The result of a long theoretical process that began in 2006, below you can read the current proposed definition of the term “speciesism” taken from the book Antispeciesist Manifesto: Theory, Strategy, Ethics, and Utopia for a New Free Society by Adriano Fragano, Edizioni Veganzetta, 2026, ISBN: 9791224444725
Speciesism
The term speciesism was first proposed by British psychologist Richard Ryder in 1970*, referring to the prejudicial belief that Humans enjoy a higher moral status (and thus greater rights) than other Animals. Ryder intended to point out the similarities between speciesism and racism, showing that the arguments for condemning these two positions are similar.
Among the various justifications put forward in defense of speciesism as prejudice, the most common are based on the following foundations:
1) the biased and instrumental interpretation of the natural mechanisms of interspecies struggle (the law of the jungle, the food chain, etc.); our species, proclaiming itself as the strongest and most intelligent on the planet and at the top of the food chain, believes it has the right to dispose of other living beings as it pleases;
2) a notion of law understood as a prerogative attributable only to Humans, because they are believed to be the only living beings endowed with reason;
3) the presumed lack of awareness of all Animals of their own existence, which would make them inferior to us. Quite arbitrarily, human superior moral status is also extended to human individuals who lack the attributes instrumentally used to justify such status, but who are protected as members of the human species (e.g., infants, individuals with mental disabilities, individuals in a vegetative state).
Speciesism is not only a prejudiced attitude (individual or collective), but also an ideology and practice of domination over Animals.** More generally, speciesism can be called an anthropocentric philosophy in the understanding of Animals.
In this regard, it is important to define the concept of dominance in an attempt to understand when human society becomes speciesist by practicing it over other living species. The control (total or partial) of another living being’s biological cycle to the point of loss of autonomy could be defined as “exploitation”. When exploitation is exercised over another living sentient being as a denial of the possibility of having any free relationship and as a reduction (or erasure) of the other being’s identity, then we are speaking of “domination.” That said, human societies that practice the domestication of non-human life in all its forms and, consequently, the entire history of human civilizations based on Animal husbandry and agriculture, should be considered speciesist. It can generally be asserted that speciesism, as an ideological view, arose with the establishment of anthropocentric civilizations, cultures and religions *** in which the Human stands outside of – above – Nature, as master of nature, in a position of ontological privilege.
Human history also shows us that although speciesism was not the sole cause of such social developments, it is certain that without the exploitation of Nature and Animals, it would not have been possible to create the social and economic wealth gap that is the basis of capitalist, sexist, racist and belligerent societies and, therefore, of all modern human “civilization”.
Oppressions of species, gender, class and race are largely connected: human society itself is sustained and defined by relations of exclusion, which regularly foster exploitative practices that benefit an elite. It can therefore be understood how the struggle against Animal exploitation aims to eliminate the fundamental building block on which the entire so-called civilization of domination in which we live has been built.
For the above reasons, it is safe to assume that the prevailing common morality and all institutions (local, national, international or supranational) are marked by a speciesist philosophy. Therefore, it is no coincidence that in the context of Animal liberation, an awareness has been maturing for some time that pushes us to broaden the ethical scope of the original historical debate on speciesism.
Speciesism is undoubtedly a very complex and multifaceted phenomenon that affects every human setting, and it is even prevalent – in one of its many variants – in Animal advocacy circles and consists of the attitude of allowing only certain Animals to enter the sphere of human moral consideration. So-called “pet” Animals are one clear example; their interests are more recognized than those of other Animals, only because they are considered important to their human guardians.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that if human society has developed – with rare exceptions – along certain guidelines characterized by ideologies such as speciesism, it can be inferred that speciesism itself probably has much deeper roots than those analyzed so far, not only social and historical but also anthropological; therefore, it is appropriate to consider the existence of anthropological speciesism or the anthropological origin of speciesism as well.
Notes:
*/ I recommend reading the article La nascita del termine “specismo” [The birth of the term “speciesism”], «Veganzetta», October 29, 2021. https://www.veganzetta.org/2BFrA
**/ The sociologist David Nibert states that «speciesist ideologies were created and promulgated to legitimate killing and exploitation of other animals». See David Nibert, Animal Rights/ Human Rights: Entanglements of oppression and liberation, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, 2002, p. 243.
***/ While human gathering and hunting societies were characterized by interspecies cruelty, they probably cannot be regarded as unequivocally speciesist societies due to their animistic view of the living world. However, it is likely that they were potentially so without being able to become so, due to the yet limited ability to control living things. In that case, they could legitimately be regarded as the ancestors of later human speciesist societies.