Indirect Defenses of Speciesism Make No Sense

Abstract

AbstractAnimal ethicists often distinguish between direct and indirect defenses of speciesism, where the former appeal to species membership and the latter invoke other features that are simply associated with it. The main extant charge against indirect defenses rests on the empirical claim that any feature other than membership in our species is either absent in some humans or present in some nonhumans. This paper challenges indirect defenses with a new argument, which presupposes no such empirical claim. Instead, the argument from discordance resorts to the following principle: a certain feature can only justify discriminating on the basis of that feature.