The Claim That the Struggle for Animals Should Be Put Off Until Later

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume IV, p. 67 of the PDF edition · English translation

It is often said that if it is already hard to get people to accept giving consideration to humans, it will be even harder to get them to accept giving consideration to nonhuman animals. On this basis, it is sometimes argued that we should fight for humans and leave the defense of nonhuman animals to future generations.

One way of responding to this suggestion is to point out that if it is hard to get people to accept giving consideration to animals, then postponing their defense is a terrible strategy. Usually, the sooner an idea begins to be defended, the sooner it begins to have practical consequences. For example, imagine that speciesism had been widely questioned since antiquity. Things would most likely be different for animals today. Indeed, one of the main reasons some people resist giving up speciesism is the very fact that they have never come across the arguments against speciesism, since the equal consideration of all sentient beings is not yet a widely held idea. So there is no reason to put off speaking up for animals. Indeed, there is not a minute to lose.

Moreover, the suggestion in question assumes that it is not possible for someone to accept equal consideration for animals while there are still other people who do not accept equal consideration for humans. This is false. An ever greater number of people are rejecting speciesism. The fact that there are racist, sexist, and speciesist people does not prevent other people from accepting equality for all sentient beings.

Each individual person makes a considerable difference to the animals affected by their decisions. So even if it were impossible to convince a majority, it would still be worth trying to convince as many people as we could. Furthermore, there is nothing to prove that most people would not accept the arguments against speciesism, since most people are not yet familiar with these arguments.

Thus, the suggestion that it is pointless to fight for animals as long as there is disrespect toward humans is suspect, to say the least. Although it is presented as a suggestion for improving the situation of animals, its real aim may be to block the struggle for animals.

For example, imagine it were suggested that we abandon the defense of women and children until all adult men are respected, on the claim that this is the best way to achieve respect for women and children. In that case we would have every reason to suspect that, contrary to what is claimed, what the proponents of the suggestion really think is that women and children are worth less.

In the same way, the suggestion we are discussing may be a disguised speciesist suggestion. While an avowed speciesist would say "humans should come first because they are superior," a disguised speciesist would say "the best way to help nonhuman animals is to put humans first." Yet both are proposing exactly the same thing.