Environmental Ethics, Spring 2013: Reflective Essay #1

It can be argued that most people are speciests. It is simply part of our nature to believe that we are inherently most important and have inherited this earth as the dominant being. This idea is analyzed and criticized by utilitarianist philosopher Peter Singer. Singer defines speciesism as giving moral preference to the interests of members of a particular species over interests of members of a different species solely because it is a member of one's own species. In other words, humans will give preference to their own interests solely because they belong to the human race. The is evidence of human speciesism in daily life. Most people do not consider a kidnapped or killed animal important to be on the ten'oclock news. Animal interests are simply not a priority nor a primary consideration for most people. This is not to say that people do not care for animals. Society is faced with several comple issues every single day. Placing animals issues or concerns as important human people would be unrealistic, unreasonable and place human society at an overall disadvantage. Human evolution is a story of survival of the fittest. From caveman to modern times, man has been fighting to stay alive despite dramatic surroundings. Even though survival has shifted from caves to mortgages and car payments, people still are fighting to maintain a certain lifestyle (their own survival). People are forced to build a hypothetical pyramid to keep their priorities in order. Our self interests are of the utmost importance to ourselves. Protecting our priorities does not make us immoral beings or selfish. It simply allows our species to flourish which is in itself a moral notion. Animals also protect their interests as well. They watch over their young and obtain food and shelter when necessary. If people decided to place the interests of animals over maintaining a functional human society, that society would spin out of control. The foundations of human existence would eventually cease to exist. Is it then moral for a breakdown of human society to appease every other species who act in the same manner? The answer is no. Animals have adapted to their own society within ours. If our world collapses, many animals will suffer as result. What is the value of human and animal life? This question raises more questions with it. Humans will do almost anything to protect themselves or their loved ones from harm. We put things in place to protect ourselves at any cost. An example would be the "burning building". If there was a burning building and a dog and a child were stuck inside, who should be saved first and why? The impacts felt from the death of a dog while upsetting would be far less traumatic to society than that of the child. It would be immoral to deprive society of a potentially valuable asset. In some cases, the dog may possibly try to help save the child risking their own safety and well being. People would also question the reasoning and logic of a society that would have to think twice about who to save first. The dog cannot go on to become a functional member of that society and help it to flourish. The facts is we need the child more than we need the dog. Human speciesism is part of our being. It is a part of our DNA to ensure the security of our future and longevity. This is not to say that we are innately selfish simply survivors. It is similar to being on a plane and the flight attendant saying in the event of an emergency a person should put on their oxygen mask prior to placing somene else's on. It's is not to be selfish or uncaring, this is to ensure you can assist other is the best possible manner. A person cannot be helpful if they are unable to help themselves.