Don’t worry about speciesism
Worry about reaching people and promoting potent and realistic steps forward instead.
The definition of speciesism you get from a quick Google search is “the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals.”
Wikipedia states that “Speciesism or specism refers to the differing treatment or moral consideration of individuals based on their species membership. Such discrimination involves treating members of one species as morally more important than members of other species, despite the individuals having similar interests.”
These are fairly reasonable definitions, which make perfect sense to an educated person familiar with the concept. But does it speak to a broader audience?
It is frustrating to see so many people, including animal advocates and various vegans themselves get confused. Making animal advocacy all about speciesism can turn a simple, generous message into a convoluted, frightening or easily dismissed one.
Nobody should agree that a fly is as important as a human, or that an oyster matters as much as a dolphin. Indeed, this is not what speciesism is about.
It makes perfect sense to think that generally speaking, a species is more important than another one when members of said species have significantly more interests to take into consideration: the degree of sentience, how long they typically live, for instance and just to name two.
Exploring speciesism and discussing it is pertinent and interesting. It is a valid concept indeed and we have a lot to learn about it.
I don’t think that animal advocates should be talking about speciesism when trying to reach out, because of how much it confuses most people.
The simple message that we ought to care about animals, the idea that there is no valid reason to ignore the suffering of animals, the fact that many people can take a step for the animals — this is where it’s at.
