But you include humans in your moral judgements . For example , if you were a prolife advocate , and based your arguments on death and suffering , how would you then explain your exclusion of chickens , pigs and cows , that have a much more developed sense of suffering , world etc ? Or even better , why exactly did you draw the line on the nonhuman animal , when homo sapiens is just a dot in the continuous line of evolution . A nice thought experiment would you enslave homo erectus , homo habilis , maybe no one from homo genus ? What about australopithecus ? The names are arbitrary . There ' s no genetical marker of race in humans . So values one might give to one race , over the other , is purely arbitrary and in modern days quite inconsistent . Species are also an arbitrary dot in the continuous line of evolution , what was between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalis , what between that ? The categories are there to help scientists , not to set up values and give weights to your moral considerations . There was no rational reason for discrimination . Of course , no one is talking about animal equality it ' s just that antispeciesism demands equal moral considerations for human and nonhuman animals . Speciesists give greater moral consideration to their own speciesRacists give greater moral considerations to their own race . By doing that new problems arise . politics . o r g p h i l o s o p h y t h e r e l e v anceofwildanimalsuffering