Animal exploitation

Animal exploitation refers to the human utilization of non-human animals, typically for the former's personal and economic benefit or resource extraction from the latter, including meat, hide, bodily secretions, organs, labor, and so forth, without regards for their well-being which often results in suffering and harm ^{[1] : 3} on the animal's part and/or confinement and deprivation of the animal's natural living conditions. It occurs across various animal industries and involves different practices, treating non-human animals as commodities rather than sentient beings and violating their rights. According to the Humane League, animal exploitation lies at the opposite end of the spectrum from animal rights, "which are situations in which animals have no choice to live freely, no autonomy over their own lives. Instead, humans dictate every aspect of an exploited animal's life." ^[2]

Along with meat consumption, animal exploitation is considered part of the dominant ideological system called carnism, which prescribes norms and beliefs about animal treatment. ^[3] according to some scholars. Both exploitation of animals and consumption of meat represent underlying competitive-power motives of domination over animals and support for inequality between humans and nonhuman animals. ^[3]

Domains of exploitation

Animal exploitation occurs across industries ranging from agriculture, where animals are treated as commodities to be turned into food, to science, where they are treated as unwilling test subjects. ^[2] The exploitation manifests itself in all forms, ^{[4] : xvi–xvii} including use of animals for food, medicine, fashion and cosmetics, medical research, labor and transport, entertainment, wildlife trade, companionship, and so forth. ^{[5] [6]} Animal rights are also violated when their habitats are destroyed often to make room for more farm lands and human habitat expansion. ^[2] According to Brian Luke, the primary way we relate to nonhuman animals is in terms of their purpose for us, that is, how useful they are to us, based on which we construct institutions to carry out those uses, resulting in institutionalized animal exploitation. ^{[1] : 2}

While industrialization of animal exploitation does not represent the entirety of human use of animals, the animal–industrial complex remains the place where most of the animal exploitation takes place today. ^{[7] : 395} The animal–industrial complex is the systematic and institutionalized exploitation of animals, ^{[8] : 299  [9] : 197} which scholars claim differ from individual acts of animal cruelty. The animal–industrial complex involves commodification of animals under contemporary capitalism and includes every economic activity involving animals, such as food, animal research, entertainment, fashion, companionship, and so forth, ^[10] all of which are seen as consequences of animal exploitations. ^{[11] : 421} The animal–industrial complex is accused of involvement in a range of perceived wrongs, including animal agribusiness and its networks, or the agro-industrial complex (which includes animal agriculture, the meat and dairy industries, factory farms, poultry, apiculture, aquaculture, and the like), ^{[11] : 422  [12] [13]} intersecting with various other industrial complexes, such as the pharmaceutical–industrial complex, ^{[9] : 207  [11] : 422} medical–industrial complex, ^{[9] : 207  [14] : xvi–xvii} vivisection–industrial complex, ^[15] cosmetic–industrial complex, entertainment–industrial complex, ^{[11] : 422} academic–industrial complex, ^{[11] : 422  [14] : xvi–xvii} security–industrial complex, ^{[14] : xvi–xvii} prison–industrial complex, ^{[11] : 422  [14] : xvi–xvii} and so forth, all of which involve exploitation of animals. Philosopher Steven Best believes that all these industrial complexes interrelate with and reinforce the animal–industrial complex by "exploiting the nonhuman animal slaves" of the latter. ^{[14] : xvi–xvii}

Standard defenses

Luke categorizes the standard defenses of animal use into three broad categories, namely, those that refer to human rationality, those that claim divine sanction, and those that describe exploitation as natural. Rationalistic arguments are based on human superiority (e.g., "Human lives are intrinsically more valuable than animal lives"), reciprocation (e.g., "We only have moral duties to those who can reciprocate"), and replacement (e.g., "Some animal would not exist if we did not exploit them"). Factors behind theistic arguments include human sanctity (e.g., "We were created in God's image"), sacrifice (e.g., "God requires us to make blood offerings"), and creation (e.g., "God created animals for our use"). Naturalistic arguments include human chauvinism (e.g., "Our contempt for other species is natural"), predatory instinct (e.g., "Men are hunters by nature"), and competition (e.g., "It is natural for species to exploit each other"). ^{[1] : 4}

Theories such as social dominance theory (SDT) are used by researchers as frameworks for understanding human attitudes towards the use of animals. ^[16] Researchers identify viewing animals as commodities by humans as a manifestation of speciesism. ^[17] Studies demonstrate that ethnic prejudices such as racism are positively associated with speciesism. According to scholars, the most willingness to exploit non-human animals is found in people who express greater ethnic prejudice. This effect is underpinned by the role of social dominance orientation linking these distinct forms of bias. ^[18]

Consequences

Animal exploitation, particularly in food production and research, has two important consequences: (a) the animals may suffer pain, discomfort, malady, and isolation and may live short lives; and (b) these activities cause large numbers of animals to be brought into existence. ^[19]

Animal exploitation has several negative consequences, including those for humans, which is exemplified by factory farming. ^{[20] : 9} According to the Humane Society of the United States, animal exploitation also has negative societal moral consequences. ^{[20] : 17} some Scholars identify the denial of the moral status of non-human animals as a model for human slavery, genocide, and exploitation of women. ^{[20] : 17} According to Brian Luke, animal exploitation and certain gendered norms in our consciouness are deeply intertwined. ^{[1] : 1}

Research supports the idea that attitudes toward animals, including their rights and treatment, relate to other wider social and ideological views, including perceiving vegetarianism as a threat to traditional values. ^{[21] : 17} According to Branković, attitudes toward animals correlated with endorsement of social hierarchies and valuing ethnic ingroup superiority. ^[21] Scholars say animal exploitation serves as a model for human exploitation. David Nibert argues that throughout history the oppression of exploited animals supported the oppression and exploitation of humans, and vice versa. ^{[9] : 198} The resulting change from one form of the control of state power to another, such as the older aristocracy being replaced by rising capitalism, was "every bit as violent and oppressive" as the former. ^{[9] : 198} The state-supported profit-driven capitalist expansion, for instance, was responsible for the killing and displacement of North America's indigenous peoples and animals. ^{[9] : 199} The creation of ranching operations led to intrusions onto Native American lands and violent displacement of the people in them in order to accommodate the growing numbers of oppressed animals, which in turn resulted in the creation of slaughterhouse operations. ^{[9] : 199}

Prevalence

Studies show that the prevalence of meat consumption and animal exploitation is more among right-wing adherents. Researchers cite two main reasons for this: (a) pushing back against the supposed threat from vegetarianism and veganism to traditions and cultural practice, and (b) feeling more entitled to consume animals given human "superiority". ^{[3] [18]} Studies also reveal that, compared to men, women tend to be more concerned about animal welfare and less likely to support animal exploitation. Research suggest that shared psychological mechanisms can be the underlying reason for the propensities toward exploitation of natural environment and human/nonhuman animals. ^[22]

Opposition to exploitation

Philosophers have questioned the ethical validity of animal exploitation since the ancient times, which gave rise to vegetarianism and, at least since the second millennium CE, to veganism. Throughout history, there have been ferocious debates surrounding the utility of using animals. ^[23] According to Robert Garner, the debate against animal exploitation is not simply structured around the viability of according to animals sufficiently high moral status that makes certain, or all, human uses ethically illegitimate irrespective of its consequences to humans. Rather, it questions the very necessity of exploiting animals, either on the grounds that their use does not produce the benefits claimed for it and that the use is unnecessary and trivial. ^[23] The vegan and animal rights movements, chiefly the abolitionist approach, of the twentieth century call for the abolition of animal exploitation by eliminating the commodity or property status of nonhuman animals.

See also

• Commodity status of animals
• Commodification

References

1. Luke, Brian (2007). Brutal Manhood and the Exploitation of Animals. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. ISBN   978-0-252-03176-2.
2. Walsh, Owen (24 February 2025). "Animal Rights: Definition, Issues, and Examples". HumaneLeague.org. The Humane League. Retrieved 27 December 2025.
3. Dhont, Kristof; Hodson, Gordon (July 2014). "Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption?". Personality and Individual Differences. 64: 12–17. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002 . Retrieved 28 December 2025.
4. Best, Steven (2011). "Introduction: Pathologies of Power and the Rise of the Global Industrial Complex". In Steven Best; Richard Kahn; Anthony J. Nocella II; Peter McLaren (eds.). The Global Industrial Complex: Systems of Domination. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. ix–xxv. ISBN   978-0-7391-3698-0.
5. Beirne, Piers (May 2021). "Wildlife Trade and COVID-19: Towards a Criminology of Anthropogenic Pathogen Spillover". The British Journal of Criminology. 61 (3). Oxford University Press: 607–626. doi:10.1093/bjc/azaa084. ISSN   1464-3529. PMC   7953978 . Retrieved 19 September 2021.
6. Arcari, Paula (May 2020). "Disconnection & Demonisation: COVID-19 Shows Why We Need to Stop Commodifying All Animals". Social Sciences & Humanities Open. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3599772. S2CID   225822910 . Retrieved 19 September 2021.
7. Lee Edwards, Clea Bourne, Jason Vincent A. Cabañes, Gisela Castro, Núria Almiron (2025), "The Animal-Industrial Complex and the Promotion of Animal Exploitation", The Sage Handbook of Promotional Culture and Society, SAGE, pp. 395–408, doi:10.4135/9781529674583.n29, ISBN   9781529602623
8. Sorenson, John (2014). Critical Animal Studies: Thinking the Unthinkable. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Scholars' Press. ISBN   978-1-55130-563-9 . Retrieved 7 October 2018.
9. Nibert, David (2011). "Origins and Consequences of the Animal Industrial Complex". In Steven Best; Richard Kahn; Anthony J. Nocella II; Peter McLaren (eds.). The Global Industrial Complex: Systems of Domination. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 197–209. ISBN   978-0-7391-3698-0.
10. Arcari, Paula (May 2020). "Disconnection & Demonisation: COVID-19 Shows Why We Need to Stop Commodifying All Animals". Social Sciences & Humanities Open. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3599772 . S2CID   225822910 . Retrieved 19 September 2021.
11. Dinker, Karin Gunnarsson; Pedersen, Helena (2016). "Critical Animal Pedagogies: Re-learning Our Relations with Animal Others". In Helen E. Lees; Nel Noddings (eds.). The Palgrave International Handbook of Alternative Education (1 ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 415–430. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-41291-1_27. ISBN   978-1-137-41290-4.
12. Porter, Pete (2018). "The Personal as Political in the Animal Industrial Complex" . Society & Animals. 26 (5). Brill: 545–550. doi:10.1163/15685306-12341563. ISSN   1568-5306. S2CID   150332354 . Retrieved 23 September 2021.
13. Nimmo, Richie (6 March 2015). "The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial Farming and Colony Collapse Disorder". Humanimalia. 6 (2): 1–20. doi: 10.52537/humanimalia.9909 . ISSN   2151-8645.
14. Best, Steven (2011). "Introduction: Pathologies of Power and the Rise of the Global Industrial Complex". In Steven Best; Richard Kahn; Anthony J. Nocella II; Peter McLaren (eds.). The Global Industrial Complex: Systems of Domination. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. ix–xxv. ISBN   978-0-7391-3698-0.
15. Núria Almiron and Natalie Khazaal (2016). "Lobbying against compassion: Speciesist Discourse in the Vivisection Industrial Complex" . American Behavioral Scientist. 60 (3). SAGE Journals: 256–275. doi:10.1177/0002764215613402. ISSN   0002-7642. S2CID   147298407 . Retrieved 10 August 2021.
16. Hyers, Lauri L. (2015). "Myths used to legitimize the exploitation of animals: An application of Social Dominance Theory" . Anthrozoös. 19 (3): 194–210. doi:10.2752/089279306785415538 . Retrieved 28 December 2025.
17. Brügger, Paula (2020). The Capitalist Commodification of Animals. Chapter: Animals and Nature: The Co-modification of the Sentient Biosphere (Research in Political Economy, Vol. 35) (1 (Brett Clark, Tamar Diana Wilson, eds.) ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. pp. 33–58. ISBN   978-1-83982-681-8.
18. Hodson, Gordon (3 March 2014). "The Meat Paradox: Loving but Exploiting Animals", Psychology Today.
19. Blackorby, Charles; Donaldson, David (1 November 1992). "Pigs and Guinea Pigs: A Note on the Ethics of Animal Exploitation" . The Economic Journal. 102 (415). Oxford University Press: 1345–1369. doi:10.2307/2234794. ISSN   0013-0133. JSTOR   2234794 . Retrieved 4 January 2026.
20. Matsuoka, Atsuko; Sorenson, John (2013). "Human Consequences of Animal Exploitation: Needs forHuman Consequences of Animal Exploitation: Needs for Redefining Social WelfareRedefining Social Welfare". The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare. 40 (4). Western Michigan University: Article 3. doi:10.15453/0191-5096.3759 . Retrieved 27 December 2025.
21. Branković, Marija (2021). "What We Eat Is Who We Are: The Role of Ethnic Attachment as an Ideological Base of Animal Exploitation". Anthrozoös. 34 (3). Taylor & Francis: 321–338. doi:10.1080/08927936.2021.1898216 . Retrieved 6 January 2026.
22. Graça, João; Calheiros, Maria Manuela; Oliveira, Abílio; Milfont, Taciano L. (15 July 2018). "Why are women less likely to support animal exploitation than men? The mediating roles of social dominance orientation and empathy". Personality and Individual Differences. 129. Elsevier: 66–69. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.007. ISSN 0191-8869. Retrieved 6 January 2026.
23. Garner, Robert (1998). "The Economics and Politics of Animal Exploitation". Political Animals. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 39–67. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-26438-4_3. ISBN   978-0-333-73000-3.

Further reading

• Stache, Christian (2020). "Conceptualising animal exploitation in capitalism: Getting terminology straight". Capital & Class. 44 (3). SAGE: 401–421. doi:10.1177/0309816819884697.
• Francione, Gary L. (2008). Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press. JSTOR   10.7312/fran13950.
• Nibert, David A. (2013). Animal Oppression and Human Violence. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN   978-0-231-15188-7.
• Villanueva, Gonzalo (2018). "The Creation of the Animal Movement, 1976–87". A Transnational History of the Australian Animal Movement, 1970-2015. Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 51–78. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62587-4. ISBN   978-3-319-62586-7.
• Stuart, Diana; Gunderson, Ryan (17 June 2020). "Nonhuman Animals as Fictitious Commodities: Exploitation and Consequences in Industrial Agriculture" . Society & Animals. 28 (3). Brill: 291–310. doi:10.1163/15685306-12341507.
• Berry, Bonnie (2018), "A critical interpretation of animal exploitation", Routledge Handbook of Critical Criminology (2 ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 169–179, doi:10.4324/9781315622040-16, ISBN   9781315622040
• Ferrari, Arianna (April 2012). "Animal Disenhancement for Animal Welfare: The Apparent Philosophical Conundrums and the Real Exploitation of Animals. A Response to Thompson and Palmer" . Nanoethics. 6: 65–76. doi:10.1007/s11569-012-0139-1.

External links

• Animal exploitation: Introduction