Tag: veganism

Birds, Farm Animals, Fish, Fur and Fur Farming, General News, Hunting, Insects, Live Transport, pets, Religion/Philosophy, Stray Animals, Uncategorized, Vegan Recipes, Vivisection, Wildlife

Speciesism: The Root of Animal Oppression

https://www.idausa.org/campaign/farmed-animal/speciesism-the-root-of-animal-oppression/

We live in a world where we share our homes with some species, eat others, and exploit still more in myriad ways, depending on what we’ve been taught about how we should see and treat different species, and whether we should consider ourselves superior to them. Unfortunately, the misguided belief that some species are worth our moral consideration and protection and others aren’t is known as speciesism, and it’s causing immeasurable harm.

What is Speciesism?

Speciesism is a form of discrimination that considers one species superior to others. This mindset is based on the belief that humans have the right to dominate, use, and kill non-human animals for their own benefit. 

The term “speciesism” was coined in the 1970s by British psychologist and animal rights activist Richard Ryder, who introduced it in a pamphlet distributed as part of a campaign against animal experimentation in Oxford, England.

Why Is Speciesism a Form of Discrimination?

Like racism, sexism, homophobia, and all forms of discrimination against certain groups, speciesism devalues individuals based on arbitrary characteristics — and in the case of animals, their level of intelligence, their appearance, and if they have fur, feathers, and fins, or whether they walk on four legs instead of two. 

This perspective perpetuates the idea that we have the right to use, exploit, and kill other animals simply because they’re different from us. 

What Does Speciesism Look Like?

Speciesism is often the first form of discrimination we’re taught, and it manifests in two ways. The first is the belief in the supremacy of the human species over all other species. The second is viewing only certain species — such as animal companions and some wild animals — as worthy of care and protection, with some even considered part of our families. In contrast, most other animals are disregarded, and many are enslaved, tortured, and treated as commodities for food, entertainment, fashion, research, transportation, and much more.

Farmed animals are often depicted in marketing for food products as trivial, cartoonish characters, which strips them of their dignity and status as feeling individuals with their own personalities and preferences. Small family farms tend to be romanticized as wholesome places where animals live happy lives and are cared for by farmers. In reality, the basis of all animal farming is the exploitation and killing of sentient beings. Still, humans have compartmentalized their ethical views, allowing us to rationalize the cruelty and violence inflicted on animals we might otherwise be fascinated by and care about, all for our pleasure, convenience, advancement, habits, traditions, and tastes. Although it has been scientifically proven that humans can survive and thrive on a plant-based diet, most continue to consume the flesh, milk, and eggs of animals because we’ve been conditioned to believe that it’s “normal, natural, and necessary.”

Animal companions and certain wild species are granted some legal protections, while all other animals are not. Cruel practices and mutilations without anesthesia, such as castration, tail docking, burning off horns, and extreme confinement, are inflicted on farmed animals like pigs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, and turkeys, yet would be considered horrific abuse by most in Western culture if done to dogs or cats.

If we would never subject a dog or cat to these practices, nor send them to a slaughterhouse to end their life, we must recognize that no animal deserves to be used or enslaved by us, nor to have such pain and terror inflicted upon them. Even the desire to keep some animals as companions has led to their exploitation through breeding and selling, prioritizing profit over their well-being, which inevitably results in neglect, abuse, and often death. Beagle dogs and rabbits, usually seen as ‘pets,’ are also tormented and killed in research labs.

How is Speciesism Justified?

Humans often try to justify their oppression of animals by saying that humans are the most intelligent species. Yet many animal species possess sensory and physical abilities that humans do not have.

For example, bats use echolocation — the ability to use sound waves to navigate and find objects — to navigate in complete darkness. Tiny wrasse fish can recognize themselves and others in a mirror, joining chimpanzees and dolphins in this rare skill. Octopuses excel at problem-solving and camouflage, altering the texture and color of their skin to blend into their surroundings. Birds like the Arctic tern navigate thousands of miles using environmental cues, including the stars and the Earth’s magnetic field. 

Chickens can recognize faces, form social bonds, and have memory and problem-solving skills on par with many other birds and mammals. Cows demonstrate empathy and many other complex emotions and can also solve puzzles. Pigs can navigate mazes and exhibit emotions and intelligence equivalent to a 3-year-old child.

Regardless, is intelligence truly the measure of whether someone deserves to be protected from harm by others? Some cognitively impaired humans are less intelligent than many animals. Does that mean we can also use and kill them? Of course not. No individual should be required to justify their right to safety and protection from human harm based on their cognitive or physical abilities. 

How Can You Be Anti-Speciesist?

Whether human or non-human, each individual thinks and feels and has their own subjective experience of life, deserving the right to share this planet with us without being dominated by us. Unlike all forms of discrimination that focus on our differences, we must focus on what all species have in common — our will and desire to live and be free, and our capacity for pain, suffering, and joy. 

If we would not tolerate discrimination and harm based on race, gender, or other differences, we must apply the same reasoning to speciesism and view it as equally unjust. 

To embrace liberation, justice, and compassion for all Earthlings, live vegan—the principle that calls on humans to live without exploiting any other animals.

***********

Excellent book on the subject, for more in-depth study:

https://www.amazon.com/Speciesism-Joan-Dunayer/dp/0970647565

Ryce Pub., 2004 – 204 Pages

Defining speciesism as “a failure, in attitude or practice, to accord any nonhuman being equal consideration and respect,” this brilliant work critiques speciesism both outside and within the animal rights movement. The author demonstrates that much of the moral philosophy, legal theory, and animal advocacy aimed at advancing nonhuman emancipation actually perpetuate speciesism. Speciesism examines philosophy, law, and activism in terms of three categories: “old speciesism,” “new speciesism,” and species equality.Old-speciesists limit rights to humans. Speciesism refutes their standard arguments against nonhuman rights. Current law is old-speciesist — legally, nonhumans have no rights. Dunayer shows that “animal laws” such as the Humane Slaughter Act afford nonhumans no meaningful protection. She also explains why welfarist campaigns are old-speciesist.

Instead of opposing the abuse or killing of nonhuman beings, such campaigns seek only to make abuse or killing less cruel; they propose alternative ways of violating nonhumans’ moral rights. Many organizations that consider themselves animal rights advocates engage in old-speciesist campaigns, which reinforce the property status of nonhumans rather than promoting their emancipation.New-speciesists espouse rights for only some nonhumans, those whose minds seem most like those of humans. In addition to devaluing most animals, new-speciesists give greater moral consideration and stronger basic rights to humans than they do to any nonhumans. They see animalkind as a hierarchy, with humans at the top.

Dunayer explains why she categorizes such theorists as Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and Steven Wise as new-speciesists.Nonspeciesists advocaterights for every sentient being. Speciesism makes the case that every creature with a nervous system should be regarded as sentient. The book provides compelling evidence of consciousness in animals often dismissed as insentient — such as fishes, insects, spiders, and snails. Dunayer argues that every sentient being should possess basic legal rights, including rights to life and liberty. Radically egalitarian, Speciesism envisions nonspeciesist thought, law, and action.

Environmental, General News, Religion/Philosophy, Uncategorized

Emerging Animal Rights and Their Anthropo-, Zoo- and Ecocentric Justifications

April 23, 2025

https://www.ejiltalk.org/emerging-animal-rights-and-their-anthropo-zoo-and-ecocentric-justifications/

Written by Saskia Stucki

Editor’s note: This post is part of the EJIL:Talk! Symposium on ‘Expanding Human Rights Protection to Non-Human Subjects? African, Inter-American and European Perspectives.’

The idea of expanding the normative framework of human rights to nonhuman entities is not quite new, but ever-so topical in the age of AI, corporate human rights, and the rise of the global Rights of Nature movement. Although animals may be paradigmatic (non)human rights aspirants, animal rights proper have not yet been adjudicated, let alone recognized, by the ‘sister regional human rights courts’ or international human rights bodies.

In recent years, however, animal rights have increasingly become an issue before domestic courts, even highest courts, such as the Supreme Court of India, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, the Islamabad High Court, or a lower court in Mendoza (Argentina). It is interesting to note that the judicial recognition of animal rights is so far more or less exclusively driven not by European or North American courts, but by courts from the Global South, which seems to refute the charge of “cultural imperialism” or Eurocentrism that is sometimes attached to the idea of universal animal rights. Given these contemporary developments in domestic animal rights law, and following a “bottom-up” approach to the future formation of a global animal rights law, the question seems not if, but when animal rights will advance to the world stage and eventually enter the halls of international (non)human rights courts.

Emerging animal rights and their pluralistic drivers

Since its inception, the idea of animal rights has had a mostly theoretical existence. In the absence of any legally institutionalized rights, the concept of animal rights typically relates to potential fundamental rights that (nonhuman) animals should have and that ought to be recognized and respected by human laws. Only recently, but with accelerating pace, have courts around the world started to deliberate and recognize actual legal rights of animals (see here for an overview of global animal rights jurisprudence).

One noteworthy difference between the ideal animal rights conceived by theorists and the real animal rights recognized in legal practice is the justificatory pluralism driving the emergence of the latter (as opposed to the justificatory monism – mostly of the naturalistic variant – that tends to ground the former). That is, while animal rights in theory are typically justified with reference to some morally relevant rights-generative natural quality of animals, animal rights in practice seem to be grounded in a broader and more heterogenous mix of divergent yet mutually complementing rationales.

Elsewhere, I have argued that there are both principled and prudential reasons that warrant institutional recognition of animal rights. In short, the principled argument for animal rights is of an ethical nature (a matter of justice or morality) and operates with intrinsic criteria, such as animals’ sentience, dignity, vulnerability, exploitability, or experiences of injustice. By contrast, the prudential argument for animal rights is of an instrumental nature (animal rights as a means of promoting other ends, e.g. the protection of humans or the environment) and relies on extrinsic considerations, such as social and environmental benefits that may result from cultivating animal rights-respecting practices.

Here, I will chart a slightly adapted, tripartite typology, based on the anthropocentric, zoocentric, and ecocentric justifications underpinning the recognition of animal rights in practice.

Anthropocentric underpinnings of animal rights

From an anthropocentric point of view, animal rights are justified instrumentally with their utility or benefits for human individuals or societies. Here, the recognition of animal rights is primarily motivated by and derivative of human interests, and functions as an indirect way of protecting or promoting certain human goods, such as human rights or health. Commonly invoked anthropocentric reasons for recognizing animal rights relate to:

  • The linkages between human and animal (in)justice: a growing body of research (see here for an overview) suggests a correlation between discriminatory (e.g. sexist, racist, speciesist) and rights-affirming social attitudes as well as empathy towards human outgroups and animals. Similarly, important links seem to exist between violence against humans and animals, both on the level of interpersonal (e.g. domestic or sadistic) and collective violence (e.g. animalistic dehumanization). Recognizing – and respecting – animal rights may thus concomitantly contribute to the protection of (vulnerable and marginalized) humans.
  • Animal exploitation as a major driver of environmental human rights and public health threats: the need to establish animal rights as a bulwark against extractive exploitation is also increasingly debated in the context of protecting humans against existential environmental risks. This is because animal exploitation (notably industrial animal farming and wildlife trade) is a major driver of global health threats (such as the emergence of zoonotic diseases and antimicrobial resistance) and of ecological human rights threats (such as climate change and biodiversity loss).
  • Cultural and religious reasons: certain (beloved or revered) animals are more equal than others, and are afforded special legal protections for cultural or religious reasons. For example, some courts, notably in Latin America, have recognized rights of companion animals (such as a dog in Colombia) as part of the protection of multispecies families and the affective bonds that humans have with their nonhuman family members. Another relevant example is the 2024 He Whakaputanga Moana Treaty (Declaration for the Ocean) – an Indigenous treaty that recognizes whales as legal persons, inter alia, because whales are considered ancestral beings and an integral part of a healthy ecosystem.

Zoocentric constructions of animal rights

Within a zoocentric frame of reference, animal rights are justified with intrinsic qualities of animals, such as their dignity or inherent value, sentience, personhood or subjecthood, or vulnerability. Here, the recognition of animal rights is primarily motivated by and centred on a legal concern for animals and their interests per se, irrespective of any instrumental or utilitarian considerations. In the words of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, “animals should not be protected only from an ecosystemic perspective or with a view to the needs of human beings, but mainly from a perspective that focuses on their individuality and intrinsic value”. Courts typically arrive at zoocentric animal rights through two different legal avenues:

  • Subjectification of animal welfare laws: some courts have derived animal rights from existing animal welfare laws, by extracting therefrom subjective animal rights as implicit correlatives of explicit human duties. For example, in a landmark judgment from 2014 (which has since been somewhat relativized and reversed), the Supreme Court of India recognized a range of animal rights, such as the right to life and security, protection against pain, suffering, and torture, to food and shelter, based on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. It further elevated these statutory rights to the status of fundamental rights by reading them alongside the constitutional provision on animal protection and compassion (the “magna carta of animal rights”).
  • Animalization of fundamental (human) rights: other courts, notably in the Americas, have probed the possibility of extending certain human rights to animals, such as the prohibition of slavery, or the procedural right of habeas corpus and the underlying substantive right to freedom. In the USA, courts have thus far declined to enlarge the protective scope of fundamental rights to animals other than humans (of course, corporations are a different story). By contrast, courts in Latin America (e.g. in Argentina and Colombia) have recognized animal rights based on a dynamic and extensive reading of constitutional rights (notably the right to habeas corpus).

Ecocentric foundations of animal rights

From an ecocentric perspective, animal rights are recognized in an eco-constitutional legal context (e.g. a “sociobiocentric” constitution) and as part of a holistic approach to environmental protection and rights. Against the backdrop of exacerbating ecological pressures in the Anthropocene, the environmental dimension of animal rights (as well as, conversely, the animal dimension of environmental rights) has become increasingly important in recent years. Courts, too, have been responsive to the human-animal-environment nexus, by converging or integrating the rights of humans, animals, and nature.

  • (Wild) animal rights as part of rights of nature: one form of ecocentric animal rights is the recognition of (wild) animal rights as an integral (individual) dimension of the rights of nature. The integration of animal rights into the rights of nature framework has been elaborated at length by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. In this context, some commentators observe a convergence between (animalized) rights of nature and (naturalized) animal rights, drawing on the obvious overlap and synergies between the two species of rights.
  • Ecological interdependence of human and animal rights: lastly – and this might be the clearest example of the confluence of anthropocentric, zoocentric, and ecocentric motives that are conjoined in the configuration of emerging animal rights – animal rights can be justified on the grounds of their ecologically mediated interrelation with human rights. For example, the Islamabad High Court has noted the “interdependence of living beings” and recognized animal rights alongside, and as an integral part of, the human right to life and environmental protection.

A win-win-win for humans, animals, and the environment

As this overview has shown, the recognition of animal rights in practice is only partially motivated by (intrinsic, ethical) concern for animals, and concurrently catalysed by instrumental concern for a variety of human interests and environmental considerations. It is this interplay of anthropocentric, zoocentric, and ecocentric rationales that is driving the emergence of animal rights alongside human rights and environmental rights. Some commentators contend that the anthropocentric and ecocentric reasonings that co-constitute real animal rights provide for a merely “weak grounding for animal rights”. Others dispute that these ulterior motives work to constitute “genuine animal rights” altogether. I would however argue, on the contrary, that this justificatory pluralism makes for a more diverse and democratic, resilient, rhetorically powerful, and thus ultimately stronger legal footing for animal rights in the real world. The pluralistic foundations of emerging animal rights indicate that they can be plausibly and palatably framed as a win-win-win situation. Simply put, animal rights are good for humans, animals, and the precious – and precarious – planet we all share.

Farm Animals, General News, Live Transport, Uncategorized, Vegan Recipes

WATCH: No Mercy Shown for Mothers in Animal Farming

https://www.idausa.org/campaign/farmed-animal/latest-news/watch-no-mercy-shown-for-mothers-in-animal-farming/

May 9, 2025 – Posted by Lia Wilbourn

Animal farming rips apart the sacred bond between mother and baby; there’s nothing “humane” about it. Mother hens, cows, goats, turkeys, pigs, and sheep all care for their young and are fiercely protective of them, each in their own way. In animal farming, the mother’s desire and ability to protect and nurture her babies is robbed from her.

Mother birds exploited in the food industry—whether hens, turkeys, ducks, or geese—along with their babies, are all killed. In the wild, they stay in the nest to incubate their eggs, keeping them warm, and rarely leaving. Once hatched, the mother guides her chicks to food, alerts them of threats, and shields them from harm with her wings.

Whether in “free-range” or “cage-free” warehouses—marketing lies to keep consumers buying—or in cages, male chicks in the egg industry are killed because they don’t produce eggs, often by maceration. Their mothers are slaughtered too, while still young. Sexual violation, forcible impregnation, and the stealing of babies are done to virtually all female farmed animals, including birds, pigs, cows, goats, and sheep. 

In nature, before giving birth, mother pigs also build nests to create a safe environment for their piglets and will often defend them aggressively. Yet pregnant mother pigs in animal farming are confined to tiny metal cages—called gestation or farrowing crates—barely larger than their bodies, often forcing them to lie in their own waste. After months of this torture, her piglets are taken from her shortly after birth. Then she’s forcibly impregnated again. 

Cows, just like human mothers, carry their babies for nine months. When they give birth, they will lick and nuzzle their calves clean, stimulating circulation and bonding. The calves receive essential colostrum from their mother’s milk which helps strengthen their fragile immune systems.

But in the dairy industry, baby cows, goats, and sheep are taken from their mothers within a day or two so that humans can steal, consume, and profit from their milk. From the searing pain of branding and disbudding (burning off tender horns without painkillers) to the heartbreak of mother-baby separation, mothers are left physically wounded, exhausted, and grief-stricken. 

Female calves are kept alone in tiny hutches for months, often in extreme weather, only to be forced into the same cycle—sometimes before they’re a year old. Male calves, deemed worthless because they don’t produce milk, are slaughtered. 

It’s common to see mothers chasing after their stolen babies, left bellowing in desperation and anguish, often for days. This cruelty repeats until she collapses or stops producing enough milk for the ranchers. Then she’s frequently beaten or shocked to force her onto a truck to the slaughterhouse. Many animals are slaughtered, even skinned alive, while still conscious. 

All this torment and killing repeats endlessly for unnecessary products we’re better off without. Better treatment or painless death doesn’t make exploitation ethical. We have no right to their bodies. Using and killing mothers, babies, or any animal for culture, taste, profit, or convenience is the opposite of compassion; no animal farming is “humane.”

We must speak up for all mothers and their babies—including those who are the most ignored, oppressed, and killed on the planet. Every one of them was once someone’s baby, and every mother loved them. Neither these babies nor their mothers deserved what was done to them.

To defend all animals, live vegan.

Sign our alert urging Congress to redirect subsidies from the mass slaughter of mothers and babies to a plant-based food system.

Small animal farms and “grass-fed” ranching are not humane or sustainable — focusing only on factory farms is damaging and limits true reform.

*****************

Tell Congress to End the Killing of Mothers & Their Babies in Animal Farming

https://www.idausa.org/campaign/farmed-animal/latest-news/tell-congress-to-end-the-killing-of-mothers-and-their-babies-in-animal-farming/

In Defense of Animals

In the dairy and egg industries, all male babies and their mothers are killed. Many people don’t realize that most animals slaughtered for food products are infants. Yet, Congress and the United States Department of Agriculture continue funneling billions in taxpayer dollars to support animal agribusiness. Demand that the U.S. government redirect subsidies away from this industry of cruelty and mass slaughter of mothers and their babies.


In the United States alone, over 2 million sheep are slaughtered annually, with the vast majority being lambs—babies. This number spikes during Easter, and the average age at slaughter is 6-8 month

Male calves in the dairy industry have little to no value to dairy farmers, as they don’t produce milk, and so they are killed. They’re either shot shortly after birth or sold to veal “farms,” where they’re confined alone in tiny crates for up to 16 weeks—essentially tortured—to prevent muscle development and keep their flesh tender. Some are used for “breeding” or eventually slaughtered to be turned into meat products.

Male baby goats, called “kids,”, and male lambs are also slaughtered in the goat and sheep milk industries. So are all their mothers. Male baby chicks in the egg industry are killed immediately after hatching, most often either tossed like garbage into giant blenders, shredded alive, or suffocated.

In Defense of Animals

Though animal farming uses sanitized terms like “artificial insemination” and “breeding,” the young females are tightly restrained, and in dairy, the device used on female cows is often referred to as a “rape rack.” Forcible impregnation is done manually with a catheter, pipette, or, in the dairy industry, an entire arm—an extremely stressful and often painful experience. Farmers collect sperm from bulls, male goats, and male sheep through manual stimulation or using an electroejaculator.

Pregnant mother pigs are caged in “farrowing crates,” often so small they can’t turn around for months on end. After her newborn piglets are taken away, the mother is forcibly impregnated again, trapped in an unrelenting cycle of solitary confinement and suffering. Though pigs can live up to 20 years, they are killed at just six months old. Like all farmed animals, they’re trucked without food or water for several days—often in extreme cold or heat—to the slaughterhouse, where they suffer even more in a terrifying death.

Animal agribusiness claims that “stunning” makes animals insensible to pain, but its actual purpose is to immobilize them so they can’t fight back. The most common method to “stun” pigs is in CO₂ gas chambers, where they feel everything, often screaming in agony and desperately fighting to escape. The industry calls this “controlled atmosphere stunning” and deems it “humane.” Many animals are still conscious while being slaughtered.

When mother cows can no longer produce enough milk to be profitable, they are slaughtered at around five years old. Their natural lifespan is up to 25 years.

Mother hens in the egg industry and mother turkeys in the poultry industry are killed at 1-2 years old. Their natural lifespans are up to ten years. Regardless, even if they were allowed longer lives before being forced into slaughterhouses, using and killing animals for unnecessary products—for tradition, taste, habit, or profit—is the epitome of unjust, cruel, and violent.

Despite evidence linking animal products to increased risks of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) continues to promote them in its dietary guidelines, while research shows that eliminating animal products can reduce these disease risks. Yet, in March 2025, the USDA allocated an additional $10 billion to bolster animal agribusiness. Where is government cost-cutting when it’s truly needed?

It’s time to end speciesism and for those in charge of our food system to stop the monstrous torment and killing of sensitive, feeling, defenseless animals. Call on Congress and the USDA to stop funding the horrors of animal agribusiness and redirect subsidies to support a slaughter-free, plant-based food system.

What YOU Can Do — TODAY:

… on page …