Speciesism: A Rational Examination of an Irrational System
written by Malgosia Mosielski
Speciesism, a term that has gained increasing recognition in the discourse on ethics, refers to the unjust treatment or discrimination against individuals based solely on their species membership. Historically, the term was first coined by British psychologist Richard Ryder in the 1970s, though it was Peter Singer, the renowned Australian philosopher, who further popularized the concept in his seminal work Animal Liberation (1975).
The term “speciesism” is meant to describe the way humans unjustifiably prioritize their own species over others. This represents a form of prejudice—an irrational and arbitrary discrimination against beings who are no less capable of experiencing suffering and pleasure than humans.
Comparison with Sexism and Racism
At its core, speciesism mirrors the logic of other forms of discrimination, such as sexism and racism. These systems of oppression, historically grounded in irrelevant distinctions, have been used to justify unequal treatment of women and minorities for millennia. Likewise, speciesism is often used to justify the discrepancy in treatment between various species (like why we eat pigs but cherish dogs).
Irrational Rationalizations
At its core, speciesism is rooted in irrationality. It is a system of classification based on arbitrary characteristics—specifically, species membership—that holds no morally relevant connection to an individual’s capacity for suffering or pleasure.
A common justification for speciesism is the claim that animals are inferior to humans because they are less intelligent or lack complex cognitive abilities, such as mental time travel. While these differences may be real (more on this below*), they are not morally significant. For example, we would never justify withholding pain relief from a newborn or a person with dementia simply because they lack the intellectual abilities that we associate with higher cognitive function. Yet, this is precisely the kind of reasoning used to justify the mistreatment and exploitation of animals.
To dismantle speciesism, we must scrutinize the reasons we use to justify certain actions toward individuals. For instance, if we recognize that separating human newborns from their mothers causes profound distress for both, then we should ask ourselves whether the same reasoning applies when a calf is torn away from his/her mother in the dairy industry. If both situations cause equivalent suffering, then both should be treated with equal moral concern.
Conclusion
To challenge and ultimately dismantle speciesism, we must first understand that it is not a natural or inevitable way of thinking. Like racism and sexism, speciesism is a social construct—a set of beliefs that have been developed and reinforced over centuries through cultural, economic, and political systems.
We must begin to recognize that the moral consideration of individuals should be based on morally significant traits, such as the ability to experience pain and pleasure, rather than irrelevant characteristics like sex, skin color, or intelligence (as measured by human-centric standards**). Only by acknowledging the shared capacity for suffering across species can we begin to build a more compassionate and just world for all sentient beings.
*The ability to experience physical pain is not contingent upon intelligence. When a human undergoes surgery, no one would ever think to determine the appropriate dosage of anesthesia based on an IQ test. The amount of pain relief administered is instead based on factors such as body size, age, and overall health—none of which involve intelligence. Yet, when it comes to animals like pigs or cows, who routinely undergo painful surgeries without anesthesia or pain medication, the justification is rooted in the false assumption that their perceived lack of intelligence makes them less deserving of protection from suffering. This is a striking example of speciesism: the belief that cognitive abilities, or the absence thereof, can be used to justify the denial of basic rights, such as protection from pain.
*Regarding the lack of mental time travel, this has long been a difficult concept to assess in animals, since we have no way of directly asking them whether they can envision the future or reflect on the past. However, advancements in communication technology are beginning to shift this paradigm. The use of augmentative communication tools, such as buttons that dogs can press to express, is providing new insights into animal cognition. Researchers are currently exploring whether dogs, and potentially other animals, have the ability to conceptualize past events and anticipate future ones. These studies suggest that the cognitive abilities of animals may be far more sophisticated than we previously assumed, and that animals might be capable of a mental experience closer to that of humans than previously believed.
**It is irrational to measure the intelligence of other species based on traits that are important for human survival and thriving. The concept of intelligence is often framed in human-centric terms, such as the ability to think abstractly or create art and technology. However, these criteria are specific to human survival and flourishing and do not reflect the full spectrum of intelligence in the animal kingdom.
For example, a horse may be considered unintelligent because they cannot write a novel or do calculus. But this judgment is not only anthropocentric—it is entirely irrelevant to the horse’s existence. A horse’s intelligence should be assessed based on their ability to survive and thrive in their environment. This includes the capacity to navigate their surroundings, communicate non-verbally with their herd, detect and evade predators, and reproduce—traits that are vital for the horse’s survival, not a human’s survival.