Every now and then, a movie comes along that is capable of fundamentally changing the worldview of its audience. Speciesism: The Movie, a new documentary by Mark Devries, is that kind of film.
The word "speciesism," which has been popularized by Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, refers to the assumption that a vast gulf exists between the ethical value of human interests and the ethical value of the interests of other animals. At its extreme, we may see ourselves as the only species that matters morally, and view other animals as existing merely for our use: to eat, to make into clothing, to perform experiments on, to be entertained by in circuses and zoos. Like those who grew up having overt racist beliefs assimilated into their worldview, some degree of speciesism has been so well-assimilated into the worldview of most of us that it does not even appear to be worth questioning.
Of course, other animals possess the same five physiological senses that we do, as well as the capacity for a wide range of emotions. In her introduction to The Inner World of Farm Animals, Dr. Jane Goodall writes that "farm animals feel pleasure and sadness, excitement and resentment, depression, fear, and pain. They are far more aware and intelligent than we ever imagined . . . they are individuals in their own right."
And Dr. Temple Grandin, in Animals in Translation, writes that "When it comes to the basics of life . . . [other] animals feel the same way we do." She goes on to explain that both humans and other animals share both the exact same core emotions ("rage, prey chase drive, fear, and curiosity/interest/anticipation") and the same "four basic social emotions: sexual attraction and lust, separation distress, social attachment, and the happy emotions of play and roughhousing."
So, our worldview may be worth questioning.
Yet, the ramifications entailed in questioning our speciesist assumptions are tremendous: Our entire political discourse centers on how policies will affect humans. If we conclude that speciesism is not justifiable, our thinking about nearly everything in our lives will undergo a transformation.
Prominent philosophers and scientists have criticized speciesist assumptions for many years--in writing. But, as far as I know, these questions have never become the centerpiece of a film. Not only does Speciesism: The Movie ask these life-changing questions, but it does so while taking viewers on an adventure that is tremendously entertaining and often laugh-out-loud funny.
Devries goes to great lengths to put together a thoughtful and entertaining film--whether commissioning an airplane to fly over factory farms' giant "manure lagoons" with an anti-CAFO Republican from North Carolina, or (somehow) scheming his way into receiving a guided tour of a factory farm.
Along the way, he meets and questions a remarkably broad range of people, including Peter Singer (whom the New Yorker has named "one of the most influential philosophers alive"), Richard Dawkins (the most influential evolutionary biologist of the past century), and Temple Grandin (designer of the animal handling systems used by over half of the slaughterhouses in the United States).
He also speaks with anti-factory farming activists, a man who is dying next to a huge hog farm, a current member of the American Nazi Party, a disability rights activist, a vivisector, quite a few people on the street, and more--all in his quest to thoroughly consider the philosophy that says that bias on the basis of species is unjustifiable. Disclaimer: He also spoke with me.
Above all, Devries confronts some very difficult and uncomfortable questions head-on. For example: How strong are the grounds for believing that humans have special moral worth? How valid are the comparisons between our use of other animals and the slavery of other humans?
For those unfamiliar with speciesism, there may be no more enjoyable introduction to this fascinating subject than Speciesism: The Movie. For those familiar with the topic, and searching for a way to introduce friends and family to the deeper questions, this film may be the perfect solution.
For everyone, watching Devries' movie is an enjoyable and thought-provoking way to spend 90 minutes.
Follow Bruce Friedrich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brucegfriedrich
A famous poet, talked about having a conversation with his pet dog with one another's eyes, reading the expressions in the eyes of our fellow travelers. Verbal communication is not the only way to converse. Body language and facial expressions are dead give-aways. I have read complex and complicated communications in the body language of my wild pets.
They are so much more like us than believed and mark my words, in time, this will be revealed.
I'm in the AR camp largely because, philosophically, I tend more toward idealism than utilitarianism. Also, AW principles are now being utilized by AE to lend an air of legitimacy to their traditional roles (if not all their specific practices) and maintain the status quo, which obviously undermines AR efforts.
To the extent that AW accomplishes meaningful reforms in how animals are treated, it is to be commended. To the extent that it provides cover for and helps perpetuate the existence of AE, whether intentionally or not, we must remain free to criticize it.
Tempting as it may be to dismiss idealists as starry-eyed dreamers, we would do well to remember that they are usually the ones to recognize injustice and clamor for change in the first place.
As you obviously have. No doubt this "control" of yours extends to the suppression of basic empathy with fellow sentient creatures. Are you also one of the few remaining apologists for Cartesian physiology?
http://thislittlepiggyhadtofu.blogspot.com/2010/10/bruce-friedrich-debates-bruce.html
On the specific issue of welfare reforms, I wrote this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/getting-from-a-to-z-why-p_b_825612.html
Cheers,
Bruce
"We have the science to suggest that if you can make three changes - give up all meat, all dairy, and refined foods including free oils - you can avoid dying from cancer and heart disease. It’s being brought to life in a new documentary called Forks Over Knives. I saw it, I loved it, and I need all of you to see it too. This could be the Hail Mary of medicine." ~ Dr. Mehmet Oz
But maybe we can step back for a second and see that the idea Bruce is promoting isn't all that shocking. It's simply this: We should act in ways that don't cause others to suffer. And because animals can suffer, too, we should do what we can to reduce the suffering we cause them. Sounds pretty sensible to me.
The ways we treat animals today are just about as far from this idea as you can get. So before ringing any alarm bells about the "vegan militia" causing civilization to grind to a halt, I hope everyone will pause, take a look at what's going on inside factory farms, and then ask themselves, "Is this the best we can do?"
I have no doubt that all other animals have the same ability to experience and demonstrate all of the emotions that humans do. Anyone who spends any time with any other species whether it is a dog or cat or cow or chicken will very quickly see that each is an individual with his own preferences and personality worthy of compassion and kindness. Having experienced this revelation first hand, I think it is rediculous to assume that humans are morally superior and therefore entitled to torture and murder other sentient beings for our benefit. No other species destroys the very environment that they rely on to survive other than humans. That in itself leads me to question who really is the superior species.
I look forward to the day when everyone faces the facts and examines their motives and contribution to the use and abuse of non human animals. I hope this film helps people see that other animals are not ours to use in any way we like.
In other words, to say that rights are human ethical constructions (which I agree with) does not mean that they should be applied to humans only. The important distinction is between a moral agent (one who is capable of making moral decisions, such as respecting someone's rights) and a moral subject - one who should be taken into account when moral decisions are made.
Then later came the film Earthlings, which also deals with speciesism , by Shaun Monson, with Joaquom Phoenix narrating.
http://www.theanimalsfilm.com/
http://www.earthlings.com/
Thanks for mentioning them!
Bruce
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/03/huffpo_science_-_already_slipp.php
"This is the unexamined ethics and thoughtless smug moral superiority of the animal rights activist. I doubt, when push came to shove they would sacrifice a human for an animal. Or even a large number of animals. Who, after all, swerves to avoid the squirrel and instead hits the kid on the sidewalk? No one. Human life is more valuable to us because we're human and that's OK. It's not wrong to be self-interested or interested in our survival over that of other species. Survival requires a certain amount of self-interest, human survival requires the ingestion of other living things, and agriculture is never going to be cruelty free.
The vegan militia have forgotten that to get their cruelty free vegetables, the land has already been cleared, all competing species have been killed or driven out, those that remain are poisoned (even by organic farmers - they just use "certified organic" methods of pest control or even other animals like ladybugs). We put humans first every time we clear a field, dig a foundation, fence and spray our crops, and burn diesel to harvest and bring them to market. We have said, these resources are ours, we own the land, and all the beetles, voles and deer can go right to hell. Survival is cruel, and will always involve putting ourselves before other species."
Glad you brought this up. From my reply:
-----
I think you'll be happy to discover that the movie is very, very different from what you are anticipating here.
The topic got my attention when I saw a growing number of intellectuals, including some of those I most admire (e.g., Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins) calling into question the assumption (which I had always maintained, without really reflecting on it) that species membership is itself an adequate basis for deciding whose interests ought to be included in our ethical deliberations. I decided to find out if they were onto something. So, the whole discussion of speciesism is exactly the *opposite* of the "unexamined ethics and thoughtless smug moral superiority" that you very rightly oppose. It is about *questioning* our unexamined ethics, and trying to follow the strongest arguments where they lead.
Also, as a note, opposition to speciesism does not have to require the conclusion that all life is of exactly equal value. "Value of life" questions are a major area of philosophical discussion, and the conclusions discussed are much more nuanced. ...
If you get a chance to see the film, I think you will be very pleasantly surprised. You can get an alert when the movie is available by submitting your email address on our website:
http://SpeciesismTheMovie.com
-----
Again, SkepticGuy, you're right to be concerned about the prospect of black-and-white arguments, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Thanks again,
Mark
Thanks for weighing in. A few thoughts:
Paragraph 1: I don't disagree with anything after the first sentence. Framing the argument in a way that makes it impossible to lose seems to me to fall into the first sentence's trap of "unexamined ethics" and "smug moral superiority."
Paragraph 2: Again, the first clause is simply incorrect, and again, the entire paragraph seems smug and morally superior. It also attributes to the opposing view "facts" that are inaccurate. In that sense, it's also thoughtless (or worse, intentionally or inadvertently disingenuous).
Challenging speciesism isn't about moral equivalency (your incorrect assumption), as noted below; it's about recognizing that other animals matter. And say what you want about it: It's not thoughtless or ethically unexamined (on this point, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the film). It challenges us to recognize everything that you say we don't consider (everything after your para. 1 first sentence and para. 2 first clause) and to recognize that these issues matter: We shouldn't ignore them as irrelevant.
On the issue of vegan food causing suffering: Yes, it surely does--but far less than meat, which requires many times the calories from those same crops to raise the animals in order to eat them. It's a vastly inefficient system, as I discuss here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/taking-the-food-crisis-pe_b_107992.html
Thanks for reading the piece and considering my response.
Cheers,
Bruce