The word ‘speciesism’ was first coined by Oxford psychologist Richard Ryder in the 1970s, and popularised by Dr Peter Singer in Animal Liberation. In the written and spoken words of English, gender-neutral and racial-neutral conversation is now politically correct, yet species-neutral words are rarely used. We cannot write ‘him’ or ‘he’ when we are discussing a neutral topic, and must always use the words ‘they’, ‘them’ or ‘he/she.’ Similarly, ‘indigenous’ and ‘African-American’ people has replaced the use of words such as ‘Aborigine’ or ‘Negro.’ However, it is rare to discuss animals in such politically neutral ways. We still use species-derogatory terms such as ‘introduced’ and ‘feral’ species, vermin, etc - all emotion-charged denominations. Although this may appear trivial, it underlines the psychology of devaluation, where an individual’s value is demeaned by negative labelling in order to achieve ulterior group goals which might conflict with individual moral sentiments. 

Public forms of communication can directly oppose a compassionate attitude, by fostering ways of seeing that create an attitude that it is acceptable, or even good, to harm others. It does this most basically by making another being into “other”. Instead of simply being another being like us, they are “other”, a class that is not like “us”. This dualistic us/them thought then allows us to treat them differently. It allows people to ignore suffering, or promote suffering, and generates divisions by classes: race, sex, culture, social class, economic class, sexuality, species. It promotes seeing others by class: racism, sexism, class prejudice, dismissal of the poor, homophobia, speciesism. In some cases, it goes beyond ignoring suffering, to a promotion of causing suffering. This dualistic thinking allows other groups to be demonised, or makes it acceptable, even “rightful”, to exploit them, harm them, kill them.

Few of us are immune to speciesism; that it to say a love of one type of animal over another. Many vets I know have their favourite pet dog or cat, but very few have remorse for eradicating rodents under their house. The machinations we apply to our conscience regarding speciesism is to first devalue them as ‘rodents’, ‘laboratory animals,’ etc, in the same way that we have dehumanise ‘Coloureds, Jews, degenerates’, etc, in human history. We prioritise the importance of certain species over others. Dogs are said to be superior to rats. Yet, in the past Negroes were considered mentally inferior to Anglo-Saxons. We say that dolphins are more evolved genetically than fish, and even that ‘fish feel no pain,’ but such psychological devaluation is usually motivated by profit rather than fact. If any animal (human or nonhuman) suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into account.   

‘Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and those of another race. Sexists violate the principles of equality by favouring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of another species.’