Customer Reviews

Speciesism

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Joan Dunayer, author of the excellent Animal Equality, has written another very fine and original book. In SPECIESISM, she defends the equal moral significance of every sentient being. In the course of doing so, she thoroughly discusses and criticizes "Old Speciesism," "New Speciesism," and the nonhuman-animal advocacy groups who actually espouse the notions of either of these views. Her final three chapters are devoted to truly nonspeciesist philosophy, law, and a program for nonspeciesist advocacy. While some of the philosophers she discusses will not agree with every criticism she raises against their views, she is dead on target in many of her arguments. Her discussion of much of our current law, "Old Speciesist" to the core, is a horrifyingly detailed exposition of slave trade law. The legal "reforms" advanced by "New Speciesists" are also exposed as bows to human superiority: the more intelligent the nonhuman animal is; i.e., the closer to us the nonhuman is, the bigger and cleaner the cages get to be.

One of the several great services SPECIESISM performs is Dunayer's presentation of compelling scientific evidence for the sentience of invertebrates. There are many, many nonhuman animals deserving of equal moral significance with human animals if Dunayer is right. She shows too how it would actually be possible to implement these principles of respect. She offers a realistic scenario for legal change, change that would take place gradually, as more humans are persuaded against speciesism. SPECIESISM is a significant contribution to the realization of a genuinely moral way of life.

Dunayer's Speciesism dismantles speciesist ideology and develops an egalitarian animal rights philosophy.

The opening chapter defines speciesism and, with comparisons to racism and sexism, logically argues that excluding any sentient being from the moral community is speciesist.

The first two sections are Old Speciesism and New Speciesism. Old speciesism is the status quo, rights for only human animals. Dunayer shows how this philosophy disregards the interests of nonhuman animals, whom the law regards as property and exploitable resources. Old-speciesist advocacy is about modifying the conditions under which nonhuman animals are enslaved and murdered. New speciesism extends rights to some nonhuman animals, primarily on the basis of their being "human-like." Dunayer makes the case that this philosophy creates an unjust hierarchy in which human-like rather than sentient is the standard for personhood. In contrast, sentience-based arguments break down the species barrier.

The final section, Animal Equality, develops a nonspeciesist framework with rights for all animals. This philosophy accords all sentient beings equal consideration and respect. Liberated from property status, nonhuman animals receive all applicable rights as persons under the law. Nonhuman rights to life and liberty restrain humans from breeding, confining, exploiting, or intentionally and needlessly killing other animals. Joining these basic rights is a nonhuman right to property, understood as including nonhumans' bodily secretions (e.g., milk, eggs, and honey), what nonhumans build (e.g., nests and dens), and their natural habitats ("undeveloped" areas communally owned by their nonhuman residents). Without the right to property, other animals have no legal protection from humans who assert property rights to expand industrial civilization, displacing nonhumans from their territory and destroying their means of survival. Nonspeciesist advocacy, such as promoting veganism and animal rights, erodes speciesism and advances nonhuman emancipation.

Written clearly and concisely, this book lights the path to justice for all sentient beings. Advocates for nonhuman animals will greatly benefit from this rational, motivating, and compellingly argued book.

"Speciesism" is a well thought and well written piece that brings together inconsistent animal rights ideas and helps make them consistent. Joan Dunayer does so by comparing the writings of several ideologues with their other writings, the writings of each other, and with Dunayer's own reasoning.

In one sense, Dunayer acts as a logician to root out inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the other writers. In another sense, she uses their building blocks to construct a new treatise on animal rights.

Racism is to human rights what speciesism is to animal rights. "Speciesism" discusses the "racism" humans have against the animal kingdom. Dunayer divides the subject into Old Speciesism, which is the view that only humans are entitled to basic moral rights (life and liberty, for example); New Speciesism, which claims that some nonhumans are entitled to basic moral rights, typically based on their similarity to humans (chimpanzees and bonobos, for example); and Animal Equality, the fruition of the book, which claims that all beings who have sentience have an equal claim to basic moral rights.

Dunayer critically evaluates other animal rights theorists which makes "Speciesism" especially valuable to readers who are learning about animal rights. Of the many animal rights books I've read, no other calls so many others to the table to weigh each of them in one discussion. It's almost like a "Cliff's Notes" to the other writings but it adds much more commentary and insight than just a review of other books.

"Speciesism" is written for the lay reader. I've found some other books very dense with philosophical jargon making them hard to follow for the casual reader. As such, I am loathe to recommend them fearing that the density would turn off a reader's mind. "Speciesism" is suitable for most teenagers and all adults.

It's a formidable piece, and a must read for all people serious about learning about the animals rights philosophy.

Books that further the rights of nonhuman animals are vital and should be embraced. In her book Speciesism, Joan Dunayer provides considerable information on how nonhuman animals have been enslaved and brutally treated by our species.

In defending her definition of speciesism, which she defines as "a failure, in attitude or practice, to accord any nonhuman being equal consideration and respect," Dunayer provides insightful and compelling arguments on why nonhuman animals deserve life, freedom and other basic rights and how these rights can be obtained. When will this occur? According to Dunayer when public opinion changes. "Many more people must recognize and reject speciesism."

Besides providing rational, extensively documented arguments for giving animals rights, Dunayer provides considerable, sobering information pertaining to how our species cruelly treats and exploits other species. The following are a couple of examples.

"With regard to pigs, Iowa is a major slave state. In the preceding chapter, you read how sows are restrained during pregnancy. The crate in which a sow gives birth and nurses her piglets is even more confining than the pregnancy stall. Metal bars directly above the sow restrict her to a lying position, or straps bind her to the floor. Sows and boars are fed only once every two or three days (just enough to leave them able to reproduce), so they're perpetually hungry. Soon after birth, piglets have their ears notched, needle teeth clipped, and tail cut off - all without anesthetic. As previously mentioned, male piglets also are castrated without anesthetic. Prematurely taken from their mother, piglets are confined to cages stacked in rows. Each cage commonly imprisons eight to ten piglets. Forced to stand on wire mesh, each piglet has less than two square feet of floor space. At about two months of age, the pigs are crowded into pens with concrete, slatted floors. By the time they go to slaughter, many pigs are crippled. Most have pneumonia, from breathing ammonia produced by accumulated waste. Is it any wonder that Iowa excludes pigs from its general cruelty statute?"

"Many goat enslavers burn away kids' horn buds with a red-hot iron. As the iron is pressed to their head, the kids struggle and, often, scream. (Some die from shock - further evidence of severe pain.) At slaughter, salmons are dumped into water infused with carbon dioxide. Before they become paralyzed, they make 'vigorous attempts to escape.' Why would fishes try to escape from water? Carbon dioxide is painful to breathe. On 'fur farms,' foxes are electrocuted. With one electrode in their anus and another inside their mouth or clipped to their lip, they remain conscious as the current passes through their body. They scream before dying of cardiac arrest."

Are you guilty of speciesism? Dunayer provides an easy suggestion to find out.

"The test for speciesism is simple: If the victims were human, would you be speaking and acting as you are? If not, don't speak and act that way when the victims are nonhuman."

Anyone who cares about how nonhuman animals are treated will benefit from reading this book. --Glenn Perrett

One of the best if not the best book I have ever read on animal rights .Must read, for those who really want to understand what it means to stand for the oppressed and voiceless.Makes one re-evaluate ones deep held beliefs about the relationship between animals and human beings,especially those who claim to be animal right advocates .The book is challenging very well written ,concise and logical .It was a pleasure reading it and would recommend it to anyone who wants to be enlightened

In this book, Dunayer essentially does the following:

- Defines speciesism, while refuting some others' definitions
- Identifies and descibes what she calls "old speciesism" and "new speciesism"
- Identifies non-speciesist philosophy, gives its legal implications, and suggestions of its advocacy

It doesn't sound too exciting, especially if you're new to animal rights. I don't see this book as for those new to the idea, but rather people already familiar with and advocates of animal rights.

I've read all the 'classic' animal rights philosophy books, after pretty much having reached my own conclusions. I was surprised to read these "groundbreaking" books and find myself more extreme than them, and ultimately considering their ideas a little too conservative, even if radical in comparison to the social norm. This is where Dunayer's work is different. No matter how much of an animal advocate you are, you'll find yourself thinking *she* has perhaps gone too far, only to find that this thought is based on what you claim to fight against: speciesism.

Dunayer lays out a clear and convincing case of not only the definition of speciesism or that it exists, but why it is an invalid standard to base judgment. Through a few Supreme Court examples among others, she demonstrates that our disregarding of nonhumans' interests is not so much based in their intelligence, autonomy, or capacity to be social, but simply the fact that they are not human. She also dismisses holding nonhuman animals to a human standard for evaluating their moral worth - because this is simply a circle of "human traits are superior because they are human." It all comes down to species, not merit, not intelligence.

She gives us an alternative: judgment on the basis of sentience. She also redefines sentience rather radically not to mean the capacity to suffer/feel pleasure but simple consciousness, on the basis that some humans are incapable of feeling pain.

She insists that all animals not only be given consideration but equal consideration, something that is lacking (even if it claims not to be) in essentially any other animal rights literature. After making such a point, she projects its legal implications, including the idea of granting personhood to all sentient animals and the implications therof as well.

That's where I thought it had gone perhaps too far for even me. But that's because we associate "personhood" with "humanhood" and citizenship, with things like voting, driving, or the right to protest. But essentially, personhood is the basis of protection under the law and having one's interests represented in court.

The only practical problem I find with her argument is nonhumans' right to property, particularly their living space - since it makes a moral dilemma of whether to evict mice from a house and destroy their home in order to make the area into a larger living complex, as to take away urban sprawl. But that's it.

Ultimately, she provides advice of what constitutes non-speciesist animal rights advocacy, not condemning trying to grant personhood to one species at a time, but rather if the method used to do so would impede granting personhood to other species. In other words, she's not an all-or-nothing advocate, not saying that all animals should be granted personhood at once or not at all, but she does point out that many tactics trying to legally elevate certain species leaves others potentially worse off than they began.

Wherever you stand on animal rights, this is a compelling, thought-provoking book. You'll be questioning and re-evaluating your values, no matter how non-radical or radical. Even if you don't agree with her conclusions, you'll be wondering how arbitrary your standards are.

I find Dunayer's work to finally be a complete treatment of animal rights. It addresses speciesism from blatant to subtle, the practicality of certain kinds of advocacy, and the danger of creating a new form of speciesism by trying to advance (certain) animals' rights. She rationally explains why rights advocates should not support "welfarist" campaigns and addresses other issues pertinent to helping current advocates further eliminating speciesism from their thoughts and practice.

A great read and provocative book.

In her excellent first book, Animal Equality, Joan Dunayer focused on the ways in which everyday language perpetuates speciesism. For example, standard expressions convey the speciesist view that nonhuman animals are inferior to humans. Animal Equality includes a rich set of alternatives to speciesist terms. Among other things, these alternatives acknowledge that nonhumans are sentient beings who deserve as much moral consideration and respect as humans.

In this, her second book, Dunayer builds on her own work and that of other important animal rights theorists. The book reveals much previously overlooked speciesism, offers an outline of nonspeciesist law, and presents strong evidence that all creatures with a nervous system are sentient. Dunayer also introduces a new distinction between different kinds of speciesists: "old-speciesists" don't believe that any nonhumans should have rights; "new-speciesists" advocate basic rights for some nonhuman animals based on their similarity to humans. Nonspeciesists advocate basic rights for all animals based on sentience alone.

Although Speciesism can serve as an introduction to animal rights, the book goes far beyond that. Activists and theorists already involved in animal advocacy will greatly benefit from its clear and penetrating analysis. Speciesism provides helpful guidance to those of us who sometimes ask ourselves whether we're doing the right thing when we support or engage in a particular campaign.

A model of nonspeciesist thought and language, Speciesism is uniquely egalitarian. It's a milestone on the path toward a world in which nonhumans and humans share the same basic rights to life and freedom from oppression. I urge you to read this book.

Dunayer really does oversimplify the views of other people. She also seems to take single sentences from other academics (notably Tom Regan), and picks them apart out of context.

It was really irritating to read "Speciesism"- she's just another academic who seems hell-bent on proving her theories are "better" and everyone else is speciesist. I appreciate that she has a critical mind, but I think she could be a lot more productive with it.

With poignant clarity Dunayer illustrates how speciesist ideology permeates what was once thought of as the animal rights movement. Defining speciesism as "a failure, in attitude or practice, to accord any nonhuman being equal consideration and respect", Dunayer exposes the underlying speciesist premises of many current animal welfare campaigns masquerading as real animal rights. "Animal Equality", Dunayer's first book, establishes her as the spokesperson for the abolitionist animal rights movement. She solidifies this position in "Speceisism".
If you truly believe you are Animal Rights; If you are unsure of your position on animal rights vs. animal welfare; If you are not sure if you really understand the difference, or even sure of the real meaning of speciesism, I urge you to read this book, as IMNERHO, it is nearly as an important work to the animal rights movement as "Animal Equality" itself.

Dunayer's views on speciesist language are sometimes interesting, such as her observation that an aquarium should be regarded as an "aquaprison." But they are sometimes downright silly. For example, she maintains that we are "speciesist" if we use the term "animal rights." We have to say "nonhuman rights." We can properly use "animal rights" only when we refer to human rights as well as nonhuman rights. That is the sort of thing that gives political correctness a bad name. Moreover, Dunayer's discussions of Tom Regan, Gary Francione, Peter Singer and others are terribly simplistic and often just wrong.