racism sexism speciesism

Speciesism-Discrimination due to specie of belonging:


Speciesism is the discrimination*1 of someone’s*2 interests due to his/her specie of belonging*3.


1*-Discrimination (moral discrimination): Not weighing someone’s interest fairly for arbitrary reasons (sex, specie, race, type/degree of intelligent etc.)


Normally non-human animals are discriminated using two reasons as an excuse;

A-The fact that non-human animals don’t belong to our specie, implies they don’t deserve equal consideration: According to this we could discriminate human animals (for example) simply because they don’t belong to a certain group (skin colour, gender…) but doing this is wrong (just as discriminating due to specie is) because the group we belong to doesn’t determine our interest *2 in living and avoiding pain.


B-The fact that they lack certain capacities justifies their discrimination:

What this argument usually hides is a simple discrimination due to the specie of belonging, because human animals lacking these characteristics are usually considered morally.

If this weren’t the case and someone held that our cognitive capacities do determine the respect someone deserves (discriminating as a consequence some human animals such as babies and Alzheimer victims, etc.), the thruth is that if we are affected by suffering and pleasure it is due to our capacity to feel, not because of our intelligence, linguistic capacities etc. (although these can influence on the amount of suffering we experiment, they are not necessary to feel pain and wellbeing).

Animals (human and non-human one’s) have interest in life and in not suffering because they are aware of their experiences.


2*-Interests: Any individual with a nervous system and aware of it’s sensations has the capacity to experiment what happens in his/her life, and in consequence has interests that can be discriminated.

Those organisms lacking such capacity do not have interests, because they can in no way experiment subjective sensations (there is no “mind” that perceives “things”) and therefore cannot be discriminated morally.


Often humans respect some non-human animals (usually dogs and cats), although they would continue to be speciesist if they didn’t consider equally other animals such as cows, tunas, pigs etc.

Although I must add that although many humans do feel empathy for some non-human animals, it is probably adventurous to say they consider them their equals, and a proof of this is that these animals are usually bought, sold...this meaning, used in other ways.


3*Specie: A specie is a taxonomic group used to classify those who share a series of common characteristics. A specie does not have interests, only those who form the species do, and therefore it is these individuals who suffer the consequences of discrimination.







Especismo - Discriminación en función de la especie:



Especismo es la discriminación*1 de los intereses*2 de un individuo por especie*3.



1*-Discriminar (léase discriminar moralmente):No darle el peso justo a los intereses de alguien en función de características arbitrarias (sexo, especie, raza, tipo/grado de inteligencia etc.)


A pesar de qué existen diferentes tipos de especismo, es decir hay animales no humanos cuyos intereses son priorizados con respecto a otras/os (tal es el caso de los perros y gatos).

Normalmente se discrimina a los demás animales con respecto a los humanos - especismo antropocéntrico- y esto se hace habitualmente en base a dos argumentos:


A-No pertenecen al grupo humano, por tanto, no merecen ser considerados igualitariamente: Según esto, podríamos discriminar a algunas/os humanas/os (por poner un ejemplo) simplemente por no pertenecer a un detrminado "grupo" (raza, clase social etc) Pero si hacer esto es injusto (al igual que lo es discriminar en base a la especie), es debido a que el grupo en el que somos clasificdos no determina nuestro interés*2 en vivir y en hacerlo sin sufrimiento.


B-Al carecer de determinadas capacidades cognitivas no merecen ser considerados iguales:

Lo que realmente esconde este argumento la mayor parte de las veces es una simple discriminación por la especie de pertenencia, ya que los humanos carentes de dichas capacidades en cambio, sí suelen ser considerados merecedores de respeto.

Si no fuera así, y se sostuviera que nuestras capacidades cognitivas determinan el respeto que merece un individuo (discriminando en consecuencia a algunos animales humanos como los bebés, enfermos de Alzheimer, etc.), cabría decir que si nos vemos afectados por el sufrimiento y el disfrute es por nuestra capacidad para sentir, no por nuestro tipo o grado de inteligencia, habilidades lingüísticas, etc. (aunque éstas sí pueden influir en la cantidad de sufrimiento o disfrute que experimentamos, no son necesarias para experimentar dichas sensaciones).

Los animales (tanto los humanos como los no humanos) tenemos interés en vivir y en no sufrir principalmente porque somos conscientes de nuestras sensaciones.



2*-Intereses: Todo individuo con sistema nervioso, consciente de sus sensaciones posee la capacidad de sufrir y disfrutar, y en consecuencia, tiene intereses que pueden ser discriminados.

Aquellos organismos carentes de dicha capacidad no tienen intereses ya que no experimentan sensaciones subjetivas (no existe una "mente" que perciba "cosas") y por lo tanto, no pueden ser discriminados moralmente.


A pesar de que hay humanas/os que sí parecen respetar los intereses de algunos animales no humanos (normalmente perros o gatos), dichos humanos seguirían siendo especistas si no incluyeran bajo el paraguas de la consideración igualitaria a otros animales con los que no conviven o no pertenecen a alguna especie que consideren merecedora de cierta consideración, como suele ocurrir con las vacas, cerdos, atunes, etc.

Aunque a esto hay de añadir que a pesar de que muchas/os humanas/os sienten cierta empatía por otros animales, es aventurado afirmar que les consideran iguales, y una prueba de ello es que estos animales suelen ser comprados, vendidos, regalados...en definitiva, utilizados de otra forma.



3*Especie: Una especie es un grupo taxonómico en el que se clasifica a quienes reúnen una serie de características comunes, pero la especie en sí no siente ni posee intereses, sino que son los individuos que forman ésta los que son discriminados y se ven afectados por ello.



equality, Chris and 78 more people faved this
  • Jonathan McIntosh 6y

    Vegan Butterfly: I think I have been very clear, but I will try one more time to explain why this particular comparison of animal oppression to race and gender oppressions is both historically offensive and offensive today.

    I'll use race this time for clarity. As you must know, Western imperialists first from Europe and than later from the USA plundered the world's resources. They also stole, tortured, used and enslaved human beings all over the world.

    To accomplish this they used the comparison of people of color to animals. They thought of and talked about these people as animals. This was (and is) a way of degrading and dehumanizing people to make their oppression acceptable and palatable. They said "these people are no different from cattle or dogs therefore they should have no rights and should be used and treated in the same way". And this disgusting sentiment is alive and well in modern society in the form of white supremacist thought, just watch Lou Dobbs and his hateful dehumanizing talk about immigrants.

    Now you come along with your western and mostly white animal liberation movement and say something like "Yes racism and the oppression of people of color IS in fact no different than that of cattle or dogs etc" So you are using the same exact comparison as white supremacy has used to oppress people of color, only you ignore the historical context and legacy saying its a positive comparison.

    If you can't see how absurd and offensive that is, than you are hopelessly out of touch with reality, mindbogglingly insensitive and also participating in this sad tradition. So it is not surprising that your movement remains small and overwhelmingly white.
  • Vegan Butterfly 6y

    Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Animal Rights, and we'd love to have this added to the group!
  • Vegan Butterfly 6y

    Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Animals Are Not Ours to Wear, and we'd love to have this added to the group!
  • Jonathan McIntosh 6y

    Since Vegan Butterfly is obviously suffering from some sort of mental illness and is not interested in logic, history, anti-oppression or science. And since Vegan Butterfly also persists in delusional mystical thinking - here are a few points for the rest of the people viewing this disturbing image.

    For those interested in the scientific stand point there are major cognitive abilities that make humans unique on earth. While there are other things that both humans and some other animals share.

    Marc Hauser, professor of psychology, biological anthropology, and organismic and evolutionary biology in Harvard's Arts and Sciences lists four novel components that make human thought unique and show that humans have “floodlight” cognition as opposed to “laser beam” intelligence found in animals.

    1) The ability to combine and recombine different types of information and knowledge in order to gain new understanding.

    2) to apply the same “rule” or solution to one problem to a different and new situation.

    3) To create and easily understand symbolic representations of computation and sensory input.

    4) To detach modes of thought from raw sensory and perceptual input.
  • Rev. Xanatos Satanicos Bombasticos (ClintJCL) 6y

    "So I guess you support humans abusing and killing other humans, cannibalism, rape, and theft since non-humans do these things all the time."

    Nice slipperly slope argument, but no. Rape and theft don't keep you from dying. Eating does. You're comparing things necessary to survival to things that aren't. Apples and oranges.

    "**Actually many scientists now believe the introduction of STARCH in our diet is what really aided our evolution."

    I'm not reading your link because you have no point. There is no single factor in evolution; the entire world comes into play. And we evolved from a long line of carnivores and omnivores. So my statement is indeed true: We could not have gotten where we are now by eating meat. NONE of the omnivores today could have.

    "So then you must be against laws, and a moral society that rejects many natural acts such as (in legal terms) murder, rape, child abuse, child abandonment, cannibalism, theft, and indecent exposure"

    Did you forget you just tried to use that slippery slope argument 2 paragraphs ago, or do you just like typing redundant paragraphs? You might want to take the "knowledge and reason" philosophy class offered at universities, so you can understand the illogic of logical fallacies.

    "If you are smart enough to KNOW BETTER, then you shouldn't cause unnecessary pain and suffering to others, and you shouldn't exploit and enslave others for your own benefit."

    I'm smart enough to know better than idealists like you, who think there is a such thing as a suffering-free world. Every second you whine on flickr you could be making a real difference in the real world. You're not going win this war via ideology and propaganda. If you really want something done right, you need to do it yourself. Go out there and promote some really tasty vegetables. People are now genetically engineering in their garages (authorites are scared) - go figure out how to engineer a plant that is as tasty as meat.

    But I hate to break the news to you -- plants suffer too.

    There's even a species of tree that, when attacked(bark/flowers eaten and such), sends a messages to other species of the same tree. They then start producing a poison so that THEY don't get eaten.

    "well it's obvious you've never worked an animal shelter. Abuse can cause permanent emotional and psychological damage to a non-human, very similar, though not identical, to a human."

    Actually, I firmly believe animal shelters kill pets by being snobby about who they give them too. The people running them are such idealists that they'd rather put the surplus cats to sleep when they run out of space, than give them to somebody who doesn't want a frickin' home inspection (which is ridiculous - do the authorities inspect my home to have a human baby? NO.)

    And anyway, I said "smack" not "abuse". But I'm sure bleeding-heart idealists like you see no difference in the two. You probably want to call the police when a mom spanks a kid that's bad.

    Hate to say it, but cats specifically respond well to violence (small scale, not abuse or anything that causes injury) because they typically play and scratch with each other. It's their nature to bite each other in the face (my 2 cats jump higher than a pool table when they play with each other -- collectively they have more energy than a large dog), scratch each other, and "test boundaries" which each other. Sometimes they play too hard, then the one whines, or gets mad, fights back, and the other learns from this. The lack a true language.

    Anyway, I finally got my cat to stop attacking and biting me. And it wasn't by being nice to him. It was be retaliating. Now he's incredibly sweet and rubs up on me. But I had to assume alpha stance with him -- he's a 10 lb half Maine Coone and he's only 9 months old and I'm already actually a bit scared of him -- he could f you up. But I could never have gotten alpha status simply be being nice to him.

    And he doesn't have emotional issues. He's not running away when he sees me. He follows me into the bathroom and jumps up in the window if I open the shudders; but rubs against my legs if I don't. He doesn't seem to have psychological scars to me. I think his biggest complaint was how BORED he was before we got our 2nd cat.

    "You CANNOT say that a flower does not wish to be abused, because it is NOT SENTIENT"

    You don't truly know that, and either way, you are justifying the killing of a being as okay, as long as it doesn't suffer.

    So what if we found a being that was a mile across, but had no consciousness? What if it was older than mankind, a noble peace of nurture? Should we just eat it then, because it has no consciousness?

    You're position is basically that murder is okay as long as no one suffers. Using your own slippery slope tactics, I could say that that means you support murdering human beings, as long as it's quick, nobody suffers, and nobody knows them so there's no family to suffer. Does that mean you support euthanasia for the homeless? LOL! (I mean, a lot of homeless people have zero ties to any other human beings. If they're killed instantly, they don't suffer and nobody else does.)

    "Do you think masturbation and child beating is the same because both sperm and human children are alive? "

    Catholics do (masturbation is murder, basically). They're the same as you and me, but they draw their line in an even more insane position in the sand than you do. I draw it at INTELLIGENT, you draw it at SENTIENT, and they draw it at ALIVE/ABLE TO BECOME SENTIENT IN THE FUTUER.

    "Dogs have DIED from grief after losing a loved one"

    I didn't say capacity, I said deepness. A dog's love is a mile wide, but only an inch deep. It's not generally (unless it's super-duper-smart) going to know what kind of music you like, what your favorite song is, what you'd like for christmas, how you like to have sex, etc, etc. It does not have the reasoning capacity to understand a personality in the deep way that two human beings can.

    A human's love for their spouse is a mile wide, but as deep as the ocean. A dog's love is only as deep as their intelligence allows. Hopefully these metaphors make sense.

    We're not all the same. You were just arguing with the other guy about how we are ALL unique. We are unique in how we love too. A goldfish is especially not going to know my favorite song or my birthday... Get it? There's a difference between STRENGTH and DEPTH.

    but your mind seems to lack the depth to comprehend this.

    "Why do I have to pick and choose who to care for and who not to?"

    Ahh, here's where you lose your argument. Unless you possess the capacity to magically stop all suffering on planet earth, then you are by definition only able to stop part of the suffering. Which means that, regardless of how many flickr photos you post, in the real world, your help only goes so far.

    I hope when you get up off your ass and actually volunteer for the causes that you believe in -- that you fight for the poverty, war, and racism you talk about. But until you do that, you're just another whiny armchair internet vegan.

    In fact, because your opinion is anti-majority, and you go and spooge it on everyone on the internet -- you actually encourage your enemy.

    For example, I sat through an hour long traffic jam (to go 2 miles). What happened? Some bleeding-heart (like you) couple hit a baby deer. Rather than putting it down, they tied it to the middle of the road. Nobody knew what to do with them. 7 cop cars blocked traffic on both sides of the road.

    I vowed that 2 deers would die for the deer that delayed me and 1000 other people for an hour. (Don't worry, I don't believe in any kind of waste. I'll eat the meat.) I'm going to buy a gun and go hunting SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of those bleeding hearts.

    Now when you go posting images like this, while sitting on your ass and pretending to "care about all issues equally" (which is great, but unless you're GOD or a SUPER-POWERED BEING, you are NOT going to be able to snap your fingers and fix EVERY problem on the earth), you just encourage the rest of us to go to McDonalds and order 10 burgers out of spite.

    In the end, even if you pick 1 cause, and work your entire life for it -- you're not going to win your war. You're just going to make the world a slightly better place. You can fight poverty your whole life -- many have -- but it's still going to be here.

    So when you say you care about everythign equal, you make yourself a joke. You prove yourself a helpless person who makes no difference, because you are never going to focus on a single goal or get anywhere with it. Especially if THIS is how you think you're going to make a difference. You're like the Godboys trying to save people's souls on flickr. It doesn't work.
  • Rita Banerji 6y

    It is a form of power play.

    Logo Survey
    Copyright (c) Abro

    Please take the survey! Make a
  • Rev. Xanatos Satanicos Bombasticos (ClintJCL) 6y

    Rita: What is a form of power play? Just curious what you meant. That was a very interesting survey with some very good questions, though question 11 troubled me as I felt that it could be B, C, and D equally, and also that B could cause C & D. Will there be a way to ever find out the results?
  • bull_in_oc 6y




  • Vegan Butterfly 6y

    I didn't even respond because I'm having a hard time believing he's serious, it's such an outrageous statement!
    Definitely one of the top most ridiculous comments I have ever heard!
  • Luke and Kate Bosman 6y

    I see it's fine to pick on 'retards' (I take it you mean people with learning disabilities) but somehow speciesism is wrong. Oh dear.
  • Vegan Butterfly 6y

    longwayround, I hope you are not generalizing and thinking that, because of one person's comment, that all anti-speciesists support the use of "retard" as an insult. Because I, and many other vegans I know, are against it's use.

    (Although I do believe that enslaving someone for their whole life, treating them as property and as a commodity, and killing him/her for profit or pleasure is a WHOLE LOT worse than calling someone a name.)
  • Luke and Kate Bosman 6y

    Certainly not. Much as I disagree with you on the subject of animals (I'm an ex-vegetarian who is now quite content to eat animals that have lived and died 'well'), I respect your commitment to a cause.
  • Rocío Zárate Betzel 5y

    muy buena
  • Andromeda Honds 5y

    Im not reading any of these heated arguments, but nice pic. :)
  • Eli Reed 4y

    Bleh. This is why the vegan movement has trouble winning over people of colour.
  • Vegan Butterfly 4y

    By saying that speciesism is as wrong as racism? That will offend any anti-racism speciesist. That's because of their prejudice, and is not the fault of anti-speciesists who point it out.
    Yes, speaking the truth about speciesism, slavery, and violence may upset people, but we must speak out and not be afraid to be honest.
  • Simon Harris (the crescent) 4y

    It's brave commentary, but don't you think as we are animals we can't rise above our animalistic behaviour?
  • Vegan Butterfly 4y

    crescentsi, we go against out instincts every day. When we hold our urine so we can use a toilet. When we continue to work our jobs when we'd much rather lounge at home. When we are poor and hungry and yet we do not force our way into our neighbor's homes and raid their cupboards. When someone is making us angry and we do not jump on them and start beating their faces in.
    Almost all of us fight basic instincts in our every day lives. Those who don't usually reside in hospitals for those with mental disabilities.
  • Miyalys 3y

    Love it! Did you make it? If so what happened to thinkvegan.net ?
  • KeyEntity 3y

    I have never in my life read so many unintelligent, ill informed anti-vegan rants in one forum.
80 faves
Taken on November 30, 2005
This photo is in 1 group
This photo is in 4 galleries

Additional info

  • Viewing this photo Public
  • Safety level of this photo Safe
  • S Search
    Photo navigation
    < > Thumbnail navigation
    Z Zoom
    B Back to context