Veganism Is Not Only About Nonhuman Animals
Updated 1 May 2026
“Veganism is one thing and one thing only—a way of living which avoids exploitation whether it be of our fellow [humans], the animal population, or the soil upon which we all rely for our very existence.” - Eva Batt (1964)
We recently attended a protest where one of the speakers, when talking about human rights violations, mentioned animal rights as being less important. This message, one we are sure had the best intentions, was not well received by us or with the people we were in attendance with, and possibly others, as the applause received after that statement was more reserved compared to their previous applause.
A social movement or a message for social change that pits different injustices against one another misses the point of standing against injustice, and veganism is no exception. Nonviolence towards human and nonhuman sentient beings has been present throughout history and in different parts of the world. When we look at the founders of the vegan movement who coined the term and definition of veganism in the 40s and 50s, they saw veganism as embracing principles of nonviolence towards both human and nonhuman animals.
“The object of the Vegan Movement ("to end the exploitation of animals by man") is clarified as to the meaning of exploitation by Rule 4 (a), which pledges the Society to "seek to end the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man." By the adoption of this rule, the Society has clearly come out on the side of the liberators; it is not so much welfare that we seek, as freedom. Our aim is not to make the present relationship between man and animal (which if honestly viewed is mostly one of master and slave) more tolerable, but to abolish it and replace it by something more worthy of man's high estate. In short, our aim is to set the creatures free — to return them to the balance and sanity of nature, which is their rightful place, and so to end the historic wrong perpetrated when man first decided he had the right to exploit and enslave them.
The second broad aspect of the vegan aim is its effect upon human evolution. Apart from the abolition of an enormous burden of cruelty which is bound constantly to return like a boomerang upon humanity's own head, it has to be remembered that in any relationship of master and slave, the greatest and deepest harm is suffered not by the slave, but by the master. Until the present relationship between man and his fellow creatures is replaced by one of companionship on a relatively equal footing, the pursuit of happiness by man is foredoomed to a painful and tragic frustration.” -Leslie Cross (1951)
Dr. Roger Yates has “long argued that the best way to understand the “fullness” of veganism as an idea and as a social movement is to think of it in terms of its focus and scope. Leslie Cross talks about veganism in these terms in the Spring 1951 edition of The Vegan magazine in an article entitled “The New Constitution.”
We agree and see, in the simplest terms, that the focus of veganism is respecting the rights of nonhuman animals and abolishing all nonhuman use, with the scope of veganism being peace and justice for all sentient beings.
If our movement and messaging is where “veganism is only about the animals,” “human rights have no place in the vegan movement,” “I wish humans were eradicated from the planet,” “insert prejudice towards a group of humans,” etc., then it is in opposition to what the founders intended to be a movement to “oppose the exploitation of sentient life, whether it is profitable to do so or not,” as stated by Donald Watson in 1945.
Let's say you don’t believe that the founders of the vegan movement saw veganism as encompassing both sentient humans and nonhumans, for us, it would be wrong to acknowledge and work towards rectifying one form of injustice while either dismissing and/or embracing other forms of injustice in a movement that is centered around peace.
“A rational approach to achieving Nonhuman Animal rights is one that seeks to achieve human rights as well. It is irrational to assume that Nonhuman Animals can be liberated while millions of humans continue to languish. Humans are privileged to have been born with special moral consideration in an anthropocentric society, yet millions are routinely denied basic rights.” - Dr. Corey Lee Wrenn
How are we [vegans] to garner a larger vegan movement to shift the paradigm towards favoring the abolition of nonhuman use, when the individuals we need to reach for that type of change are the individuals (who themselves are oppressed or discriminated against) we are expecting to be receptive to a movement that dismisses their struggles, views their oppression or discrimination as lesser, or agrees with the violence inflicted on them.
The struggles for liberation, justice, peace, and against oppression are struggles that sentient beings (human and nonhuman animals) share. The violence committed against human and nonhuman animals is intertwined and not mutually exclusive. For the system that profits from the oppression and use of humans and the beliefs and actions that discount the interests or existence of humans for morally irrelevant reasons, such as someone’s race, sex, abilities, sexual orientation, gender identity, place of birth, etc., is the same system, beliefs, and actions that oppress, use, and discount the interests and existence of nonhuman animals for morally irrelevant reasons, such as for economic interests, their species, sex, abilities, etc.
The vegan movement must not put human and nonhuman oppression and discrimination against one another, it must recognize their interconnectedness, or as Dr. David Nibert states, “the oppression of humans and other animals is deeply entangled,” and join the efforts of other social movements to advocate for peace and justice for all sentient beings. If not, then the vegan movement could also be similarly received to the messaging we witnessed at the protest, potentially turning away nonvegans who would resonate with the vegan message and become vegan.
“The philosophy of animal rights views the systematic exploitation of animals as a symptom of a society that tolerates the systematic exploitation of "the other," including those human "others" who lack the economic and other means to resist oppression. Thus, the philosophy of animal rights necessarily calls for human, not only animal, liberation; by contrast, the philosophy of animal welfare neither addresses nor advocates why and how justice for humans is to be achieved. The philosophy of animal rights is an inclusive philosophy. Rights for nonhumans only make sense if we accept the total inclusion of our human sisters and brothers as full and equal members of the extended human family, without regard to race, sex, economic status, religious persuasion, disability, or sexual [orientation]. Thus the philosophy of animal rights entails far reaching social change. Animal liberation is human liberation. The philosophy of animal rights illuminates why this is. But it is no less true that human liberation is animal liberation. To believe in and work for our oppressed and exploited brothers and sisters in fur and feather and fin commits animal rights activists to believing in and working for our oppressed brothers and sisters in human flesh. Perhaps our movement has not yet arrived at this degree of inclusion, but in our view, such inclusion is the goal to which our movement must aspire.” – Tom Regan & Gary Francione (1992)
We would also like to end with two final points.
The first point is that veganism opposes speciesism, because it sees it as a moral wrong to violate the rights of, oppress, discriminate against, or be prejudiced towards a sentient being based on the morally irrelevant criterion of being a different species. For the vegans who are of the mindset of anti-human, seeing that “humans are a scourge,” or proudly claim to be a misanthrope, we see this prejudice and generalization of humans as a speciesist mindset, which is an anti-vegan mindset. As a reminder for the anti-human vegans, humans and nonhumans are both animals, but just different species. Wanting to end the existence of, or hatred towards the human species is to generalize and be prejudiced towards a particular species of animal.
The second and final point is, when “animals only” vegans in one breath use the oppression and discrimination of humans to bolster their arguments to try and convince nonvegans to be vegan, (e.g., arguments that show how someone who rejects racism, sexism, etc., should also reject speciesism, because speciesism, like any other form of oppression or discrimination, discounts the existence and interests of individuals for morally irrelevant reasons) making it seem that veganism is inclusive to the injustice marginalized humans face, then in another breath state that “veganism has nothing to do with humans,” seems to us to be insincere to the injustice inflicted on humans, and to tokenize them by only using their struggles as simply a tactic to win an argument. The exclusion of humans from veganism’s scope and the inclusion of humans only in conversations to win an argument about veganism, whittles down veganism, the vegan movement, and its aim for liberation to a thin and fragile tool that only stands to fight against one form of injustice that will eventually wear down with time in this fight that all sentient beings face against injustice. Solidarity amongst exploited, oppressed, and discriminated sentient life is the vegan glue that binds the tool of peace and justice to win against injustice.
From food insecurity to police violence to anti-trans legislation to violence inflicted on Palestinians to a mother cow having her child taken away so her body can be further utilized as a resource, injustice of any form is still injustice and worth standing up against.
“There are those who have criticized me and many of you for taking a stand against the War in Vietnam and for seeking to say to the nation that the issues of Civil Rights cannot be separated from the issues of peace. I want to say to you tonight that I intend to keep these issues mixed because they are mixed. Somewhere we must see that justice is indivisible, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and I have fought too long and too hard against segregated public accommodations to end up at this point in my life, segregating my moral concerns.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. (1967)
Sources:
Corey Lee Wrenn. A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
David Alan Nibert. Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation. Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
Eva Batt. “Why Veganism? (1964) by Eva Batt.” A Candid Hominid, 2011, www.candidhominid.com/p/why-veganism.html.
Gary L. Francione and Anna Charlton. Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. Exempla Press, 2015.
Leslie Cross. “In Search of Veganism—1 (1949) by Leslie Cross.” A Candid Hominid, 2011, www.candidhominid.com/p/in-search-of-veganism-1.html.
Leslie Cross. “The New Constitution (1951) by Leslie Cross.” A Candid Hominid, 2011, www.candidhominid.com/p/new-constitution.html.
Roger Yates. “The Focus, the Scope, and the Dream of a Vegan Future. The Vision of Leslie Cross - VegfestUK.” VegfestUK, 16 Aug. 2019, www.vegfest.co.uk/2019/08/16/focus-scope-dream-vegan-future-vision-leslie-cross/.
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change. (2015). #MLK: The Three Evils of Society // #Nonviolence365 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sT9Hjh0cHM&t=2s
Tom Regan, Gary Francione and Ingrid Newkirk discuss abolitionism, divisiveness and incrementalism. (1992). Ning.com. https://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blogs/tom-regan-gary-francione-and
