The present paper means to explore the performance of the speciesist objection to three arguments that challenge it. The first holds that we intuitively attach a higher value to the human species. The second states that it is morally inevitable as it is our view as a species. Finally, the third argues that a moderate version of speciesism is justified due to its relation to the notion of person and fits our intuitions. In this paper, I will sustain that the three arguments fail and therefore the speciesist objection continues to enjoy good health. To situate the three arguments, it will be offered a reconstruction of the dispute over speciesism, emphasizing its inclusive and exclusive dimension.