by Brandon Michael Davis

Created on: June 16, 2007   Last Updated: September 20, 2011

The term “animal rights” is not synonymous with animal welfare, and doesn’t strictly relate to current animal anti-cruelty statutes. Animal rights activism is about animals having rights equal to human rights. This position is inherently wrong.

To best understand why animal rights go too far, we must first examine what the animal rights movement believes and explore why these beliefs are inherently faulty.

The Animal Rights Movement

Animal rights activism has been around for a long time—the modern movement began early in the nineteenth century in England, and within a few decades spread to America.

But this early activism focused on protecting the welfare of animals, whereas the revitalized movement of the mid-twentieth century changed the focus from stewardship to coequality—animals are equal to humans and deserve the same rights. These rights, they content, are natural and intrinsic (for a more detailed history, see David Walls “Animal Rights Movement”).

This mood—that animals should be considered coequal to humans—is perhaps best summed up by the animal activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA):

“Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way”

The underlying philosophy here is that animals suffer—just like people—and therefore are to be considered equally. This philosophy was made popular through Jeremy Bentham, and has been adopted by animal rights activists as a major part of the foundation for their belief system.

While most people would agree that animals should be treated respectfully, many would disagree with the basic tenets of animal rights activism.

For instance, PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” Few people would place the same value on a rat that they would on a child. But this, says PETA, is prejudice:

“Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable” (Why Animal Rights?).

So the question is, Is it true that prejudice against a species is as damning as prejudice against a person’s ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation? The answer is a definitive

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>