by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly,
speciesistsallowtheinterestsoftheirownspeciestooverride
thegreaterinterestsofmembersofotherspecies.Thepattern
is identical in each case.
Mosthumanbeings arespeciesists.Thefollowingchapters
show thatordinaryhumanbeings—nota fewexceptionally
cruelorheartlesshumans,buttheoverwhelmingmajorityof
humans—takeanactivepartin,acquiescein,andallowtheir
taxestopayforpracticesthatrequirethesacrificeofthemost
importantinterestsofmembersofotherspeciesin orderto
promote the most trivial interests of our own species.
Thereis,however,onegeneraldefenseofthepracticestobe
describedinthenexttwochaptersthatneedstobedisposed
ofbeforewediscussthepracticesthemselves.Itisadefense
which, if true, would allow us to do anything at all to
nonhumansfortheslightestreason,orforno reasonatall,
without incurring any justifiable reproach. This defense
claimsthatweareneverguiltyofneglectingtheinterestsof
otheranimalsforonebreathtakinglysimplereason:theyhave
nointerests.Nonhumananimalshavenointerests,according
tothisview,becausetheyarenotcapableofsuffering.Bythis
isnotmeantmerelythattheyarenotcapableofsufferingin
allthewaysthathumanbeingsare—forinstance,thatacalfis
notcapableofsufferingfromtheknowledgethatitwillbe
killed insixmonths time. Thatmodestclaimis,nodoubt,
true;butitdoesnotclearhumansofthechargeofspeciesism,
sinceitallows thatanimals maysufferin otherways—for
instance, by being given electric shocks, or being keptin
small,crampedcages.ThedefenseIamabouttodiscussis
the much more sweeping, although correspondingly less
plausible, claim