The term speciesism was apparently first used by Richard Ryder but made popular by philosopher Peter Singer. I

Pluhar notes many objections to the argument from marginal cases, yet despite their length, at the core of each is the inherent bigotry of humans as having a moral consideration much higher, and superior to that of non-humans. Such an objection is argued by philosopher Carl Cohen who claims that the argument from marginal cases underestimates, and simultaneously overestimates the capacities of marginal humans, and non-humans respectively. Marginal humans, namely those with diminished mental capacities, and disabilities, have enough moral capacity to object to being experimented or tested upon so Cohen argues . Likewise, non-humans have no ability to deny or consent to the testing which benefits human beings in the long run. This argument only further propagates more bigotry in that it assumes that human beings alone have interests, or at least any interests significant enough so as not to be subjected to various testing as severe as deliberate as HIV infection. Further, when Cohen argues that non-humans do not have the ‘ability to deny or consent’ to such forms of testing, this appears to be only a matter of a lack of communication. More simply a bias on humans’ part to the extent that if a being cannot speak to us ‘properly’ then this being’s interests are not significant to warrant consideration. Yet certainly many scenarios can be illustrated which prove Cohen’s first claim as false as many humans with severe mental illness or injury have no capacity whatsoever to make decisions or communicate their desires in any coherent manner. And surely the cries of pain which come from non-human animals, especially those of higher mental capacities such as the great apes, show that such non-humans more than lack sufficient awareness and interests not to be experimented upon. Cohen’s argument concerning marginal cases seems easily refuted.

If in fact speciesism is a prejudice which is analogous to racism and sexism, then what are its ramifications? For if such a principle could be realized by a large portion of society, the demands for change would be incredibly great, a problem which no doubt hinders its widespread acceptance. Humans just do not want to be forced to rethink a tradition of using non-humans as disposable products which permeates every aspect of life and has for the whole of human history. In fairness, primitive and tribal cultures of the past lived lives in which their existence depended on the responsible use of non-humans for food, clothing and shelter. Yet this is no longer the case in the contemporary world, and should no longer be an excuse for speciesism to continue to be practiced widespread. Unfortunately the outlook for any radical change in behavior on the part of humans looks bleak. Vegetarianism, veganism, and (non-human) animal liberation movements are on the rise, yet not with the kind of zeal which signals any widespread reform. In the end, speciesism may be the last form of universal bigotry to be realized and corrected by humans, but such realization does not appear to be ‘just around the corner’.

The problem of marginal cases has been briefly touched upon up to this point. It is imperative to establish the irrelevancy of species membership in connection with moral consideration if speciesism in the end is to be judged as bigotry. According to Tom Regan, the argument from marginal cases can be formulated in two distinct ways, a stronger and weaker version of the argument. The stronger version argues that certain non-human animals have rights(or consideration of their interests) simply because marginal humans of equal or lesser mental capacities have such rights, while the weaker argument asserts that only if marginal humans can be granted such rights, then these rights must also be afforded to non-human animals with at least similar interests . The latter or weaker argument as described by Regan is the case which I am considering since if it holds true, then there is no need to c

Some topics in this essay:
Carl Cohen, Peter Singer, Midgley Midgley, Steve Sapontzis’, Evelyn Pluhar, Tom Regan, War America, John Locke’s, , species membership, non-human animals, moral consideration, racism sexism, marginal humans, bigotry speciesism, argument marginal, based solely, Richard Ryder, pluhar notes, based solely species, analogous racism, analogous racism sexism, species membership appearance, membership appearance kinship, inherent bigotry speciesism,