It’s a familiar phrase, animal lover, usually said with warmth and sincerity; a kind of moral shorthand to signal kindness, compassion, and good intentions.
But could insisting that animal protection begins and ends with loving animals be holding us back?
The “animal lover” label can be limiting
For many, the animal lover label conjures a very specific image: someone who shares their home with an animal companion, has a soft spot for the wildlife in their garden, or who supports animal charities.
This isn’t a bad thing – after all, empathy is powerful and compassion really does drive change – but not everyone relates to animals in the same way.
Some people are indifferent. Some are fearful. Others simply don’t feel the same emotional pull that we do – not necessarily because they’re cruel, but for any number of reasons. Perhaps, living in a city, they don’t encounter many animals, or they weren’t raised with animal companions in the home; they’ve likely been raised, as we all have, to see animals as food outside our sphere of compassion.
If we frame animal freedom as something only animal lovers want, we risk sending the message that if you don’t love animals, this issue isn’t really for you.
Respect is the baseline, not a bonus
You don’t need to feel emotionally attached to a dog, pig, or pigeon to acknowledge their ability to suffer. You don’t have to love them to recognise their right not to be harmed or exploited.
Importantly, animal exploitation isn’t powered by people who actively hate animals but by ordinary people who don’t think about it much – either because animals aren’t a central part of daily life or because large, influential industries – like ‘big animal ag’ or the pharmaceutical industry – have invested time and money into hiding the truth.
Instead of asking “do you love animals?” a better question might be “do you believe that the strong should be allowed to exploit the vulnerable?”
Many animals don’t need us to love them; they need us to leave them alone.