Summer Book Review Open Post

When having the time to be able to read more often I’m going to keep a general open post going of thoughts and highlights of things I’ve read this summer.

Speciesism: Why It Is Wrong, And The Implications of Rejecting It

This short work was posted on a few online groups for including a decent section on insect consideration and wild animal suffering in general. I found it to be a quick and concise read. If you’re new to the concept of sentience based moral consideration Magnus Vinding recommends you read his work Moral Truths: The Foundations of Ethics, which I haven’t read as of yet and can’t recommend. Although the general fundamental assumption I saw throughout the work was that bound experience is the only aspect or arrangement of physics which has intrinsic moral weight, whereas the rest of the universe is merely extrinsic in its spectrum of instrumental moral importance.

The book is first a guided tour through the reasons for rejecting the concept of speciesism mainly through comparisons to other mainly rejected forms of discrimination in the liberal/progressive western world: racism, sexism, or ranking moral importance of an individual by mental or physical potential. The questioning how well defined the notion of a species actually is, is also brought into question with a few different thought experiments.

Vinding also stresses veganism as our only means of being non-speciesist in our diets. Which even if you’re not making a case of intrinsic moral value in each life, veg*nism seems to me to be the most ethical and climate-considerate stance you could have with regard to what you eat. (Of course there are caveats which need to be considered)

Throughout the book the general method is to explain the speciesist aspect of some thought, ownership rights, use for food, etc.. and then replace the non-human animal in question with a human and see where moral intuition guides the reader. Probably nothing new to the animal rights activist but to someone just being introduced to the idea of speciesist thought it provides a concise and far reaching tour of the consequences of rejecting/accepting the moral consideration of all species.

After addressing the status-quo bias in most veg*n’s opposition to suffering in factory farming when applied to animals in the wild, it refreshingly touches on solutions to the problem. The two it presents are the only two fully fledged out theories to my knowledge (I’d love to learn about more, so please comment or email me any variants): reengineering or eradication.

The only point of personal contention that I had with the work was along the lines of vivisection, which Vinding claims is not morally defensible without being speciesist. But I take the more Singer-esque route and would bite the human version. Just as I feel abortion is morally permissible, I think that the sweeping magnitude of our scientific considerations should justify the inarguable exploitation of some species currently. I am hopeful of more thorough simulation software and ability to experiment non-invasively, but just as Vinding cites the eradication of rinderpest as a good intervention, he indirectly supports vivisection by nature of its result, in this case the ability to eradicate an unwanted illness.

This leads me to the only room for improvement I see in this work and that is an inclusion of stronger possible responses outside of the more strawman-like arguments posed while spelling out the validity of the argument. Especially since there is a nod to the effective altruist community in the latter pages but the EA opinion of animal issues is best summed up by David Pearce:

There is a gaping wound at the heart of the effective altruist (EA) movement. On the one hand, Peter Singer has perhaps done more than any person alive to promote the interests of non-human animals. Important strands of the EA movement give Sentience Politics in broadest sense a central role. (cf. On the other hand, Toby Ord, founder of the admirable Giving What We Can (cf. takes seriously the (to my mind transparently self-serving) “Logic of the Larder” argument.
Katja Grace argues at some length EA’s shouldn’t even be vegetarian. (cf.…/when-should-an…/)
MIRI’s Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn’t even believe nonhuman animals (or human babies) are conscious – which would make the whole question moot.

I very hope an EA consensus can be hammered out soon. Invoking the in vitro meat revolution offers one way forward. But how much longer until the death factories are shut and outlawed?

Overall Speciesism is a short and good read that I would highly recommend to anyone new to the ideas, with not too much to offer anyone already thoroughly acquainted with the material.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s