Animal rights

Part of a series on
Animal rights
Overview Animal welfare Around the world History Timeline Animal cruelty Veganism Vegetarianism Primate rights in research
Movement Advocates Vegans Vegetarians Groups
Animal abuse Animal–industrial complex Killing Mutilation Wild animals Consumption Dogs Horses Cats Cattle Bloodsports Bullfighting Hunting Fishing Animal testing Cosmetic Captivity Zoos Circuses Oceanariums Companion animals Puppy mills Abandonment
Ideas Abolitionism Animal protectionism Carnism Personism Sentiocentrism Speciesism
Related topics Cultured meat Environmentalism Radical Deep ecology Humanism Welfarism
Animals portal
v t e

Rights
Theoretical distinctions
Claim rights and liberty rights Individual and group rights Natural rights and legal rights Negative and positive rights
Human rights
Civil and political Economic, social and cultural Three generations
Rights by beneficiary
Accused Animals Autistic Children Consumers Creditors Deaf Disabled Elders Family Farmers Fetuses Humans Indigenous Intersex Kings LGBT Transgender Men Minorities Parents Fathers Mothers Patients Peasants Plants Prisoners Robots States Students Victims Women Workers Youth
Other groups of rights
Assembly Association Asylum Civil liberties Clothing Development Digital Education Fair trial Food Free migration Health Healthy environment Housing Linguistic Movement Property Repair Reproductive Rest and leisure Security Self defense Self-determination of people Sexuality Speech Water and sanitation
v t e

Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, and that their most basic interests—such as avoiding suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings.^[2] Broadly speaking, and particularly in popular discourse, the term "animal rights" is often used synonymously with "animal protection" or "animal liberation". More narrowly, "animal rights" refers to the idea that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as individuals—rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture that may not be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.^[3]

Many advocates of animal rights oppose the assignment of moral value and fundamental protections on the basis of species membership alone.^[4] They consider this idea, known as speciesism, a prejudice as irrational as any other.^[5] They maintain that animals should not be viewed as property or used as food, clothing, entertainment, or beasts of burden merely because they are not human.^[6] Multiple cultural traditions around the world such as Jainism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto and Animism also espouse forms of animal rights.

In parallel to the debate about moral rights, law schools in North America now often teach animal law,^[7] and several legal scholars, such as Steven M. Wise and Gary L. Francione, support the extension of basic legal rights and personhood to non-human animals. The animals most often considered in arguments for personhood are hominids. Some animal-rights academics support this because it would break the species barrier, but others oppose it because it predicates moral value on mental complexity rather than on sentience alone.^[8] As of November 2019^[update], 29 countries had enacted bans on hominoid experimentation; Argentina has granted captive orangutans basic human rights since 2014.^[9] Outside of primates, animal-rights discussions most often address the status of mammals (compare charismatic megafauna). Other animals (considered less sentient) have gained less attention—insects relatively little^[10] (outside Jainism) and animal-like bacteria hardly any.^[11] The vast majority of animals have no legally recognised rights.^[12]

Critics of animal rights argue that nonhuman animals are unable to enter into a social contract, and thus cannot have rights, a view summarised by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only humans have duties, and therefore only humans have rights.^[13] Another argument, associated with the utilitarian tradition, maintains that animals may be used as resources so long as there is no unnecessary suffering;^[14] animals may have some moral standing, but any interests they have may be overridden in cases of comparatively greater gains to aggregate welfare made possible by their use, though what counts as "necessary" suffering or a legitimate sacrifice of interests can vary considerably.^[15] Certain forms of animal-rights activism, such as the destruction of fur farms and of animal laboratories by the Animal Liberation Front, have attracted criticism, including from within the animal-rights movement itself,^[16] and prompted the U.S. Congress to enact laws, including the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, allowing the prosecution of this sort of activity as terrorism.^[17]