Peter Singer @ MindSay 
A writer by the name of Peter Singer makes the following proposition: ‘speciesism’, so to speak, is no different than racism – as the former is a belief that claims that those of us belonging to a certain species, just like those of us belonging to a certain race in the latter ideology, are superior or more important than those belonging to a different species or race.
I contend that there is a major flaw with this argument, for, the two are not the same: the belief in superiority of races is, for all intents and purposes, unfounded. The belief in superiority of certain animal species is not.
After all, the American civil rights movement would have been a sham if those equal rights were not inherently deserved. Most of us believe that race separates us no more significantly than by appearance, and in some cases, culture and language (though it should be noted that, while they may often seem to correspond, they are actually quite irrelevant to race itself) – therefore, the concept of all races deserving equal rights is not a difficult one to grasp. On the other hand, other animals are, indeed, quite obviously inferior to humans. How inferior, exactly, depends on the animal, but the point remains: different races deserve and require equal rights; but it is neither necessary, justifiable, nor feasible that animals should receive equal rights to humans.
Should inferiority infer the stripping of all rights whatsoever? To me this question is far more important, and for the moment allows us to escape from Singer’s extreme theoreticals to the relatively more conventional beliefs that drive animal rights activism.
Personally, I am against cruelty to animals, but I look at it from a somewhat different perspective: I believe allowing or encouraging acts of cruelty against animals leads to a society that thrives on, well, cruelty. It seems that many of those who commit terrible crimes against other human beings have often committed similar acts against animals earlier on in life, and even if this is not actually the case, it is intuitive that a link would be present: after all, cruelty is cruelty, and a general disregard for a living being or delight in its pain seems quite easily transferable to other humans. I believe that those who commit such acts against animals need to receive some sort of punishment, simply to reflect how society views such acts, and to reflect the danger that such a person poses to the rest of society until they receive some form of rehabilitation. Therefore, my reason for opposing cruelty to animals is simply for the sake of human society, and the actual rights of the animals in question are irrelevant to my perspective.
Is my view flawed? I don’t believe so. I believe that we must put our own species first, simply because it is impossible not to do so without disadvantaging ourselves. This is not just about making a decision to no longer eat meat – how could we fight parasites, or seek medical research, if other species’ welfare was to be considered as important or important enough to be relevant? Yes, it is true that even the most extreme animal rights activist probably has little interest in the protection of protozoa, but these too are living creatures, just smaller and less complex than other animals, who in turn are smaller and less complex than us. It is hypocritical to clamour only for the rights of mammals and not insects, or indeed the animal kingdom as a whole, because doing so is little more than ‘speciesism’ at a broader level.
So, how do we measure a species’ importance, and rights? I believe that the only logical answer must be to realise that the human animal is the only one that deserves ‘rights’ from our (human) society: not necessarily because of innate superiority even, but simply because this is the species that we are a part of, to which we belong – a discrimination that, unlike racism, is quite relevant and, indeed, necessary.
