The Dr. Steve Best Narratives:
Part 2: Speciesism and moral devaluation
Climate change is a global, intergenerational crisis and challenge, but it is not a human problem only and treating it as such is morally bankrupt and counter-productive to human interests. Climate justice proponents prioritize the plight of the most vulnerable victims of climate change, but animals are arguably the most vulnerable, excluded, and oppressed beings on earth, as evident in the barbarities of vivisection and sport hunting or the exterminism of factory farms and slaughterhouses. Animals are property and treated as such. While certainly not lacking agency, they have little representation by enlightened advocates, and virtually no rights or court of appeal. Discrimination against animals is as old as human consciousness itself; it spans from East to West and North to South, it informs political views from Left to Right, and it is so deeply ingrained in human consciousness as to become “common sense.” Any challenge to the dominant ideology—whether we call it humanism, human exceptionalism, human supremacism, speciesism, or dominionism—invites ridicule and hostility.
There is a tremendous irony, hypocrisy, and disabling contradiction at the heart of the climate justice movement, for, with regards to oppressed animals, social justice activists are exclusive, not inclusive; homogenous, not pluralistic; and discriminatory, not “progressive” or “enlightened” in any deep or consistent way. The climate justice movement represents only one animal species—Homo sapiens—to the systematic exclusion of millions of others, known and unknown. The overwhelming majority of living species on this planet are gravely affected by capitalist domination, expansionism, climate change, and human exploitation generally—including “radicals” and “progressives” who believe the proper place for many animals is on their dinner plate or a fast-food menu. Not surprisingly, moreover, in social justice writings generally one finds little mention of the rapid acceleration of a sixth mass extinction event, this one caused by humans, not natural forces, and along with runaway climate change is a fundamental defining aspect of the Anthropocene epoch.
As discussed above, most mainstream media, government discourse, as well as social and environmental activist writings on climate justice focus exclusively on climate change as a human rights and social issue and not as an animal rights/justice issue as well. Such exclusionary and dichotomous appeals, and zero-sum logic that assumes human and animals cannot mutually benefit and prosper together through climate action, are legion in climate justice manifestos (see Narrative 3).
Underlying the neglect of animal rights philosophy and animals throughout social justice literature is the deeply entrenched worldview of “speciesism,” a term coined by Richard Ryder (2000) and developed further by Peter Singer (1975). As I define it, speciesism is a subset of a larger worldview of anthropocentrism, which can be viewed as a general category that applies to the human objectification of the world as a whole, whereas speciesism applies to the alienated, exploitative, and hierarchical outlook and practice to animals in specific.
Both anthropocentrism and speciesism share the same hubristic premise that humans are a radically unique species, privileged and superior by virtue of possessing rationality and language, and rightful owners of a world that exists for their uses and purposes. Both outlooks are debilitating errors that lie at the root of current social and ecological crises. But speciesism has its own independent logic as well, for while environmentalists and humanists might abandon anthropocentrism in one form or another, they do not in most cases renounce speciesism as well, which requires a qualitative leap beyond predatory humanism. Human supremacism, in other words, does not die until it renounces not only the most egregious forms of anthropocentrism, but also speciesism as well.
The literal meaning of anthropocentrism is that human beings (Greek: anthropoi) occupy the “center” of the universe; they are the most God-like and advanced species on the planet, the end and aim of evolution, highly unique and entitled, with the physical and living world at their command. Similarly, “speciesism” is an outlook whereby one treats animal individuals according to their species status alone, rather than to their life characteristics—which involve their sentience, preference, interests, subjectivity (emotions and thinking capacities), communication abilities, and other commonalities with the so-called radically “unique” Homo sapiens species. With reason elevated to the sine qua non of moral worth, animals, consequently, are deemed to possess little, if any, moral value and are more akin to things than humans. As Singer (1975) defines the term, “‘Speciesism’ is the idea that being human is a good enough reason for human animals to have greater moral rights than non-human animals … a prejudice or bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species”.
Speciesism rests on two fundamental errors: first, the assumption that animals do not possess human traits to any significant degree, and second, the belief that these traits should define moral value and duties in the first place. In the circular, question-begging, and self-serving illogic of speciesism, only humans have moral status because they possess human traits—because they are humans. This is much like elephants saying giraffes are inferior because they lack tusks. Speciesism is not only a worldview and fundamental aspect of human identity, it also provides the justification for humans to enslave, exploit, and massacre other animals, whether to hunt them for sport; to poison, burn, blind, and mutilate them for “science”; or to confine and butcher them by the billions for “food.” Not merely a wispy ideology, speciesism is materially institutionalized in technological systems of segregation, exploitation, and mass slaughter. The theory of speciesism informs the practice of violence against other animals, in all the nightmarish forms humans can devise. Speciesism is the central plank in the cult of human supremacy that prevails over a world in ruins.
In addition to excluding animals and the profound moral and environmental consequences of exploiting billions of land and sea animals every year, a second main way to devalue animals is to grant them only indirect or partial moral status through a welfare approach that focuses on the “proper,” “responsible,” or “humane” treatment of other animals without questioning the alleged human right to use, exploit, capture, or confine them in the first place. Animal welfare views decry overt human cruelty of other animals, but not their exploitation per se in systems such as medical research or agriculture that are inherently cruel and oppressive.
Thus, welfarist notions such as “humane” or “sustainable” “farming” are cynical euphemisms that reinforce speciesist hierarchies and the status of animals as property, slaves, and commodities. In bold contrast, the animal rights/liberation perspective treats fellow animals as moral equals, challenges the logic of speciesism, and rejects in toto human hierarchies over other animals. It is not a matter of treating the nonhuman animal slaves more “kindly,” but rather of abolishing all exploitative systems, dismantling the conceptual and material hierarchies of humans over animals, and liberating animals from the predatory grip of human despots.
One typically finds a third form of devaluation of animals in environmental literature and sustainability discourse. From speciesist premises, animals are viewed in terms of species rather than as suffering individuals. Consequently, the only “moral” considerations are instrumentalist and anthropocentric objective to ensure that animals can be “harvested” as “resources” in “sustainable” ways for human purposes, while maintaining the integrity of ecosystems—a holism that Tom Regan denounced as “environmental fascism” (Regan, 1983). Applying this logic to humans of course would be an appalling fascist view, but it should be no less so abhorrent applied to other animals, and ecological holists shrink back from the logical consequences of their view.
Similarly, animals are often framed in terms of the “services” they provide human beings, as calculations are made in terms of what their loss would cost economies. As vital as insects, pollinators, and other animals are to the integrity of ecosystems and the human food supply (see Appendix), it is exploitative and counter-productive to view them only in such crude instrumental terms. Poignantly, Weisberg and Salzini (2023) note that, “When nonhuman animals, such as the ubiquitous panda or polar bear, are invoked in climate justice campaigns, it is typically as symbols of a threat to human survival… In its silence on animal oppression, the climate justice movement comes to resemble its mainstream counterparts and undermine its own commitment to justice”.
The animal rights/liberation and justice views, in direct contrast, emphasize that animals have intrinsic value and the same basic rights humans do, and for the same reasons we do. One can pursue this argument from the grounds that animals too are sentient (Singer), that they are “subjects of a life” (Regan, 1983), “persons” (Wise, 2003), or complex beings with capabilities and desires to exercise their abilities (Nussbaum, 2024). These and other approaches can be combined for a compelling argument for animal rights. In sum, we can say that animals have the right from human exploitation and interference, and the right to live autonomously in their natural habitat with their families and communities, and to exercise every interest, need, and capacity they have in the pursuit of pleasure and happiness.
From government organization and mainstream media to climate justice and environmental discourse, supporters of environmental values typically reject anthropocentrism, but not speciesism. This is because they adhere to so-called “enlightened anthropocentrism” premised on two key ideas: (1) humans and the earth are interdependent, and the earth and its resources must be protected and used in sustainable ways; (2) we should adopt ecological practices for present and future human benefit. Generally, “biocentric” or “ecocentric” views are upheld as the antipodes to anthropocentric views in any form, given their rejection of human-centered outlooks and emphasis on the intrinsic value of the natural and living world. Yet another critical alternative to human supremacism, often overlooked, is the anti-speciesist outlook that informs animal rights and ethical vegan philosophies, often in opposition to positions such as deep ecology.
Anti-speciesism absorbs ecological views in a deeper holistic view that assigns full moral value to animals and rejects human supremacy in whatever form, including “enlightened anthropocentrism.” While this version of anthropocentrism and the sustainability focus accompanying it is a definite advance beyond crude anthropocentric views that nature is an infinite cornucopia of resources to mindlessly plunder without limits or consequence, anti-speciesist and animal rights views effect a qualitative philosophical leap and paradigm shift beyond the limited boundaries of humanism in any form. Social justice humanists and environmental anthropocentrists find this move difficult or impossible to take but it is nonetheless essential for a just transition to a viable future society.
Selected References
Nussbaum Martha. (2024). Justice for animals: our collective responsibility. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Singer, Peter (1990) Animal Liberation (second edition). New York: Random House.
Regan, Tom (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Richard Ryder (2000) [1970] Speciesism revisited (https://www.academia.edu/8218459/Speciesism_Again_the_original_leaflet)
Weisberg, Z. Salzini, C. (2023) “No Climate Justice Without Justice for Animals,” The Paris Institute. (https://parisin stitute.org/no-climate-justice-without-justice-for-animals/).
Wise, Steven (2003). Drawing the line: science and the case for animal rights. New York: Basic Books.
Leave a Reply