Are we speciesist?

In chapter 6 of his book ¿Qué es la Antropología? (What is Antropology, 2020), Francisco de Paula Rodríguez Valls writes:

Human beings would be speciesist if they acted according to the logic of survival by using the power of his faculties in his own benefit. All the other species would do that, of course... Human beings are the only species that may not be speciesist by taking care of the entire planet. By putting their power at the service of the entire kingdom of life.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, speciesism is prejudice or discrimination based on species, especially against animals. It can also refer to the assumption that humans are superior to other species.

This is a recently coined word, one of those neologisms associated with the ideology of political correctness, which insists that we shouldn’t upset anyone, neither with our actions, nor with our words, nor with our thoughts. Starting from a laudable anti-racist stance, they extended it to increasingly exaggerated and absurd situations (there are many examples), and in particular to all other animal species, based on the ideological premise that no species is superior to any other, which, as I have explained several times in this blog, is highly debatable.

In the post in the link I just included, I list a number of differences between the human species and all other species of living beings. In particular, I repeat here the last difference, marked with the letter g): Man is the only species that has considered his own moral responsibility with respect to other living beings. In other words, we are members of the only species that attempts not to be speciesist.

That is precisely the meaning of the paragraph I have chosen from the book by Rodríguez Valls. This implies, as a consequence, that humans are superior (at least ethically on that point) to the rest of the animals. In other words, humans are the only species whose individuals may not be speciesist (although they can also be); the only species that, precisely for this reason, would have the right to be speciesist. As is almost always the case with the assertions of the dominant ideology, this one also contradicts itself.

And what is the logic of survival, mentioned in the paragraph quoted above?

Chapter 3 of the book by Rodríguez Valls proposes the existence of three logics of the human being:

a)      The logic of survival, the goal of the human animal. This is also the goal of all living beings, regardless of their species: to survive, not as a species, but as individuals, since only human beings understand the concept of species. (Yes, I know that the preservation of the species is a consequence of the impulse to reproduce, but only humans are aware of that consequence). Thoroughly applying this logic is what makes us speciesist.

b)      The logic of existence, the goal of human beings as moral agents. The human species is the only species that may act according to this logic, since only we have moral imperatives, one of which is, precisely, what compels us not to be speciesist.

c)      The logic of pure reason, the goal of man as an intellectual subject. Its object is the search for truth. It is also unique and exclusive to man.

The three logics must be oriented together in some way, different for each individual person. Let’s look at a couple of quotes from that chapter:

Knowledge can collude with the maelstrom of the world and become its accomplice and even submit to ideological proclamations that want to transform social reality so that their thirst for a unique thought will be assumed, even unconsciously, and arguing tolerance, eradicate a legitimate plurality. Knowledge becomes an instrument of economic and political power; it becomes a technique and an instrument placed at the service of ideologies oblivious to what was its previous goal: truth.

Humans are singular in the way they decide. They can choose to prioritize any of the three logics and any of their combinations. And in that search, they may get lost...

I have selected the first paragraph because it denounces how the logic of pure reason can be distorted when combined with an ideology that attempts to standardize all individuals, subjecting them to the dictates of that ideology and denying them freedom of expression, and even freedom of thought. This is what is happening now, and if we continue along these lines, we’ll undermine the advancement of science, whose goal is precisely to discover truth. The second paragraph highlights human uniqueness and adds another point to the list of differences with other living beings that I compiled in my post mentioned above.

The same post in Spanish

Thematic Thread about What is Man: Previous Next

Manuel Alfonseca