'Speciesism In Animal Liberation' By Peter Singer

Through sustained exploitation, humans inflict enormous suffering on nonhuman animals. Humans justify this exploitation with animal categorization and the use of derogatory animal metaphors. These linguistic habits are rooted in “speciesism,” the assumption that nonhuman animals are inferior to humans and do not warrant equal consideration and respect. Like sexism or racism, speciesism is a kind of objectification. Speciesism cannot survive without lies, and standard English usage supplies these lies in abundance. “Speciesism” was coined by psychologist Richard Ryder in the 1970s, but philosopher Peter Singer's work has done the most to popularize the term. In his seminal book, Animal Liberation, Singer defines speciesism as an “attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one's own
Human beings, after all, have a verbal monopoly. The English language reflects a human-centered viewpoint more completely than a white male-centered one. If humans' views of nonhuman animals were respectful, animal metaphors would not demean; it would not be “wrong” to harm a human, but “permissible” to abuse a “gorilla.” Most animal metaphors are gross distortions. Nonhumans rarely possess the traits that metaphors assign to them. Pigs are not “filthy.” Whenever possible, they avoid soiling their living areas (PETA). Mules are not “stubborn.” When it comes to solving a problem, they are more adaptable than horses and donkeys (“Why Mules Aren't Really So Stubborn”). Jackrabbits are swifter than humans, dolphins more playful and exuberant. Human superiority is as much a lie as white male-superiority. Nonhuman animal metaphors have far from trivial consequences. According to cognitive linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, metaphors “are pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought” (4). Metaphors are revealing of what one thinks; like categorization,