Skip to main content

Speciesism And Racism

Speciesism is the principle that humans have greater moral rights than non-human animals. Racism, I assume, we know all about. professor

Those who oppose speciesism say that giving human beings greater rights than animals is as immoral as giving white people greater rights than non-white people. Most people working for racial equality will find this comparison insulting - they say that their struggle for equality has moral importance that animal rights can never have. doh

Ouch! Is that not a double standard being applied here? shock

How many people, faced with a difficult choice between a human and an animal, would not react in a speciesist way. Consider this example: conversing

A child and a dog are trapped in a fire. You can only save one of them. Which will you save? Most people won't have to think about this for even one second; they won’t consider the moral status of the dog and the child. And I bet society will outright condemn anyone who delayed a second in order to consider the correct moral choice. mumbling

But now, replace the child and the dog with two children; one of your own race and one of a different race. Which one will you save? No, don’t answer that. I don’t want to hear lies. It is natural to treat one's own species or race favorably. It is not speciesism or racism. It is not about thinking that you are superior; it is just closer to home. reunion

Virtually all non-human animals treat members of their own species better than those of other species, primates being a notable exception. The ape family is notorious for hunting down and killing its own. uh oh
cats meow cats meow

No apes were killed during the production of this blog but during the same time they lost a fair size of their natural habitat to satisfy the greed of another ape species.blues

Comments (52)

Humanism isn't human it is actually the product of cyborg liberals from the middle class where politesse and script evolve to replace all instinctive behaviours. It was inevitable for the self-conscious middle class to relegate the rights and status of a real person in favour of posture and programme - the individual second-guessed.
The individual second-guessed takes pride of place over instinctive humanity until it becomes its own distinct species. Affluence is turning to transhumanism as its day to day way of behaving becomes increasingly different from the history of mankind. But this wealthy minority still considers itself human hence the misnomer of humanism and its desire to redesign humanity. It does not regard its war agaisnt what comes naturally to a person as too ambitious, in fact it seems to take it for granted and finds itself surprised by Trump and Brexit.
People change the definition of a word to suit their own agenda.

Merriam-Webster's definition is as follows:

Definition of racism
1: 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
2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination



Today the term 'racism' or 'racist' is loosely thrown out by Democrats to describe Republicans. If they don't agree with a policy then you are a racist. They always scream racism when they can't back it up with facts.
Catfoot
Hi Chesney,
I blame political correctness for the current situation. People are expected to act against nature to satisfy the agendas of politicians.
cheers wave
Catfoot
Hi Willy,
Racism has a completely different definition in Africa. During our latest elections, a high court ruled that an election poster that read "Fuçk The Whites" was neither racist nor hate speech. But last year a white woman was jailed for two years for calling a black woman a 'kaffer' which is the equivalent of the American term 'nìgger'. Racism can only be white on black and not the other way around.confused
cheers wave
daniela777
Now Cat..don't get me started with the apes! scold
I would love to help in sanctuaries for the rehabilitation of orangutans and gorillas..and chimps.


As for the two kids trapped in a fire I would of course help the one nearer to me and more accessible...regardless of their race.
Catfoot
Hi Dani,
Sometimes the truth sounds very strange but I'll give the benefit of the doubt. But then I suppose 'nearer' and 'more accessible' are relative terms. help
wine hug
daniela777
Well Cat...let's put it this way..
I am no firefighter and I'm scared of fire. So..I doubt if I would even try to save anybody and put my own life in danger.

Same applies with water.

Unless those kids are within reach...I wouldn't attempt the impossible but would call somebody instead.

Are you happy with my answer? Or..do you still need help? teddybear
Catfoot
Hi Dani
Nope, this time I read you loud and clear. Self-preservation is more important. Bravery is mostly just another word for stupidity and sacrificing yourself may sound noble but is utterly foolish. I can see no point in it.
wine hug
BadlyDrawn
I wonder if there's a genuinely "noble" species of animal. There are stories about dogs making sacrifices for their human "best" friends, but I think they are as self-interested as the rest of us.

I think it's just matter of them learning how to use a credit card and a can opener that would illuminate their true nature.sigh
Catfoot
Hi BadlyD
You are probably correct. From time to time (very seldom actually), we hear about dogs dying so their masters can live but I not sure if it is always what it seems. I'm more inclined to believe that the dog actually protects his source of food and is too stupid to realize that he's likely to forfeit his own life. doh
cheers hug
bigjb62
Well Cat I would disagree at least in part on the sacrificing one's life. While I was married I would have given my life to save my wife, and rightly so at the time. Since being raked over the coals in my divorce from her, I would not only look the other way, I would also run as fast as I could to save my neck instead of hers.
Now you might be thinking that during the marriage or after what difference would it make? Well for me the difference would be in the felling of guilt. If during the marriage I didn't do everything possible to protect her from harm, and something happened that I could have prevented. Then I would have to live with that guilt.
But the divorce has since removed any reason for my protection or guilt.
johnjjm
is kinda inbred into all of us to one degree or another I thinks
Crazyheart38
Cat,

if it's between my parrot and a cat, I'll save my parrot first, then I'll come back for the cat...

good to see you blogging againhug
Bnaughty
I would save my dog because my children have never brought me a newspaper
BeaPatient
Hi Catty, you should be careful. This blog will be deemed racist.
As long as we, as a species, eat other species burger I'm adamantly opposed to species equality scold

Speciesism - All Day Long thumbs up
Kinda obvious if one thinks 'bout it uh oh

cowboy
Catfoot
Hi Big,
I can see what you're getting at. When I was still young and very much in love with my ex-wife, I would have broken my back for her. But now - we meet once a month for tea - I cannot think how I ever could have felt that way about her.

The meeting once a month started when we still had children in school but as they flew the nest, we continued our meetings. And we discovered that we were much better friends than lovers.
cheers wave
Catfoot
Hi Jim,
I believe you're right. As I said in the blog, it is just closer to home.
cheers
Catfoot
But Crazy,
Your dog cannot fly. The parrot can save himself. laugh

And it good to see you blogging again too. I did not read yours yet, I'm still tidying up here.
wine hug
Catfoot
Hi BNaughty,
That sounds like an excellent option. It is important to be up to date with the news.professor
cheers
SchylerSilvey
I'm a big believer in the principle of "might makes right."

If the "victims" can either fight back, or take it. If they are incapable of making such a choice, such as cows, then they are doomed to whatever fate the "mightier" chooses for them. This also applies to other races within the same species. People may cry such is "morally wrong," but what they believe ought to be true often does not reflect reality.
Catfoot
Hi Mic
True. If all the sheep resolves that eating mutton is wrong, it would mean absolutely nothing if the wolves are not in agreement.

Vegetable protein just does not appeal to me.doh

Anyway, the first law of nature says: Eat or be eaten.
cheers wave
Catfoot
Hi Bea,
Hmm, I'll have to take that risk then, won't I?grin
wine hug
Catfoot
Hi SchylerSilvey,
There was a time when we were the hunted. And there were no sympathetic pressure groups among the carnivores to take the pressure off us. We had to fend for ourselves. Even now humans are on the menu of many a wild animal. Perhaps we must send a delegation to negotiate with them too.laugh
Not4U2C
Catfoot
1. Racism is what the majority in any country want it to be. It is a political issue, not a moral issue.

2. Speciesism you will find mainly in the developed countries. They have killed most of their wildlife and destroyed natural habitat. Then they want to point finger at the developing countries for harvesting this resource. It is same with pollution. They have developed, are responsible for most pollution but point finger at developing nations when trying to develop. Only self-interest.
CF. Yep. There's a lot of it about. In some dreams, while wearing the firepersons hat, I see two humans in a burning house, with only one who can be saved. Liberal and conservative. Choices. Choices.
Catfoot
Hi Not4U
I have not seen you before. Are you new?

Regarding racism being a political playball; I fear you're right and it should not be so. Racial issues are used to further political goals. Not just here in SA but everywhere.frustrated

Regarding your second point; yes, it is an economical sore spot and by pointing finger at others they hope to get the attention away from themselves. The long and the short of it is that they don't want the poorer nations to develop for it will rob them from nations to plunder. frustrated
cheers wave
Catfoot
Hi VK
Now we need some more info to see if this is racism, speciesism or something else.

Do Liberals and Conservatives belong to the same Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, or race? I fear until we know that, we won't know what kind of discrimination you practice.laugh
cheers wave
Oh now you done it. There be a whole bunch of folks here who do not consider the habitat stealing apes to be apes and they will light candles and compare you to Darwin (without ever having troubled to actually read Darwin themselves).

Regarding your child in the fire question, I think the answer depends on which breed of dog? I mean if it is a Pekinese or a noisy little Chihuahua well then the kid lives, but if it is a German Shepherd or a Doberman.., did you know burning children smell just like burning pork roast? In my experience the large dog breeds tend to be really grateful to folks who clearly rescued them and pretty loyal for decades too. Can't say that about human children.
Catfoot
Hi Ken
Hmm, I think we can safely assume that all burning meat smell the same. I can remember when I was a child I had a vein inside my nose cauterized. I walked around smelling burned meat for two weeks. doh

I have noticed that some people would rate their pets higher than children and even more surprising is the fact that avian life forms appear to be rated higher than canine creatures. grin
cheers
Kalpataru
Once I asked a CS someone similar question a long time ago. And the answer was .. he would choose the one who stood or sit the closest to him. I think that answer was reasonable and surely wise. wine
Catfoot
Hi Kal
That really was a hypothetical question. There are too many other factors at play. For instance, is the child unconscious? Can the child walk or must he be carried? Is the child injured and will it survive? All of these things will determine which one to take. There is no point in risking yourself for a child that's not going to make it. I may sound callous but that is the realities of life. Taking the child with the best chance of survival and offers you the best chance yo get out alive makes sense to me.
wine hug
And yet we'd lower our chance of survival to save the one we like more. Maybe not by much, but it's there. Unless it's for glory, indifferent to whether the child survives and seeking to be praised and admired by society.
There are lengths you'll go for a more familiar or attractive face. We'll see the difference by the time all our firefighters are cyborgs, even with the best training in the world humanity doesn't muster a level of true neutrality.
Catfoot
Chesney,
So right! What we say we'd do and what we'd actually do is two completely different things. As I pointed out in the blog, it is natural behavior and not racism that makes you treat your own better. It is simply closer to home.dancing
cheers wave
A unique problem indeed of who to save or discard for political agenda. A scary thought to consider if and when we ever stop building weapons to destroy ourselves and maybe building a starship to get to Mars and other planets. Who will they decide that gets to go to colonize? Will only the best of best the most desirable humans be allowed to go?
The decision to separate the best from worse no doubt will taken as a lottery. Who will be saved if an all out nuclear war happens who will be left behind here on Earth as it suffers the fallout for 100 years for example?
It rreminds me of many disaster movies even Titanic. The question who gets saved or who drowns in the freezing water? Though our morality would like to save everyone because it's the human thing to do. Our selfish instinct for survival weighs more. So, when it comes to saving your own a** over a dog chances are since man fears death in one hand but, is so quick to kill off anyone or anything that will not benefit his future survival the animal goes.

The same idea would apply if you are starving and the question do you kill or sacrifice the animal knowing he or she has been your loyal friend?
I may misunderstood the blog but, using racial discrimination to consider who is more superior I think those who feel more superior may actually feel more inferior and outnumbered. Maybe the underlying question do the white dutch who took over the natives of the black African in South Africa still question or wonder if they have any regrets for the Apartheid? Can the Dutch morally or ethically pat themselves on the back to dominate and demonstrate their apparent superiority over the natives who lived in that region for several thousand years long before the white man got there?
confused
Catfoot
Hi Prometheus,
With regards to who shall be allowed to colonize other planets, it may well be Australia all over again. Who will know?

As for the rest, you're a little off the ball. Although the Dutch started the refreshment station at the Cape of Good Hope, you are laying the blame at the wrong door. South Africa, as the region is now known, was under British control from 1795 until the formation of the Republic of South Africa in 1961. To speak about Dutch people in South Africa is sheer ignorance because we are not Dutch. We were made up of some Dutch settlers, French Huguenot settlers, Irish settlers, German settlers, Jews, Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, some Indians, a few Russians, and a lot of Englishmen.

This blog is about racism in general and not the South African history but while we are about it, our early history was very much like yours, only the British did not allow us to kill off the native population as it happened in your country and a few others. And if you want to know about racial discrimination, look at your own country. From what I see in the news from time to time, it is worse than anywhere in the world. mumbling
Moelle
I will consider them one and save both of them
Thank you for correcting me Catfoot as you would know your country better. To my understanding Daniel Francois Malan implemented Apartheid in 1948 Then Nelson Mandela put an end to it around 1994 along with the help of Max Sisulu, Joe Slovo, Chris Hani, Steve Biko, Chief Albert Luthuli. Interesting tidbit back in 1806 the British took over the cape abolishing slavery but instead used force of economic slavery and control to keep the natives at bay. That is currently happening here in America little by little especially if the Democrats happen to win this up coming election. The wealthy make the rules for the poor to follow. It's a standard for all societies. It's not so much about race anymore as much as it is about the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rule. We had a civil uprising with Black Lives Matter and not so much noise from them lately since Trump took office. Eh but what do I know about social politics? What really matters is how the regular common folks get along especially on this site. Again I apologise if I offended you and your country and culture there.

Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles?

Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles? Have you written blogs that you'd like to share with other members? Posting your blogs shows your skill and creativity and helps members get to know you better. Your blog will appear on the Connecting Singles Blogs page and also in a link on your profile page. Click here to post a blog »

Attention: Report Abuse. If this blog is inappropriate please report abuse.
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here