When Animals Speak

meaning is always generated between different perspectives and comes into being through interaction, not by referring to a pre-given truth.

. As we have already seen, there is a strong connection between anthropocentrism—seeing language as exclusively human—and the borders of the political community.

Who speaks, who is heard, and who determines this are important questions in political interspecies interactions.

we are as vulnerable as other animals, and our knowledge is always limited by our sensory mechanisms, ways of being situated socially and politically, or more generally, by our spe

Each individual, human or non-human, belongs to different groups, with regard to gender, age, species, race, and so on.

naturalistic ethic, an empirical refutation of empirical claims stating that other animals are like humans, will not suffice. This would leave the structure of the debate intact, and could lead to measuring the worth of other animals on the basis of their resemblance to humans (Wolfe 2003).

The word “animal” categorizes all non-human animals and distances humans from other animals (Derrida 2008, 31).

“The question is not: can they speak, nor can they reason, but: can they suffer?”

Furthermore, using the human norm as the starting point for defining reason and language or for moral consideration is not a neutral step, but is formed by power relations

current studies in moral psychology show that much of our moral behavior is habitual and instinctive