13: SPECIES UNITY

1)Question/attack: "Instead of worrying about animals--worry about homeless people or war orphans."

 Response: a) Must one be so narrow minded that he can worry about one at the exclusion of the other?

Response: b) Okay since you believe that compassion follows a hierarchy, tell me this. Which is more important, women's rights or worker's rights? Child abuse or sexual abuse? What about racial injustice vs. poverty? Religious discrimination vs. age discrimination? When you have the list in order--get back to me.

Response: c) Who says compassion is in a finite amount? I can be compassionate towards both humans and nonhumans without it running out. I guess you are more limited in your compassion.

2)Question/attack: "If you saw a burning barn/sealed car/boat filled with humans and (insert non human animal), who would you save?"  

Response: a) The intention here is to force the animal activist to admit that there is a situation where he/she would choose the life of a human over a non human, thus validating the animal research position. The trouble here is that even if the activist chooses to save the life of a human over a non human, it does not then mean that the activist is endorsing factory farming or the vivisection industry or making any policy decision.

Response: b) Rephrasing the scenario, what if the burning barn is filled with humans...half are white and half are black. If you are white—who do you save?" The animal research proponent does not intend that the burning barn scenario be considered in this way--but it must be for consistency. The original scenario attempts to prompt the activist into deciding between "us (humans) or them (non humans)." If the research proponent objects to the notion that one may choose between "us or them" based on ethnic or gender, or some other criteria, then he/she must first show how discrimination based on species is justified, before such an argument could even begin to be considered valid for the animal research issue. NOTE: An animal research proponent might counter that it is in the best practical  interest of human beings to have respect and care for each other(Golden rule) but this would not be a necessity or a moral obligation. If someone could benefit from exploiting other humans(as we find in the real world all the time) then this argument would be invalidated.  Why shouldn’t someone exploit others if they can benefit from it? This is what the animal research proponent must address .  

3)Question/attack: "Ethics are irrelevant.  Speciesism is not the same as racism. We have a biological drive like all species to stick together and protect our own/Question/attack: "Humans have a natural biological drive to preserve their species over others. Humans are naturally meant to stick together." (note: also known as the Tenacious moral instinct argument).

Response: a) Humans have enslaved and discriminated against each other based on race, religion, gender, age,  intelligence,  and appearance for 1000s of years. The ideal of universal human rights is itself a new concept.  Despite our laws we still have discrimination and exploitation of humans for a myriad of reasons. One doesn’t lock their doors at night to keep out pit bulls.

  Response: b)Attempting to assert that other species are also speciesists is flawed, since lions and grizzlies have been known to kill the offspring of a rival male,  chimpanzee groups  will war against other chimpanzee groups, etc and some members of one species have been known to adopt members of another species, both domestically and in the wild. Humans have been found living in wolf dens, piglets adopted by dogs, etc. There are cases of humans risking their lives to save non humans and vice versa. Wouldn't this be impossible is tenacious moral instinct(a biological drive) were so?

Response: c) Citing some unsubstantiated "law" of the Natural world cannot defend the argument that humans are meant to "stick together".

 Response: d) The very fact that the concept of animal rights is accepted by some shows that there is no overriding biological drive in humans to "stick together"  or avoid compassion for members of other species.  

Response: e) If you truly believe in species unity, and think it is applicable to humans,  go walk through a notorious crime alley with $5000 in your hand and see how that "unity" holds up brother.

Response: f) The species unity myth is also used to make a jump from desperate emotional choice to ethical policy. If a human chooses to save a life of a human over a non human in some life and death situation( a river, a barn fire, a locked car/boat with no food etc), the argument is made that it is therefore logical to exploit non humans in factory farms, in laboratories etc.  But if one were to apply this to a human vs human scenario--(white vs black, Christian vs non Christian, family member vs stranger) and you choose that which you regard as most  familiar or valuable--then the same consequences are applicable. Will you then exploit the loser en masse? Of course not. So why would you do it to non humans?