Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:15:21.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Origin of Speciesism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Hugh Lafollette  and
Niall Shanks
Hugh Lafollette
Affiliation:
East Tennessee State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Anti-vivisectionists charge that animal experimenters are speciesists—people who unjustly discriminate against members of other species. Until recently most defenders of experimentation denied the charge. After the publication of The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research in the New England Journal of Medicine, experimenters had a more aggressive reply: I am a speciesist. Speciesism is not merely plausible, it is essential for right conduct .... Most researchers now embrace Cohen's response as part of their defense of animal experimentation. Cohen asserts that both rights and utilitarian arguments

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 71 , Issue 275 , January 1996 , pp. 41 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cohen, C., ‘The Case for Biomedical Experimentation’, New England Journal of Medicine 315, No. 14 (1986), 867.Google Scholar

2 Op. cit. note 1, 868.

3 According to nineteenth century Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz, the biblical Adam was only the Adam of the Caucasians. Different ancestors explained racial differences, differences which Agassiz thought indisputable. And prominent atheist David Hume held similar views, although justified in different ways. See Gould, S. J., The Mismeasure of Man (New York: W.W. Norton, 1981).Google Scholar

4 It should be noted, however, that numerous biologists are uneasy about how we draw distinctions between species—and what those distinctions signify. See Mishler, B., and Donoghue, M., ‘Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism’, Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, Sober, E. (ed.) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1994), 217–30.Google Scholar

5 Post, S., ‘The Emergence of Species Impartiality: A Medical Critique of Biocentrism’, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 36, No. 2 (1993), 294.Google Scholar

6 Op. cit. note 5, 295.

7 If this is not their view, then they are not bare speciesists but indirect speciesists. That is, they assume that the mere biological differences do not a moral difference make. We assume, however, they are bare speciesists. If not, talk of species loyalty is out of place and unnecessary.

8 Gould, S. J., ‘Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?’, Evolution Now, Smith, J. Maynard (ed.), (New York: Freeman, 1982), 132.Google Scholar

9 Mayr, E., Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1988), 15.Google Scholar

10 Withers, P., Comparative Animal Physiology (Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1992), 734.Google Scholar

11 Goodman, M., ‘An Hypothesis on Molecular Evolution That Combine Neutralist and Selectionist Views’, The Unity of Evolutionary Biology, Dudley, E. (ed.) (Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press, 1990), 886.Google Scholar

12 Caldwell, J., ‘Comparative Aspects of Detoxification in Mammals’, Enzymatic Basis of Detoxification, I, Jakoby, W. (ed.) (New York: Academic Press, 1980), 94.Google Scholar

13 ‘The peribronchial lungs of birds, ventilated in a unidirectional fashion using a series of air sacs, and the alveolar lungs of mammals, ventilated in a tidal fashion using a diaphragm, differ considerably in structure and mechanism. Yet, both ultimately produce the same effect—full oxygen saturation of the arterial blood’. Burggren, W. W., and Bemis, W. E., ‘Studying Physiological Evolution: Paradigms and Pitfalls’, Evolutionary Innovations, Nitecki, M. H. (ed.) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 193.Google Scholar

14 14 Op. cit. note 12, 106.

15 Caldwell, J., ‘Species Differences in Metabolism and Their Toxicological Significance’, Toxicology Letters, 64/65, (1992), 653–655.Google Scholar

16 Rachels, J., Created From Animals (Oxford University Press, 1990),Google Scholar

17 Op. cit. note 1, 866.

18 Fox, M., The Case for Animal Experimentation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 38.Google Scholar

19 Although we recognize there are genuine differences in the cognitive abilities of humans and non-human animals, there is mounting evidence that the mental lives of non-humans animals are far richer than most people suppose. See Griffin, D., Animal Minds, (Chicago: University press, 1992);Google Scholar and Hoage, R. J., and Goldman, L., (eds), Animal Intelligence: Insights into the Animal Mind, (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1986). Nonetheless, the current question does not require that we determine whether animals have sophisticated mental lives. The dilemma has bite no matter how we finally settle this question.Google Scholar

20 Cairns-Smith, A. G., Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, (Cambridge University Press, 1985), 39.Google Scholar

21 Edey, M. A., and Johanson, D., Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution (New York: Penguin, 1989), 383–384.Google Scholar

22 Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, (New York: Norton, 1987), 189–190.Google Scholar

23 Mitruka, B. M., Rawnsley, H. M., and Vadehra, D.V., Animals for Medical Research: Models for the Study of Human Disease, (New York: Wiley, 1976), 342.Google Scholar

24 For further analyses of the use of animals in biomedical research, consult the following: LaFollette, H., and Shanks, N., ‘Two Models of Models in Biomedical Research’, Philosophical Quarterly, 45, No. 179 (1995), 141–160;CrossRefGoogle Scholar‘Animal Experimentation: The Legacy of ClaudeBernard’, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8, No. 3 (1994a), 195–210;CrossRefGoogle Scholar‘Chaos Theory: Analogical Reasoning in the Biomedical Research’, Idealistic Studies, 24, No. 3, (1994b), 241–254;CrossRefGoogle Scholar‘Animal Models in Biomedical Research: Some Epistemological Worries’, Public Affairs Quarterly, 7, No. 2 (1993a), 113–130;Google Scholar and ‘The Intact Systems Argument: Problems with the Standard Defense of Animal Experimentation’, Southern Journal of Philosophy 31, No. 3 (1993b), 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 American Medical Association (AMA), The Use of Animals in Biomedical Research: The Challenge and Response (Chicago: American Medical Association, 1988), 27.Google Scholar

26 Schiller, J., ‘Claude Bernard and Vivisection’, Journal of History and Medicine 22, (1967), 255.Google Scholar

27 Op. cit. note 18,49.

28 Thomas, R. K., ‘Vertebrate Intelligence: A Review of the Laboratory Research’, Animal Intelligence: Insights into the Animal Mind, Hogge, R. J., and Goldman, L., (eds) (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press, 1986), 50.Google Scholar

29 Gold, L., Slone, T., Manley, N., and Bernstein, L., ‘Target Organs in Chronic Bioassays of 533 Chemical Carcinogens’, Environmental Health Perspectives 23 (1991), 233–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSee also Lave, L.B., Ennever, F.K., Rosencrantz, H.S., and Omenn, G.S., ‘Information Value of the Rodent Bioassay’, Nature, 336 (1988) 631–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

30 Op. cit. note 29, 245.

31 Lave, et. al., Op. cit. note 29, 631.Google Scholar

32 Kitcher, P., ‘1953 and All That’, Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, Sober, E. (ed.) (Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1994), 398.Google Scholar

33 Sober, E., Philosophy of Biology, (Boulder, Co: Westview Press, 1993),Google Scholar

34 Field, H., ‘Tarski's Theory of Truth’, Reference, Truth and Reality, Platts, M. (ed.), (London: Routledge, 1980), 92.Google Scholar

35 LaFollette, H., and Shanks, N., ‘Util-izing Animals’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 12, 1, (1995), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed