Speciesism is the giving of various rights or values to beings based on their membership of species. The term was initially used to denote a discrimination against beings which are non-human on the basis of the physical differences that have a moral value paced on them. All the same, it makes reference to a hatred of each and every human based on their human nature. Well, the term has been used over time to refer to the wide discrimination taking place and more especially by man to other species (Jamieson, 2008).
Therefore, it can be said that Speciesism in general terms is discrimination and just like any other discrimination, it ignores and even underestimates the sameness of the discriminator and the victim of the discrimination. The term is mainly used by activists of animal rights who have the opinion that it is morally wrong and even irrational to take sentient beings as property or objects.
However, this essay seeks to affirm that species membership is a morally legitimate basis on which to treat some individuals better than others.
Well, having had an overview of Speciesism, it is most likely that the concept can never be true and is entirely impractical. For one, our institutions of factory farming, hunting, and animal experimentation are a great enterprise when we make an equal consideration of interests (Singer, 2002). With such a ground, Speciesism has no ground upon which it can stand.
There is a more moral principle that asserts that an individual should include both the affected interests as provided by Speciesism when making a calculation of whether an action is right. From this point, this interest should be weighed in an equal manner to bring out a sound judgment. The point here is that the rights of any being can be considered philosophically unimportant because what is of great importance and relevant to the subject of discussion is the consideration of the interests of an individual.