Are you a specieist?

[Jebus]

I was recently accused of being a specieist on another forum for suggesting that not all animals are equal. If indeed I favor a cow's life over a snail's life than I guess that does make me speciest. I suppose that would make most of us here specieists.

[miniboes]

No, it does not. I get really annoyed by people stretching the definition of discrimination forms to uselessness. This is happening with sexism, racism, and apparently speciecism too. I've discussed this with vegan85flza (or something).

Look at these definitions:

[Racism:] a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

[Sexism:] unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women

[Speciecism:] prejudice or discrimination based ons species; especially : discrimination against animals

[Ageism:] unfair treatment of old people

These are useful definitions. Why are they useful? Because they indicate the following:
Group A is treated differently from group B because group A and B differ on irrelevant trait X.

That's it. That's what all of this comes down to. What the people on the other forum are trying to make speciecism mean is this:
Group A is not considered exactly the same as group B. .

That's just useless.
Is it racist for me to point out that there are people with darker skins than others, and they are sooner in need of a vitamin D supplement?
Is it sexist for me to point out that females have different genitalia from men, and are on average less strong?
Is it ageist for me to point out that old people on average need more healthcare than young people?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then I think the definition of those words has become completely useless. It is, in my opinion, an insult to all the people who have endured real racism or sexism. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela did not fight for people to deny that there are differences between black and white people, he fought for equal treatment. But only for equal treatment where it made sense. They would not demand that everybody get the same vitamin D prescription regardless of skin tone.

So I guess there's two questions you should ask:
- are two groups treated equally?
- Is there a good reason for unequal treatment?
Only if you can answer both of these questions with no, then you can call it racism/speciecism/sexism/whateverism. Until then, please be careful with these terms.

So, in your case:
Do you want to treat all species equally? I presume no; you wouldn't want to give non-human animals the right to vote, for example.
Is there a good reason for unequal treatment? Yes! Animals don't have the intelligence required to think about who they want to hold office.
So, no speciecism. Good day, sir.

[Jebus]

Please give an example of specieism as your description excluded every scenario I can think of.

[Jebus]

- Is there a good reason for unequal treatment?

Good reason from whose opinion and perspective. Hitler thought there were very good reasons for exterminating jews.

[miniboes]

Please give an example of specieism as your description excluded every scenario I can think of.

Factory farming would be one.
Unequal treatment? Yes, we don't breed humans to torture and/or kill them.
Good reason for unequal treatment? Nope; we're better off not doing factory farming.

Good reason from whose opinion and perspective. Hitler thought there were very good reasons for exterminating jews.

It's an ethical question. So, for consequentialists: does the unequal treatment result in better consequences than equal treatment?

Admittedly, if we're going to make an ethical judgement, we may as well do away with the terms completely. I can't really think of any situation where these terms are useful from a consequentialist perspective.

Perhaps it would be more useful to use them to indicate prejudice? I'm not sure.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's an ethical question. So, for consequentialists: does the unequal treatment result in better consequences than equal treatment?

It's not an ethical question, it's one of relevant objective qualities.

If somebody is weaker, it's sensible not to prefer that person for a particular job. If somebody is more resistant to sun burn or malaria, it's sensible to prefer that person for a particular job.

You can't just ask if the outcome is better, though.
Racism is not necessarily always wrong (although I can't really think of a plausible example where it wouldn't be), it's just incorrect (and usually wrong as a consequence of that and the outcomes).

One "race" subjugating another may have a better outcome than, for example, genocide (if that were the alternative, due to war or whatever situation was present that forced action). That may or may not be based on racism.

I can't really think of any situation where these terms are useful from a consequentialist perspective.

They're useful in terms of criticizing reasoning as irrational.

Factory farming would be one.
Unequal treatment? Yes, we don't breed humans to torture and/or kill them.
Good reason for unequal treatment? Nope; we're better off not doing factory farming.

It's not about "good reasons" in terms of good outcomes. It's about relevant differences.

When we're talking about moral considerations, that's a matter of sentience. If a cow is more sentient than a mouse, then it makes sense to give it more moral consideration.

But it's not always a moral question, it could also be a practical one. Like that a certain animal is easier to farm than another.

[miniboes]

It's an ethical question. So, for consequentialists: does the unequal treatment result in better consequences than equal treatment?

It's not an ethical question, it's one of relevant objective qualities.

If somebody is weaker, it's sensible not to prefer that person for a particular job. If somebody is more resistant to sun burn or malaria, it's sensible to prefer that person for a particular job.

You can't just ask if the outcome is better, though.
Racism is not necessarily always wrong (although I can't really think of a plausible example where it wouldn't be), it's just incorrect (and usually wrong as a consequence of that and the outcomes).

One "race" subjugating another may have a better outcome than, for example, genocide (if that were the alternative, due to war or whatever situation was present that forced action). That may or may not be based on racism.

I can't really think of any situation where these terms are useful from a consequentialist perspective.

They're useful in terms of criticizing reasoning as irrational.

Factory farming would be one.
Unequal treatment? Yes, we don't breed humans to torture and/or kill them.
Good reason for unequal treatment? Nope; we're better off not doing factory farming.

It's not about "good reasons" in terms of good outcomes. It's about relevant differences.

When we're talking about moral considerations, that's a matter of sentience. If a cow is more sentient than a mouse, then it makes sense to give it more moral consideration.

But it's not always a moral question, it could also be a practical one. Like that a certain animal is easier to farm than another.

You're absolutely right, thanks for the clarification.

[Jebus]

On a somewhat related topic, what would the world be like if neanderthals were still around? Even though they would on average be less intelligent than us (homo sapiens), their smartest would be smarter than our dumbest. Would it be considered specieism, racism (or some other type of ism) to screen job applications for a job that requires intelligence based on if the applicant were a neanderthal or a homo sapiens? How about voting rights?

[Jebus]

One "race" subjugating another may have a better outcome than, for example, genocide (if that were the alternative, due to war or whatever situation was present that forced action).

A historical tidbit few people know of that relates to your comment: Hitler, at first, wanted to ship all the jews to Madagascar. It was after he realized the logistical difficulties (mainly allied ships intercepting the "Jew ships") in doing so that he opted for genocide.

[brimstoneSalad]

On a somewhat related topic, what would the world be like if neanderthals were still around?

I don't think it would be possible given the human propensity to fuck everything in sight (which is what happened, we interbred and assimilated them).
Even if they were subjugated, after a few hundred years we would have raped them to the point that the bloodlines were pretty thoroughly mixed.
If slavery kept going in the South of the U.S. much longer, most of the "black" slaves would largely have been indistinguishable from the "white" masters.

Assuming that were prevented by an actual species barrier, though, I think subjugation would have been much more complete and lasted much longer if there was such a clear difference in genetic intelligence potential. They would have been less likely to learn to read and write, so it might be perpetual and we wouldn't see humans speaking out as much for them.

Would it be considered specieism, racism (or some other type of ism) to screen job applications for a job that requires intelligence based on if the applicant were a neanderthal or a homo sapiens? How about voting rights?

If they were emancipated, it might eventually be considered so.
It's pretty easy to screen intelligence, though, so I think it would just be done more broadly.

As to whether it would be in fact, it might not. There's a point where it's just not practical to screen people who have a 99% chance of passing in the way it is to screen people who are significantly more likely to fail. Like how we screen Jewish couples who are having kids, but not most others, for genetic compatibility. It's not racism, it's just medical pragmatism. One is to help the people in question, and the other is to help a business, but I don't think that makes it any different (or more/less racist).