No offense to Perrette and her milk jug, nearly 500 researchers, ethicists and philosophers condemn the amorality of animal exploitation and demand the end of all forms of breeding, the ban on fishing and hunting. , for reasons of interspecies justice.
Two Quebec ethics researchers are notably at the origin of this new anti-speciesist manifesto (published on our digital platforms) supported by some 473 researchers from Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Published simultaneously by the To have to and the Worldthis call, which has its roots in a well-established current in Europe, is a follow-up to the Cambridge Declaration of 2012, where 14 neuroscientists stipulated that “non-human” animals had a consciousness analogous to that of humans.
Ten years later, this new declaration makes a moral and ethical argument against any form of discriminatory treatment or injustice based on belonging to a species. “To the extent that it involves unnecessary violence and harm, we declare that animal exploitation is unjust and morally indefensible,” say the signatories.
“It’s not a vegan statement, it’s on another level. It is a normative statement that states that it is unacceptable to treat non-human beings as things or to exploit them,” insists Martin Gibert, co-initiator of this statement and researcher in the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI). at the Ethics Research Center (CRÉ) at the University of Montreal.
Questioned about the realism of this position in a world where world food is largely based on livestock, Mr. Gibert believes that the duty of philosophers is to consider what should be “the collective horizon aimed at, even if that is opposed to common morality”.
Distant springs
Contemporary anti-speciesist movements draw their sources from many writings, in particular put forward in 1975 by one of the signatories of the Montreal Declaration, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer. Opposed to any form of discrimination based on belonging to a species, he instead erected sensitivity as the primary factor to guide the treatment that should be reserved for “non-human” species.
This is not a vegan statement, we are on another level
Born in Quebec, but well rooted in Europe with militant groups such as L214 Ethics and Animals – recognized for its brilliant actions against the force-feeding of geese or the sexing of chicks, against slaughterhouses or butchers -, this grid of life analysis equates speciesism with the fight against other forms of discrimination, including sexism or racism. “The intelligence of a species (like humans) is not a relevant criterion for discriminating between living beings”, relaunches Martin Gibert.
Inspired by Singer, anti-speciesists believe that it is rather sentience, or the ability to feel pain or pleasure, that determines whether certain species (mammals, fish, birds, etc.) inherit fundamental rights, including the right to life. . This a priori supposes the cessation of all forms of animal exploitation (breeding, fishing, zoo, leisure). “It’s radical. We are aware of being ahead of the rest of society, but it helps to advance mentalities, ”defends Mr. Gibert.
The Montreal Declaration, continues the ethicist, does not aim to stop animal cruelty, but is intended to be fully abolitionist. “As long as the animals have no interest in being killed, it is not acceptable. The fact of being “raised in freedom” does not make the meat more ethical”, adds Valéry Giroux, co-initiator of the declaration and deputy director of the Center for Research in Ethics at the University of Montreal.
Some anti-species groups, notably PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) advocate a more pragmatic approach, aiming to put an end to certain practices deemed harmful to animals in the pharmaceutical, agri-food or fashion industries.
A half-measure that Mr. Gibert and Valéry Giroux do not support. Banning horse-drawn carriages is not antispecist, invokes Valéry Giroux. “It only prevents animal cruelty, but not species discrimination or other unacceptable practices. »
Without saying a word about hunting, the authors of the Montreal Declaration believe, like fishing, that it is no more morally acceptable. “Even if it’s part of a tradition, it’s not more ethical. If it is a survival hunt, it is different, but that is marginal compared to the 65 billion farm animals slaughtered each year in despicable conditions”, relaunches Martin Gibert.
The proponents of the Declaration are also silent on what rights should prevail in any conflict of rights between humans and “non-human” animals. In particular on the suffering that could result from the cessation of livestock farming or fishing, depriving certain populations of food security.
Jérôme Segal, author of Radical animal, lecturer at the University of Paris Sorbonne, historian of the antispeciesist movement, believes that the Montreal Declaration could mark a turning point in the way animals are considered. “It’s certainly not applicable, but it draws the outlines of what I would call a utopia. It’s not going to happen, but it points the way to follow, ”believes the professor joined in Vienna, himself an antispeciesist.
“An ethical revolution”
But for Paul Sugy, author of The extinction of man, the crazy project of antispecists, under cover of good intentions, this philosophical movement hides a much more questionable reasoning and radicalism. “We know that several practices such as bullfighting or hunting with hounds are doomed to disappear. But basically, what worries me is that antispeciesism is a major intellectual revolution, and that we don’t realize it through ignorance. »
The author denounces the underlying ideology which supposes “an ethical revolution” and a mechanism of thought “which starts from the postulate that we are plunged into a moral dilemma and that antispecism will put an end to it”.
However, nothing could be further from the truth, in his opinion. Stopping animal husbandry could not only lead to human suffering, but also condemn thousands of animals dependent on humans, or even expose them to extinction. “It’s a moral stance that doesn’t care about the end result,” he says, lamenting that the proponents of this thought, which claims to be benevolent, do not have to explain themselves on the merits of the debate.
“For antispecists, we are animals like any other. However, this moral revolution leads to a deconstruction of anthropology. It is a way of apprehending suffering only in the light of biology, whereas, in the case of man, it [la souffrance] is also cultural, social, it is part of history and memories. Comparing gas chambers and slaughterhouses makes no sense in this respect. “It is possible to review our relationship with animals without being antispeciesist, he pleads.
Several authorities (including the City of Montreal) prohibit the use of horse-drawn carriages, the filing of cat claws, bullfights, or the cooking of live lobsters in boiling water (Switzerland). A law will make it illegal in France to keep wild animals for show purposes from 2028, and from 2026 for dolphins and killer whales. Since 2021, French people who want to adopt a pet must complete a “certificate of commitment”, obliging them, under penalty of a fine, to respect the needs of their animal.
A previous version of this text, which indicated that Martin Gibert is a professor at the Center for Research in the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI) at the University of Montreal, has been modified.