DOCSLIB.ORG

On Black Veganism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On Black Veganism B R O O K S C O N G R E S S 2 0 2 0 ON BLACK VEGANISM SYL KO B R O O K S C O N G R E S S 2 0 2 0 K E Y N O T E T R A N S C R I P T ON BLACK VEGANISM BY SYL KO 0 1 VOICEOVER: In February 2020, the Brooks Institute hosted approximately 80 of the most influential actors in the animal protection community, to discuss the current state of the animal protection movement. Three keynote speakers stimulated thinking and conversations. The speakers were Alexandra Horowitz, Syl Ko, and Dale Jamieson. Following is the presentation by Syl Ko. KRISTEN STILT (PROFESSOR OF LAW and FACULTY DIRECTOR ANIMAL LAW and POLICY PROGRAMS at HARVARD LAW SCHOOL): Now, we're very excited to turn to our keynote speaker of the morning, Syl Ko. Syl is an independent researcher and co-author of Aphroism. She studied Philosophy at San Francisco State University and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her work focuses on the intersection between decolonial thinking and animal ethics. We're very happy to welcome you, Syl. Thank you so much for coming. SYL KO (AUTHOR, APHRO-ISM): There are some people here who know me and if you know me, you know that I talk a lot. So, I'm going to try to not do that. Also, my PowerPoint, I'm going to have to zoom through it because I always think I can get through lots of information in a short amount of time than I can. I think all philosophers do that, like we just want to keep talking and talking. So, I'm going to try to avoid that. My talk today is on a view that me and my sister developed. We came up with it first in 2012, and we coined it Black Veganism in 2015. I initially brought up the view when I was doing my PhD at UNC Chapel Hill, which was -- Jeff, you're here, is it Jeff Sebo -- I think he was here during that time. It was a really stressful time for me because I went into the program initially to study metaphysics and epistemology in the history of science. That was my original field. And then I came up with this really crazy view that animals are raced. So as people who are interested in anti-racism, we should interrogate the question of the animal and everyone in my department was like, What? Like, what -- how did this happen? So, I went from being the golden child of the department to overnight becoming, like, the biggest loser. And I really mean this. I couldn't find anyone to be on my committee. There's a few people who felt sorry for me so they kind of were on it. Then I couldn't find anyone to head my committee. Finally, a really famous Philosopher of Language in the department, he's like, “You know, I think your view is huge. I would have loved to be the head of your committee, but I'm retiring.” And I thought, well…So I actually left my last PhD year. That's how depressed I was feeling because everyone was kind of giving me negative feedback about this view and I really believed in it. So, I decided, okay, F this and I left. A few years later now all over the world, there are people who adhere to Black Veganism. Some people who I see even in this room. WHAT IS BLACK VEGANISM? To start with, the name Black Veganism might give you this impression that this is an identity view. It's not that. I see that we have people who adhere to Black Veganism all over the world, I mean, literally all kinds of people who look all different ways. You don't have to be a black person to adhere to Black Veganism. That's not to say that that's not an important issue how people of Used by the Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc. with permission. ON BLACK VEGANISM BY SYL KO 0 2 color feel in animal rights spaces. There are people who talk about that stuff. A really good example is Breeze Harper. But Aph and I, my sister, her name is Aph Ko, we are not interested in the cosmetic diversity issue that's going on in animal ethics. What we want to do is talk about animal ethics in a way that comes from a very different starting point. I can't think of a better thing to talk about at a conference like this where the theme is bigger thinking to affect a change for the benefit of animals. What Aph and I do is we use critical race studies and we use other kinds of studies that involve race to contribute to the question about what our obligations to non-human animals are. Hopefully for the Brooks Institute, you have all of these really great advisors coming from all these different fields, I'm hoping that you consider looking at people who are doing race studies because I think you can really find a huge contribution from there. Figure 1: Overview of Syl Ko's presentation for the Brooks Congress 2020. So as an overview [Figure 1], I just told you what Black Veganism was and I'm going to talk a little bit more about that. Then I'm going to go into a philosophical debate because that's where this view comes from. There's a really big debate for those of you who know about Peter Singer. Raise your hand if you've heard of Peter Singer? Okay. I have to do that sometimes. I won't talk too much about him. So there's a really big debate that he started. There are lots of really bad responses to his view. There's one really good response to the view, one that I agree with. But I think they kind of miss something because they don't consider race. This is where Black Veganism is born. Then I'm going to conclude by talking a little bit why I think this idea is an important one. How do I go backwards? There you go. Okay, so what is Black Veganism? Black Veganism isn't a bunch of black people giving high fives and eating salads together. What is it? So all it is, is this. It's an animal ethic is generated from within the anti-racist commitment [Figure 2]. If you've never heard of Black Veganism before, you might be squinting right now and wondering like, what does anti-racism have to do with having an animal ethic, right? So this is a really radical proposition because if you think about the grounds for animal ethics, it's always the same, right? ON BLACK VEGANISM BY SYL KO 0 3 Figure 2: Black Veganism is an animal ethic generated from within the anti-racist commitment. We look at something about actual non-human animals - some facts. It's going to be a capacity, a property, a trait, a feature, whatever. We might disagree about what that thing is going to be but that's what we do. We look at actual non-human animals and then we try to argue that this should press on us in some way, such that we feel an obligation toward them. How it's going to press on us, there's a debate about that - what that principle is going to be that we're going to follow, we're going to debate about that. But if you look at the big picture, it's always the same kind of move. We're taking something about actual non-human animals, facts usually that come from empirical research, and then we think this is supposed to inform us morally. Black Veganism is revolutionary because we develop an animal ethic without looking at anything about actual non-human animals. So regardless of what the research tells us, regardless of what science changes about our judgments about animals, it's not going to affect what we think our moral obligation is to animals because our ground is not coming from empirical research. Our ground is coming from an anti-racist commitment. And again, if you have never heard of this before and you're squinting and you're like, what is this? That's how you should be feeling right now. That's fine. IS BEING HUMAN MORALLY RELEVANT? I'm going to skip all this because I don't want to spend too much time talking about just the intro stuff. So what is this debate that informs Black Veganism? And it's this: some people say, should being human be morally relevant [Figure 3]? I'm asking. Well, is being human morally relevant? This is a really big debate. If you've never heard of this debate before, I can give you a good example. You're in a burning building. There's a human in the building. There's a cat in the building, or a dog, or a rat, whatever, right? You have to save one of them and you can only save one of them. Who do you choose? And with the exception of a few people, if you go to the street, if we all go right now as a group, and we go start doing some experimental philosophy, and we ask people this question, a lot of people are going to say, well, I would save the human.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Derogatory Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of Speciesism in UK 1 National Newspapers Bjos 1348 134..152
    The British Journal of Sociology 2011 Volume 62 Issue 1 Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK 1 national newspapers bjos_1348 134..152 Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan Abstract This paper critically examines discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers in 2007. In setting parameters for what can and cannot easily be discussed, domi- nant discourses also help frame understanding. Discourses relating to veganism are therefore presented as contravening commonsense, because they fall outside readily understood meat-eating discourses. Newspapers tend to discredit veganism through ridicule, or as being difficult or impossible to maintain in practice. Vegans are variously stereotyped as ascetics, faddists, sentimentalists, or in some cases, hostile extremists. The overall effect is of a derogatory portrayal of vegans and veganism that we interpret as ‘vegaphobia’. We interpret derogatory discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers as evidence of the cultural reproduction of speciesism, through which veganism is dissociated from its connection with debates concerning nonhuman animals’ rights or liberation. This is problematic in three, interrelated, respects. First, it empirically misrepresents the experience of veganism, and thereby marginalizes vegans. Second, it perpetuates a moral injury to omnivorous readers who are not presented with the opportunity to understand veganism and the challenge to speciesism that it contains. Third, and most seri- ously, it obscures and thereby reproduces
    [Show full text]
  • A Confucian Defense of Shame: Morality, Self-Cultivation, and the Dangers of Shamelessness
    religions Article Article Article A ConfucianA Confucian Defense Defense of Shame: of Shame: Morality, Morality, Self-Cultivation, Self-Cultivation, A Confucian Defense of Shame: Morality, Self-Cultivation, and theand Dangers the Dangers of Shamelessness of Shamelessness and the Dangers of Shamelessness Mark BerksonMark Berkson Mark Berkson Department of Religion,Department Hamline of Religion, University, Hamline St. Paul, University, MN 55104, St. USA;Paul, [email protected] 55104, USA; [email protected] Department of Religion, Hamline University, St. Paul, MN 55104, USA; [email protected] Abstract: ManyAbstract: philosophers Many and philosophers scholars in and the scholars West have in the a negative West have view a negative of shame. view In muchof shame. In much of Abstract: Many philosophers and scholars in the West have a negative view of shame.of post-classical In much ofpost-classical Western ethical Western thought, ethical shame thought, is compared shame is negativelycompared negatively with guilt, with as shame guilt, isas shame is asso- post-classical Western ethical thought, shame is compared negatively with guilt, asassociated shame is asso- withciated the “outer”, with the how “outer”, one appears how one before appears others before (and othe thusrs is (and merely thus a is matter merely of a “face”), matter of “face”), and ciated with the “outer”, how one appears before others (and thus is merely a matterand of “face”), guilt is and associatedguilt is associated with the “inner”with the realm “inner” of therealm conscience of the conscience and soul. and Anthropologists soul. Anthropologists and and philoso- guilt is associated with the “inner” realm of the conscience and soul.
    [Show full text]
  • Consequentialism and Moral Responsibility
    Consequentialism and Moral Responsibility Draft of September 2015 Elinor Mason For Christian Seidel (ed.) Consequentialism: new directions, new problems? OUP, forthcoming. There are two different ways of thinking about the relationship between consequentialism and moral responsibility. First, we might think that consequentialism can give us an account of responsibility. I discuss this possibility briefly, and then set it aside. The other way of thinking about the relationship is the focus of this paper. The question that concerns me, is, to what extent is a normative theory, consequentialism in particular, constrained by requirements that stem from concerns about responsibility? 1. Consequentialist Accounts of Moral Responsibility J.J.C. Smart suggests that we can extend consequentialist reasoning about morality to reasoning about responsibility. One of the attractions of consequentialism is that it provides such a straightforward and attractive account of justification for our moral practices. Why do we pay our taxes, treat each other with respect, look after each other and so on? Because doing so has good consequences. However, this sort of justification, though very appealing when considering moral practice, becomes extremely counterintuitive in other sorts of case. For example, it seems obvious that justification for beliefs cannot be consequentialist. Beliefs must be justified in some way that relates to their truth, though of course there is disagreement about exactly what makes a belief justified. Similarly, so a familiar line of thought goes, whether or not someone is responsible for an act, or for anything else, cannot be determined by looking at the consequences of holding them responsible. The claim that 1 responsibility can be understood in a consequentialist way seems like a category mistake.1 Smart’s view might be correct that, insofar as praising and blaming are actions, consequentialists should take the value of the consequences of performing those acts as the relevant factor in deciding whether or not to perform them.
    [Show full text]
  • 219 No Animal Food
    219 No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909-1944 Leah Leneman1 UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH There were individuals in the vegetarian movement in Britain who believed that to refrain from eating flesh, fowl, and fish while continuing to partake of dairy products and eggs was not going far enough. Between 1909 and 1912, The Vegetarian Society's journal published a vigorous correspond- ence on this subject. In 1910, a publisher brought out a cookery book entitled, No Animal Food. After World War I, the debate continued within the Vegetarian Society about the acceptability of animal by-products. It centered on issues of cruelty and health as well as on consistency versus expediency. The Society saw its function as one of persuading as many people as possible to give up slaughterhouse products and also refused journal space to those who abjured dairy products. The year 1944 saw the word "vergan" coined and the breakaway Vegan Society formed. The idea that eating animal flesh is unhealthy and morally wrong has been around for millennia, in many different parts of the world and in many cultures (Williams, 1896). In Britain, a national Vegetarian Society was formed in 1847 to promulgate the ideology of non-meat eating (Twigg, 1982). Vegetarianism, as defined by the Society-then and now-and by British vegetarians in general, permitted the consumption of dairy products and eggs on the grounds that it was not necessary to kill the animal to obtain them. In 1944, a group of Vegetarian Society members coined a new word-vegan-for those who refused to partake of any animal product and broke away to form a separate organization, The Vegan Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics, Agency & Love
    Ethics, Agency & Love for Bryn Browne Department of Philosophy, University of Wales Lampeter Speciesism - Arguments for Whom? Camilla Kronqvist Please do not quote without permission! Since the publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer in 1975 there has been an upshot of literature concerned with the moral standing of animals and our attitudes and reactions towards them. The starting point for most of these discussions can mainly be found in the notion of speciesism, a term that originally was introduced by Richard Ryder but that has become more widely spread with the writings of Peter Singer. It is also Singer that I am discussing in this essay although many other philosophers have brought forward similar ideas. The idea that lies behind this notion is basically that we as human beings have prejudices in our attitudes towards animals and that we discriminate against them on grounds that are unacceptable in a society that stresses the importance of equality. The line that we draw between human beings, or members of the species Homo Sapiens as Singer prefers to put it, and animals is as arbitrary as the lines that previously have been drawn on the basis of sex or race. It is not a distinction that is based on any factual differences between the species but simply on the sense of superiority we seem to pride ourselves in with regard to our own species. Allowing the species of a being to be the determining factor for our ethical reactions towards is, according to the argument, as bad as letting sex or race play the same part.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ahimsa Crisis: You Decide
    AN AHIMSA CRISIS: YOU DECIDE An Ahimsa Crisis: You Decide 1 2Prakrit Bharati academy,An Ahimsa Crisis: Jai YouP Decideur Prakrit Bharati Pushpa - 356 AN AHIMSA CRISIS: YOU DECIDE Sulekh C. Jain An Ahimsa Crisis: You Decide 3 Publisher: * D.R. Mehta Founder & Chief Patron Prakrit Bharati Academy, 13-A, Main Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017 Phone: 0141 - 2524827, 2520230 E-mail : [email protected] * First Edition 2016 * ISBN No. 978-93-81571-62-0 * © Author * Price : 700/- 10 $ * Computerisation: Prakrit Bharati Academy, Jaipur * Printed at: Sankhla Printers Vinayak Shikhar Shivbadi Road, Bikaner 334003 An Ahimsa Crisis: You Decide 4by Sulekh C. Jain An Ahimsa Crisis: You Decide Contents Dedication 11 Publishers Note 12 Preface 14 Acknowledgement 18 About the Author 19 Apologies 22 I am honored 23 Foreword by Glenn D. Paige 24 Foreword by Gary Francione 26 Foreword by Philip Clayton 37 Meanings of Some Hindi & Prakrit Words Used Here 42 Why this book? 45 An overview of ahimsa 54 Jainism: a living tradition 55 The connection between ahimsa and Jainism 58 What differentiates a Jain from a non-Jain? 60 Four stages of karmas 62 History of ahimsa 69 The basis of ahimsa in Jainism 73 The two types of ahimsa 76 The three ways to commit himsa 77 The classifications of himsa 80 The intensity, degrees, and level of inflow of karmas due 82 to himsa The broad landscape of himsa 86 The minimum Jain code of conduct 90 Traits of an ahimsak 90 The net benefits of observing ahimsa 91 Who am I? 91 Jain scriptures on ahimsa 91 Jain prayers and thoughts 93
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Rights Is a Social Justice Issue
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 2015 Animal Rights is a Social Justice Issue Robert C. Jones California State University, Chico, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/anirmov Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Civic and Community Engagement Commons, and the Politics and Social Change Commons Recommended Citation Jones, R. C. (2015). Animal rights is a social justice issue. Contemporary Justice Review, 18(4), 467-482. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Rights is a Social Justice Issue Robert C. Jones California State University – Chico KEYWORDS animal rights, animal liberation, animal ethics, sentience, social justice, factory farming, industrialized agriculture ABSTRACT The literature on social justice, and social justice movements themselves, routinely ignore nonhuman animals as legitimate subjects of social justice. Yet, as with other social justice movements, the contemporary animal liberation movement has as its focus the elimination of institutional and systemic domination and oppression. In this paper, I explicate the philosophical and theoretical foundations of the contemporary animal rights movement, and situate it within the framework of social justice. I argue that those committed to social justice – to minimizing violence, exploitation, domination, objectification, and oppression – are equally obligated to consider the interests of all sentient beings, not only those of human beings. Introduction I start this essay with a discouraging observation: despite the fact that the modern animal1 rights movement is now over 40 years old, the ubiquitous domination and oppression experienced by other- than-human animals has yet to gain robust inclusion in social justice theory or practice.
    [Show full text]
  • 4​Th​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE CIUDAD DE
    th 4 ​ MINDING ANIMALS CONFERENCE ​ CIUDAD DE MÉXICO, 17 TO 24 JANUARY, 2018 SOCIAL PROGRAMME: ROYAL PEDREGAL HOTEL ACADEMIC PROGRAMME: NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY OF MEXICO Auditorio Alfonso Caso and Anexos de la Facultad de Derecho FINAL PROGRAMME (Online version linked to abstracts. Download PDF here) 1/47 All delegates please note: ​ 1. Presentation slots may have needed to be moved by the organisers, and may appear in a different place from that of the final printed programme. Please consult the schedule located in the Conference Programme upon arrival at the Conference for your presentation time. 2. Please note that presenters have to ensure the following times for presentation to allow for adequate time for questions from the floor and smooth transition of sessions. Delegates must not stray from their allocated 20 minutes. Further, delegates are welcome to move within sessions, therefore presenters MUST limit their talk to the allocated time. Therefore, Q&A will be AFTER each talk, and NOT at the end of the three presentations. Plenary and Invited Talks – 45 min. presentation and 15 min. discussion (Q&A). 3. For panels, each panellist must stick strictly to a 10 minute time frame, before discussion with the floor commences. 4. Note that co-authors may be presenting at the conference in place of, or with the main author. For all co-authors, delegates are advised to consult the Conference Abstracts link on the Minding Animals website. Use of the term et al is provided where there is more than two authors ​ ​ of an abstract. 5. Moderator notes will be available at all front desks in tutorial rooms, along with Time Sheets (5, 3 and 1 minute Left).
    [Show full text]
  • SASH68 Critical Animal Studies: Animals in Society, Culture and the Media
    SASH68 Critical Animal Studies: Animals in society, culture and the media List of readings Approved by the board of the Department of Communication and Media 2019-12-03 Introduction to the critical study of human-animal relations Adams, Carol J. (2009). Post-Meateating. In T. Tyler and M. Rossini (Eds.), Animal Encounters Leiden and Boston: Brill. pp. 47-72. Emel, Jody & Wolch, Jennifer (1998). Witnessing the Animal Moment. In J. Wolch & J. Emel (Eds.), Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature- Culture Borderlands. London & New York: Verso pp. 1-24 LeGuin, Ursula K. (1988). ’She Unnames them’, In Ursula K. LeGuin Buffalo Gals and Other Animal Presences. New York, N.Y.: New American Library. pp. 1-3 Nocella II, Anthony J., Sorenson, John, Socha, Kim & Matsuoka, Atsuko (2014). The Emergence of Critical Animal Studies: The Rise of Intersectional Animal Liberation. In A.J. Nocella II, J. Sorenson, K. Socha & A. Matsuoka (Eds.), Defining Critical Animal Studies: An Intersectional Social Justice Approach for Liberation. New York: Peter Lang. pp. xix-xxxvi Salt, Henry S. (1914). Logic of the Larder. In H.S. Salt, The Humanities of Diet. Manchester: Sociey. 3 pp. Sanbonmatsu, John (2011). Introduction. In J. Sanbonmatsu (Ed.), Critical Theory and Animal Liberation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1-12 + 20-26 Stanescu, Vasile & Twine, Richard (2012). ‘Post-Animal Studies: The Future(s) of Critical Animal Studies’, Journal of Critical Animal Studies 10(2), pp. 4-19. Taylor, Sunara. (2014). ‘Animal Crips’, Journal for Critical Animal Studies. 12(2), pp. 95-117. /127 pages Social constructions, positions, and representations of animals Arluke, Arnold & Sanders, Clinton R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap
    bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol.31, No. 2, 2014 doi: 10.1111/japp.12051 The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap OSCAR HORTA ABSTRACT The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does not prove, and regarding the views it challenges.This article intends to clarify these confusions, and to show that the name most often used for this argument (‘the argument from marginal cases’) reflects and reinforces these misunderstandings.The article claims that the argument questions not only those defences of anthropocentrism that appeal to capacities believed to be typically human, but also those that appeal to special relations between humans. This means the scope of the argument is far wider than has been thought thus far. Finally, the article claims that, even if the argument cannot prove by itself that we should not disregard the interests of nonhuman animals, it provides us with strong reasons to do so, since the argument does prove that no defence of anthropocentrism appealing to non-definitional and testable criteria succeeds. 1. Introduction The argument from species overlap, which has also been called — misleadingly, I will argue — the argument from marginal cases, points out that the criteria that are com- monly used to deprive nonhuman animals of moral consideration fail to draw a line between human beings and other sentient animals, since there are also humans who fail to satisfy them.1 This argument has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics for two purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1
    AAnniimmaallss LLiibbeerraattiioonn PPhhiilloossoopphhyy aanndd PPoolliiccyy JJoouurrnnaall VVoolluummee 55,, IIssssuuee 11 -- 22000077 Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1 2007 Edited By: Steven Best, Chief Editor ____________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Steven Best, Chief Editor Pg. 2-3 Introducing Critical Animal Studies Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella II, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, and Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 4-5 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Arguments: Strategies for Promoting Animal Rights Katherine Perlo Pg. 6-19 Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism David Sztybel Pg. 20-54 Unmasking the Animal Liberation Front Using Critical Pedagogy: Seeing the ALF for Who They Really Are Anthony J. Nocella II Pg. 55-64 The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: New, Improved, and ACLU-Approved Steven Best Pg. 65-81 BOOK REVIEWS _________________ In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, by Peter Singer ed. (2005) Reviewed by Matthew Calarco Pg. 82-87 Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, by Matthew Scully (2003) Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 88-91 Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, eds. (2004) Reviewed by Lauren E. Eastwood Pg. 92 Introduction Welcome to the sixth issue of our journal. You’ll first notice that our journal and site has undergone a name change. The Center on Animal Liberation Affairs is now the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, and the Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal is now the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. The name changes, decided through discussion among our board members, were prompted by both philosophical and pragmatic motivations.
    [Show full text]
  • Equality, Priority and Nonhuman Animals*
    Equality, Priority and Catia Faria Nonhuman Animals* Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Department of Law [email protected] http://upf.academia.edu/catiafaria Igualdad, prioridad y animales no humanos ABSTRACT: This paper assesses the implications of egali- RESUMEN: Este artículo analiza las implicaciones del iguali- tarianism and prioritarianism for the consideration of tarismo y del prioritarismo en lo que refiere a la conside- nonhuman animals. These implications have been often ración de los animales no humanos. Estas implicaciones overlooked. The paper argues that neither egalitarianism han sido comúnmente pasadas por alto. Este artículo de- nor prioritarianism can consistently deprive nonhuman fenderá que ni el igualitarismo ni el prioritarismo pueden animals of moral consideration. If you really are an egali- privar de forma consistente de consideración moral a los tarian (or a prioritarian) you are necessarily committed animales no humanos. Si realmente alguien es igualitaris- both to the rejection of speciesism and to assigning prior- ta (o prioritarista) ha de tener necesariamente una posi- ity to the interests of nonhuman animals, since they are ción de rechazo del especismo, y estar a favor de asignar the worst-off. From this, important practical consequen- prioridad a los intereses de los animales no humanos, ces follow for the improvement of the current situation of dado que estos son los que están peor. De aquí se siguen nonhuman animals. importantes consecuencias prácticas para la mejora de la situación actual de los animales no humanos. KEYWORDS: egalitarianism, prioritarianism, nonhuman ani- PALABRAS-CLAVE: igualitarismo, prioritarismo, animales no hu- mals, speciesism, equality manos, especismo, igualdad 1. Introduction It is commonly assumed that human beings should be given preferential moral consideration, if not absolute priority, over the members of other species.
    [Show full text]