This paper examines the concept of animal rights from a philosophical and ethical standpoint, arguing that human beings bear a moral responsibility to respect and protect the rights of the animal kingdom. Drawing on multiple academic sources, the paper traces the rise of the animal rights movement, addresses criticisms that animals cannot be rights-holders because they lack moral reasoning, and counters that human intellectual and moral capacity itself creates an obligation toward other living creatures. The paper also considers the impact of industrial and technological progress on animal habitats, the controversy surrounding animal experimentation, and the distinction between humane treatment and unconditional protection, ultimately concluding that animal rights represent a positive and necessary moral step.
"A right, properly understood, is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another" (Roger, 2003). Rights are granted and ought to be respected by both the party holding them and the party against whom they are exercised. When we talk about rights in general, we tend to concentrate on human rights; however, the concept of rights itself carries different perspectives and interpretations, and on the basis of those interpretations it can be understood which elements and groups may be included within the domain of rights.
Animal rights are the rights of animals that should be respected, obeyed, and practiced by human beings in true spirit. Unfortunately, animal rights have never received adequate focus from governments or the general public. No constitution comprehensively addresses the protection of animal rights, and no law has consistently condemned the maltreatment of animals. As a result, the legal and constitutional framework has adopted a largely silent approach toward animal rights and has failed to defend the basic rights that ought to be granted to the animal kingdom.
It is a known fact that "different targets, contents, and sources of rights, and their inevitable conflict, together weave a tangled web" (Roger, 2003), and this complexity has contributed to animal rights being overlooked, with much of the public adopting an indifferent attitude toward the animal kingdom. However, the sharp rise in the extinction of different animal species has sent a wave of alarm through the world, prompting criticism of governments for their indifference to the preservation of animal life. Private international organizations have lodged serious protests worldwide to publicize the importance of animal rights, awakening public awareness and encouraging people to realize their responsibilities toward the animal kingdom.
Animal rights are not only about protecting species on the verge of extinction; they are about providing the entire animal kingdom with the facilities it needs and ensuring that normal animal routines and living practices are not disrupted. Animal rights have become a wave of moral awakening, reminding people of their responsibilities toward other living creatures. These responsibilities are not contingent on special circumstances — they are the moral duty of the general public. That said, when an individual faces genuine threat from an animal, protective and defensive measures are permitted; however, it is important to ensure that the response is not excessively injurious unless no safe alternative remains. The concern has been raised that humans are being asked to accept and practice animal rights when animals themselves are unaware of the significance of such practices, and can never be expected to reciprocate such goodwill (Barbara, 2001).
Animal rights is considered a highly controversial concept, yet it has emerged as a positive force. In the past, lawyers have advocated that animals possess rights akin to those of human beings. Animal rights activists have invested considerable effort in awakening public sentiment and emotional awareness toward this cause. Animal rights are broadly analogous to human rights: if the basic rights of human beings include freedom and free will, then animals are equally entitled to enjoy their freedom. As such, "animals must be considered to have the right to freedom just as individual human beings" (Cass, 2004).
There have been notable instances of activists offering shelter to animals as a form of public advocacy. In one case, an animal rights activist "characterized his practice as giving asylum to the dogs, as one might give asylum to a political refugee from a totalitarian society" (John, 2000). Questions have also been raised about the brutality that animals sometimes inflict on one another or on their young. While such behavior might appear to warrant blame, it has been justified on the grounds that animals operate according to their instincts: "animals operate as their instincts dictate, and in many cases instincts dictate that animals kill their own kind" (Barbara, 2001). The violent behavior of animals can therefore be understood through the lens of instinctive limitation.
Human beings, by contrast, cannot be treated with the same leniency, because "human beings are free and morally responsible, and it is this fact that gives rise to their having basic rights that others ought to respect and they may protect with force and law" (Andrew, 2002). This distinction — between instinct-driven animal behavior and morally responsible human action — is one of the key justifications for animal rights, since it places the burden of responsible conduct squarely on humans. Violations of animal rights, depending on their severity, should be subject to condemnation and punishment: "there are many ways human beings can be guilty of mistreating animals, perhaps even the law should make some provisions to ensure that wanton torture and mistreatment of animals are minimized" (Tom, 2001). At the same time, the law must not be so protective of animals that it endangers human life; the extent and parameters of animal rights must be determined through careful, context-sensitive analysis.
Humans are confronted with choices that are "purely moral; it has been the human society which has laid down moral laws, for others and for themselves" (Cass, 2004), and adherence to those moral values is compulsory. Human beings are also described as "self-legislative, morally autonomous" (John, 2000), which means they must commit themselves to upholding animal rights with genuine vigor and interest. Concurrently, humans are permitted to take preventive or defensive measures when a threat from the animal kingdom is imminent. However, a continuous defensive posture toward animals has historically been responsible for driving migration, dispersion, and population decline among animal species, placing their survival in jeopardy.
It has been scientifically established that "animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment" and are "not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims" (David, 2003), meaning animals remain unaware of rights and responsibilities as humans understand them. Critics have argued that rights can only be granted to those who have the "capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves" (Tom, 2001), and that rights-holders "must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just" — a comprehension available only to human beings. On this basis, critics argue that animals should be excluded from the category of rights-bearing entities.
However, this argument can be turned on its head: precisely because humans possess natural moral capabilities and are self-legislative, they "are governed by moral rules, and do possess rights" (Cass, 2004). It is therefore not only that their own rights should be respected, but that they bear a responsibility to protect and respect the rights of the broader community around them — including the animal kingdom. If humans expect their own rights to be fulfilled, they must be equally proactive in fulfilling their obligations toward other terrestrial creatures. When the entire world and its environment are taken into account, humans are responsible for reflecting genuine care and concern toward the animal kingdom (Andrew, 2002).
"Industrial development harms animal habitats and survival"
"Critics' objections examined and systematically refuted"
John M. Kistler. Animal Rights. Greenwood Press. 2000.
Cass R. Sunstein, Martha Craven Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Oxford University Press. 2004.
Hilda Kean. Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain Since 1800. Reaktion Books. 2000.
David Perkins. Romanticism and Animal Rights. Cambridge University. 2003.
Andrew Harnack, Juvenile Nonfiction. Animal Rights: Opposing Viewpoints. Reaktion Books. 2002.
Roger Scruton. Animal Rights and Wrongs. Demos Publication. 2003.
Barbara James. Animal Rights. Cambridge University. 2001.
Tom Regan. Defending Animal Rights. University of Illinois Press. 2001.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.