From Apply Now,
Your Guide to Animal Rights.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

According to the animal rights philosophy, also known as “animal liberation,” non-human animals have the basic rights of life, liberty and freedom from suffering as humans do. Critics argue that because animals cannot make moral choices and cannot enter into legal contracts, they do not deserve to have moral or legal rights.

The animal rights movement strives to raise the status of animals beyond that of just property or commodities for human use. Those who believe in animal rights believe that animals have their own inherent right to exist and deserve not to be killed, kept in captivity or tortured by humans. Although individuals within the animal rights movement may hold varied opinions about different animal issues, the movement as a whole opposes the use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, research and other human gain.

Shades of Gray

Like many philosophical positions, the animal rights philosophy is not black and white. The animal rights movement does recognize that rights, whether bestowed to humans or to animals, may not always be equal and may have limitations. Animal rights are considered those that are in the best interest of the animal, and this is not always the same as what is in the best interest for a person. For example, animal rights does not mean that animals should be allowed to vote and drive a car, just a children are not afforded these privileges.

Critics will seize upon apparent inconsistencies to make arguments that animal rights positions are hypocritical and therefore the entire theory should be discounted. Although it is virtually impossible to live in today’s society and be completely cruelty-free, proponents of animal rights argue it is not an all or nothing issue. They believe people should do the best they can to make sure they are causing the least amount of suffering. Parallels with women’s liberation and slavery often are drawn to support the animal rights movement.

Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare

An alternate viewpoint is that it is acceptable for humans to use animals, but they but should be treated humanely in the process. This is known as the “animal welfare” approach. Proponents of animal welfare often make distinctions among which animals deserve human protection. They seek to protect some animals, such as pets and endangered species, while destroying other animals, such as those that are considered pests, livestock or “game” animals for hunting.

Although animal welfare organizations have been around since the late 1800s, the animal rights movement did not emerge until the 1970s, when academic philosophers began to explore concepts such as legal rights for animals and the ethics of “speciesism.”

Tactics of Animal Rights Activists

Many animal rights organizations are mainstream in their efforts to achieve social change. For example, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and The Humane Society of the United States are generally well regarded and work within the existing political and legal systems in support of animal rights issues.

Other animal rights groups are considered more radical and use extreme tactics to further their cause. Although it has been effective in raising awareness about animal rights issues, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been criticized for its outrageous marketing methods. For example, one of its campaigns features nude celebrities declaring “I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur.” The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) goes even further, condoning the destruction of private property and other illegal activities in the name of animal rights.

Because of concerns about these sorts of tactics, extreme animal rights activism has been labeled as domestic terrorism. It is unclear how laws such as the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, passed in late 2006, and other measures targeting animal and environmental activists will hold up to judicial scrutiny when they are applied.