The Ideology of Animal Liberation and the “Guilt” of Christianity Part I: Is Speciesism So Bad?

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to offer a critical analysis of the thesis about the responsibility of Christianity for the oppression of animals in the West developed by the ideologists of their liberation: Peter Singer and his associates. Since the historical connection of this religion with the ideas about the moral status of animals and the practices of their use is confusing, changeable and multifaceted, the analysis is limited to the study of the concept of speciesism, fundamental in this thesis. Singer and other liberationists interpret speciesism as a form of unjustified discrimination based on species and liken it to racism and sexism. Revealing the falsity of this analogy, the author proves that such discrimination can be both justified (and then speciesism is not reprehensible) and unjustified (and then, for the sake of terminological clarity, it is better to use another, purely negative, concept of human chauvinism). It is also concluded that justified speciesism has not been determined directly and primarily by the religion. The Christian idea of the sanctity of human life itself was derived from the belief in the uniqueness of man, which nourishes speciesism and rests on self-evident grounds that do not depend on the religion. Serving as an innate perspective inherent in all conscious beings, in which they perceive the world around them, speciesism does not necessarily lead to the oppression of animals. The suffering we inflict on them mostly has other, more obvious, causes.