In another post, someone used the term Specie-ism. Heck I hope I spelled it right.

I am a bit confused about the term but I believe it means...."When one thinks they are a higher specie than another......IE, when humans think they are above animals.

This appears to be the foundation of the AR's movement.....being NON specie dominate or not thinking we are above animals. Is this true?

This makes sense on the grand scheme of things but what I don't understand is the philosophy that we are all animals in the animal kingdom.....animals are called....non-human animals.....

Now, if this is the case, then why is it wrong for us to kill and eat, like the animals do? Animals eat both veggies and meat...IE Bears, Raccoon, Oppossum, Cougars, Fox etc etc.

I am a vegetarian due to health reasons and oppose a tremendous amount of things in the animal industry. However, I am a bit confused on the logic that we are all animals.....but we shouldn't kill and eat, LIKE the animals do.

Can someone please explain this philosophy and it may be interesting to get everyones opinion on this.....Thanks

The term is "speciesism" and it is just like racism or sexism, except that it is about the prejudice of species. Thinking your species is better than all the others just because that is what species you belong to is just ignorant species bias: speciesism.

Of course there are differences between species, but that should not determine their worth. All species should be given equal consideration.

I hope that helps.

Now, if this is the case, then why is it wrong for us to kill and eat, like the animals do? Animals eat both veggies and meat...IE Bears, Raccoon, Oppossum, Cougars, Fox etc etc.

I am a vegetarian due to health reasons and oppose a tremendous amount of things in the animal industry. However, I am a bit confused on the logic that we are all animals.....but we shouldn't kill and eat, LIKE the animals do.


The answer to this bit is simple. Animals kill for survival reasons. We do not. We won't die if we eat a salad or veggie burger instead of a cow. If a lion for example sticks to eating grass, he will die. But when it truly is for survival, then it is okay. Even Peta says that they have nothing against those who eat animals purely for survival. Also animals don't have the ability to do evil. We have the choice to do wrong or right. Therefore we should choose right.

This appears to be the foundation of the AR's movement.....being NON specie dominate or not thinking we are above animals. Is this true?Roughly speaking, yes.

I am a vegetarian due to health reasons and oppose a tremendous amount of things in the animal industry. However, I am a bit confused on the logic that we are all animals.....but we shouldn't kill and eat, LIKE the animals do.That's because there is a double meaning to "like other animals": 1. like other animals in moral value/worth/rights/"importance"
2. like other animals in what one is allowed to do.

Those are not the same thing, and do not lead to each other.

For example, a human infant and William Shatner are roughly "the same" in the 1st sense, they both should be taken into consideration and should not be exploited, etc. But that does not mean that William Shatner can puke on people.

Of course even the most ardent AR person draws a line somewhere. On the other side of the line lies a slew of animals even they aren't too concerned with supporting the rights of (many insects, dust mites, small microscopic bugs). I'm not saying they would deliberately try to harm insects but there would be a huge different in reaction if crop harvesting was causing 1000's of cats to be run down by combine machines as opposed to thousands of grasshoppers.

Couldn't this difference in reaction be called speciesism ?

I have found dead bugs in lettuce I buy. I know that many bugs die to feed me my vegan diet. The line of concern is really a fuzzy line drawn. Many average people draw it just after 'pets'. They would get violently upset about stories of harsh treatment of dogs or cats but not about cows or pigs.

I don't like the term speciesism as every person on the planet would fail to live up to it's definition at some level. Even by just walking down the sidewalk you might step on an ant and kill it (I try to avoid stepping on any bugs but when I'm not looking , I don't know what happens). If you caused the death of a human on your walk you could be charged with murder. Most if not all humans would feel totally differnt about stepping on an ant accidentally or runing over a pedestrian in their car accidentally. Is this difference in feeling not speciesism?

So in my opinion the term has no useful value as a word.

I don't like the term speciesism as every person on the planet would fail to live up to it's definition at some level. Even by just walking down the sidewalk you might step on an ant and kill it (I try to avoid stepping on any bugs but when I'm not looking , I don't know what happens). If you caused the death of a human on your walk you could be charged with murder. Most if not all humans would feel totally differnt about stepping on an ant accidentally or runing over a pedestrian in their car accidentally. Is this difference in feeling not speciesism?That depends on whether you want to take the literal, original meaning of speciesism or not..