pathos. Ryder was directly addressing the audience and would relate animal inequality to
human inequality to show the flaws in logic many people make when they fight against animal
rights. Singer and Dawkins were mostly having a discussion between themselves, and like
Ryder, questioned the logic of anti-animal rights activists, but used more ethos, by questioning
how people could allow pain to happen to animals. Although Yourofsky was also addressing the
audience like Ryder, Yourofsky used pathos. He would say words like meat eaters in a
negative tone and describe in horrific detail how animals were slaughtered to cast anti-animal
rights activists in a negative light. Ryder, Singer, and Dawkins still used pathos, and they did this
by addressing the pain in animals and how similar it is to humans.
One particular idea I found profound was Ryders view on animal equality. He recalled how
people try to argue for human superiority by pointing out that humans have a higher intelligence
and are more spiritual. For that he said something along the lines of how humans dont give
professors and priests more rights for these reasons and how idiotic it is for humans to apply
those rules to other species.
For my AP, I would probably use a combination of all three speakers in order to elicit empathy
from my readers, but still show them that Im serious and being rational. My HCP was on horses
and their emotions and how similar they are to humans, so the argument about how animals

feel pain as well that was present in these videos is an idea I will probably incorporate into my
AP.