On 18 Mar, 23:36, Rupert wrote:

When my thesis is finished I
plan to start working on a writing project in animal ethics, exploring
the question of whether speciesism can be justified.

Rudy Canoza recently made the interesting point that AR is
speciesist assuming that you would lock up a human who
harmed other humans but had a brain condition whereby he
was incapable of making moral judgements and therefore should
be considered a moral patient.

If you are willing to lock him up yet unwilling to lock a predator
animal up to prevent him from doing harm to non-human animals
then you are guilty of speciesm. Can you refute that premise?