What do you call people who value animal life above human life
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
What to call someone who values animal life above human life depends on whether the position is philosophical, political, or rhetorical: such people are most commonly described as animal-rights advocates, anti‑speciesists (or opposers of speciesism), or—when using utilitarian reasoning—ethical utilitarians who assign equal moral weight to nonhuman interests; empirical work shows some people (and especially some children) do sometimes choose animals over humans in hypothetical dilemmas, which complicates a neat label [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Labels from advocacy: "animal-rights advocate" and what it means
Those who insist animals have moral rights equal to humans are typically called animal-rights advocates; the term is explicitly defined in standard glossaries as a movement opposing the use of animals for food, research, entertainment, and similar ends [1], and it is the label most activists adopt when arguing animals should not be treated as mere property.
2. The philosophical critique: "anti‑speciesist" or "opposer of speciesism"
Philosophers and ethicists who reject the moral privileging of humans use the language of anti‑speciesism—opposing "speciesism," a bias favoring one’s own species first—which Richard Ryder and later commentators popularized to point out an attitude comparable to racism or sexism in privileging humans over other animals [2]; anti‑speciesists argue that equal consideration of interests can require treating nonhumans' suffering as morally significant alongside human suffering [2].
3. Utilitarians and effective animal advocates — equal consideration without identical treatment
Some who place animal welfare on par with humans do so from utilitarian reasoning rather than rights rhetoric: utilitarians and effective altruists argue for maximizing welfare that includes nonhuman animals, giving equal consideration to interests and sometimes prioritizing animal issues (especially farmed animals) because of scale and tractability, not because they think animals are literally more valuable than humans [3].
4. Empirical nuance: people (and children) sometimes choose animals over humans in thought experiments
Psychological experiments show that choices are not uniform—children in multiple studies were substantially more likely than adults to choose saving animals over humans in trolley‑style dilemmas, and many participants overall express weaker tendencies to prioritize humans when scenarios vary by species and numbers, suggesting descriptive labels must accommodate variation in moral intuitions [4] [5] [6].
5. Terms to avoid or treat carefully: "animal supremacist," "misanthrope," and oversimplifications
There is no widely accepted technical label in the scholarly sources for someone who values animal life strictly above human life as a blanket identity; terms like "misanthrope" or "animal supremacist" are rhetorical and carry pejorative connotations not supported as normative labels in the literature cited here, while mainstream discussions instead frame these views as strands within animal‑rights, anti‑speciesist, or utilitarian thought [1] [2] [3].
6. Hidden agendas and cultural frames in labeling
Labels often serve agendas: animal‑welfare groups use "animal rights" to mobilize sympathy and policy change [1], anti‑speciesist framings are deployed to compare human social prejudices with species bias [2], and utilitarian advocates prioritize interventions that can be empirically shown to reduce suffering—each term signals different strategic aims rather than a single descriptive identity [1] [2] [3].
7. Bottom line for naming
For most clear, non‑pejorative conversation, call such people "animal‑rights advocates," "anti‑speciesists," or "utilitarian animal advocates" depending on their argument: the first emphasizes legal and moral claims, the second targets the bias against nonhumans, and the third signals a consequentialist calculus that may place animal welfare on par with human welfare; empirical psychology shows real people’s preferences vary, so any single label risks oversimplifying a complex set of beliefs and motivations [1] [2] [3] [4].