Why most Christians are speciests?

Jay thinks that if you place a different amount of value on different species, then you're a specieist, (without the s in the spelling which doesn't belong). Jay thinks that basically everyone is a specieist and as such the word is pointless. Jay further thinks Singer, Ryder, and Dunayer are longwinded self important fools. But that's pretty much what it means to be a writer and that can't really be helped. Jay isn't longwinded or self important enough to bother writing books so his opinion doesn't really count for much.

Jay further thinks Singer, Ryder, and Dunayer are longwinded self important fools.

Yeah that's pretty much what it amounts to.

Basically Singer thinks we shouldn't kill animals if we don't have to. But human life is more important than the lives of other animals, and killing a person is worse than killing a chicken. His books have sold more than 25 million copies.

Basically Dunayer thinks that killing a chicken, or even an ant is the same thing as killing a person. Her books haven't sold very many copies.

Now I've saved everyone the trouble of reading their books.

Jay further thinks Singer, Ryder, and Dunayer are longwinded self important fools. But that's pretty much what it means to be a writer and that can't really be helped. Jay isn't longwinded or self important enough to bother writing books so his opinion doesn't really count for much.

Jay, I think that it is very important for the animal rights or liberation movement to have academics writing philosophical/academic writings in support of the subject. If the animal rights movement consisted only of lay people or activists, without any academic support, then I think it would be viewed as even more irrational, absurd, unsophisticated, regressive, dumb, etc. that it already is. I presume that one of the main reasons why animal rights courses are even offered in universities and law schools (which is a very positive thing) is precisely because animal rights now has its place in academia thanks to "long winded self-important fools" like Regan, Singer, Francione, etc. SO I hardly think that academics in the field of animal rights, writing scholarly articles in support of the movement, is a liability to the movement! Would you not agree Jay? I am taken aback by your apparent hostility/adversity to this Jay. I didnt know you felt this way.

I am of course making a general statement here and I am not assessing the extent of the contributions of the individual academic players in the field of animal rights. To do so fairly and comprehensively would probably require an entire essay! I am all essayed out at the moment (sleepy, tired, burnt out emoticon please).

Will: Thanks for summing up the gist of their positions on speciesm.

I think Singer helps the movement mainly because of his credentials (Oxford education and Bioethics chair at Princeton), and because his views are moderate enough to be accepted by a mass audience. Some of the others though seem pretty hostile and so radical that I think they cause more problems than anything

Umm I tend to think that any -ism is linked with an irrationality. Animals and humans are clearly different in many ways, and so to treat them the same is nonsensical. It isn't specieist to treat animals different to humans. It is specieist when you make a decision to treat a species differently just because of its species, and not because of any logical reason attached to that species.

Treating species appropriately, and with respect, requires that you treat each species differently. At the very simplest level, you feed animals what you know they will eat. It isn't specieist to do this, it's just logical. If you were to treat the animals literally the same, give all animals the same food, that would harm or kill most animals.

Specieism occurs (in my opinion) when you make a judgement about a species not based on their characteristics, but on irrational factors. Doing animal experiments because-we-can for instance. If it's okay to do experiments on animals, why isn't it okay to do them on humans? The answer to that is never logical, and that's specieism in my opinion. It isn't based on anything in particular.

Too many ordinary Christian belive that God made animals for us to eat, wear, and experiment on but I am sure loving God prefer people who practice love and compassion instead of viewing animals as commodities.

How do I view Animal Rights?

I view Animal Rights philosophy as fruit of highest spiritual level.