essay on animals have the same basic rights as humans

• Animal Rights and Welfare Laws Words: 1194
• Animal Rights: What of Animal Cloning? Words: 645
• Animal Rights and Scientific Researches Words: 554
• Animal Rights: Humans and Other Living Creatures Words: 568
• Research Involving Animals: The Animal Rights Debate Words: 1918
• Animal Rights: Kantian vs. Utilitarian Views Words: 666
• The Use of Animals in Scientific Research Words: 1117
• Ecofeminism and Fight for Animal Rights Words: 2522
• Should Animals Be Used for Research? Words: 1977
• Animal Use in Biomedical Research Words: 2711
• The Use of Animals in Laboratory Research Words: 1395
• The Use of Animals in Biomedical Research Words: 1448
• Using Animals in Medical Research Words: 2048
• Protection of Animals and Humans From Cruelty Words: 879
• The Case for Animal Rights Words: 672
• The Universality of Human Rights Words: 580
• Animal Testing: Use of Animal in Biomedical Research Words: 2138
• Human Rights in Sociology and Philosophy Words: 2210
• The Ethical Side of Animal Testing Words: 1151
• Is Animal Testing Ethical: Essay Example Words: 1655

Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons

• Introduction

Use of Animals for Scientific Research Purposes

Moral issues in the use of animals for scientific research, works cited, should animals have the same rights as humans essay introduction.

Concern over the indiscriminate use of animals by humans has gained prominence since the latter half of the twentieth century, with the increase in the insensitive use of animals for scientific research and the increased availability of literature raising moral concerns over this insensitive use of animals.

The issue of animal rights is a part of the broader vision on the rights of every living being to a more equitable existence on planet earth. This broader vision calls for a better appreciation of the limits of human growth and the need to stop the misuse of other life forms and life sustaining resources of mother earth.

There is no denying that the fact that the issue of animal rights is a complex issue, but it is essential that greater wisdom prevails for the greater good of humans and animals as a component of other life forms on earth.

There is hardly any logic in the arguments for the use of animals for scientific research based on their similarity to humans, but at the same time denies these same animals basic rights that humans enjoy by stressing the differences that exist with humans.

In essence the issue of providing rights to animals is a question of righting the balance that has tilted further away in favor of humans with particular emphasis on their misuse for scientific research purposes. (1)

The extent of use of animals in scientific research around the world can be gauged from the understanding that in the United Kingdom more than 2.6 million rodents, rabbits, cats, dogs, ferrets, pigs, sheep, primates, and birds were utilized in 2002 for some form or other of scientific research. At the end of the research these animals are destroyed. This means that approximately four animals are being destroyed for every human child born. (2). The situation does not get any better in the United States of America. According to estimates of the Humane Society almost 25 million animals are used every year for research, testing and educational purposes in the United States of America, with almost all the animals used for testing and research eventually put to death. (3).

The issue is not just in the number of animals used for scientific research, but also in the pain and suffering that these animals undergo, all in the name of improving the quality of life of humans, or in attempting to develop life-saving products for humans.

In such scientific research, invasive and non-invasive means of testing is employed that put the animals under severe suffering and stress. Examples of this abound.

For the study of impact of long-term misuse of drugs like methamphetamine, animals like mice are made to ingest methamphetamine for a period of time and suffer the debilitating effects of the drug, so that an understanding of the neurological impact can be ascertained by studying the brain of the animal after it has been killed.

Again in research for drugs used to fight cancer, tumors are introduced into the animals and then the drugs given to study potency and toxicity, while the animal suffers the intense pain that these tumors can produce. Such painful research is justified in the name of the requirement for enhancing the quality of treatment for several human diseases and conditions.

Yet, it is a well established fact that translating the evidence found in animals into treatment value for humans is seldom easy given the inherent structural and functional differences. According to Dr. Richard Klausner, the Director of the National cancer Institute “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse…

We have cured mice of cancer for decades- and it simply didn’t work in humans”. (4). In essence the benefits that humans derive from the indiscriminate use of animals for scientific purposes are marginal. The issue is further compounded when the morality of this indiscriminate use of animals is taken into consideration.

Humans and animals are among the life forms found on earth, with animals the more developed animal form. Development needs to be based not just on the better ability to think, but on the ability to reason and act in a just manner that is considered to be the characteristic of a well developed human society.

Such just and consistent thinking requires that humans treat animals in a more respectable manner, which gives the means and the right to flourish and not be tortured or treated in a cruel manner that is degrading to their very existence, as is seen in methods employed in scientific testing. (5).

The primary moral issue in the issue use of animals for scientific research lies in the principal of justice to treat all cases alike, which in this case are humans and non-human animals. It is considered wrong to use humans for scientific research without their consent. Humans and animals are considered to have comparable physiological and psychological capacities.

Given this dimension then it should be wrong to use animals in scientific research without their consent. Their inability to give consent coupled with their dependence on the kindness and compassion of humans for their very welfare makes it even more morally demanding on humans to avoid the indiscriminate use of animals, as in scientific research, for the intended benefit of humans. (6).

Animals are sentient in that they have the capacity to suffer, or experience joy and happiness. Yet humans subject animals to suffering, denying experiences of joy and happiness, which they would not subject their fellow beings to. This is being discriminatory or ‘speciesist’, which is morally irrespective of any benefits that may accrue to humans through the use of animals in scientific research. (7).

The moral theme behind this equal treatment necessity stems from the saga of that has seen racial and gender discrimination among humans being gradually removed, as it was considered morally wrong to have unequal segments of human society and the full understanding and creation of equal human rights. It is the natural extension of this that is the moral basis for the claim of removal of discrimination in the treatment of animals. The history of racial discrimination and ill treatment makes for suitable comparison to the ill treatment of animals.

Early in the twentieth century eugenics the illegitimate progeny of evolutionary genetics found sway in Europe and America, because of the already prevalent racist attitudes in the upper echelons of society. Eugenics called for the breeding to be permitted only among the best stock, which would gradually see the extinction of the weaker races to give way for the nobler varieties of humans.

This view was not a just a figment of creation of a few of the aristocratic class, but had a host of well known individuals including Winston Churchill as believers in the removal of feeble minded ands insane classes of people. An entry in the diary of Virginia Woolf in 1915 reads as, “On the towpath we met and had to pass a long line of imbeciles.

It was perfectly horrible. They should certainly be killed”. (8). Again from H. G. Wells, who supported eugenics, “those swarms of blacks, brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people …. will have to go”. (8). It was such beliefs that led to the enforced sterilization and forced research on fellow humans in Germany under the rule of Adolf Hitler.

The scientific findings of some of this forced and cruel research still remain valid to science, but the cruel treatment humans brought about moral revulsion, which saw the demise of eugenics. This is despite emerging controversial evidence that there may be a genetic link to intelligence, creativity, sexuality and criminality. (8). So much for the much flaunted superior intelligence of all humans over animals.

Within the human species there exists the possibility of different levels of intelligence and yet our morals of justice and equality do not allow us to discriminate against them. Animals occupy a lower rung in the evolutionary ladder, but demand our attention to prevent their indiscriminate use in scientific research.

It is less than a century since the belief in eugenics existed and now leads to moral revulsion. Remaining blinded to the indiscriminate use of animals in scientific research could lead to moral revulsion of our times.

Racial and gender discrimination is no longer morally acceptable in human society. The moral philosophy of egalitarian society does not emanate from the fact that all races equal in all capabilities and so too with the gender.

The principal of equality does not describe the actual equality of every human being rather it is a prescription for the manner in which all humans should be treated. The moral equality of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian system of ethics is based on the formula “each to count for one and none for more than one”. (9).

In other words the interests of every being are equal to the interests of every other being and the interests of no being supersedes the other. Such thinking is reflected in the later utilitarian Henry Sidgwick words “the good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view (if I may say so) of the Universe, than the good of any other”. (9).

Hence it is not the actual equality that matters in human rights, but the underlying principle that all humans are to be treated equally. It is this underlying principle that needs to be extended to animals as a group. There is no claim that this group be given all the rights that were received by the earlier discriminated groups of races and gender, like voting rights.

These rights are even acceptably denied to children as they do not need such a right and will not be able to make proper just such a right. Without equating animals to children, animals as a group do not require such rights as voting, but the do require basic right to live with dignity, as is required by the different kinds of animals that make up the animal kingdom.

The right to live a life that allows them to enjoy the joys, happiness, and sorrows that is linked to a natural existence, and not to suffer a caged and tortured life that is put to an end, when their utility is believed to be over, as is the case with animals that become part of scientific research.

Bentham brings into relevance another aspect that calls for providing animals rights and that is the aspect of suffering that animals are subjected too. He points out the issue is not that they cannot reason, nor can they talk, “but can they suffer?”(9). It is this vital characteristic that animals can suffer that gives animals the right to equal consideration.

They cannot express themselves and are totally dominated by humans. This makes them wholly depended on the compassion of humans for equal consideration. The moral basis for the argument against abortion is that the nascent life in the womb is capable of feeling the pain and suffering associated with abortion. In addition the fetus is incapable expressing itself and hence is dependent on external voices to express its rights.

It is the same analogy here with animals used for scientific research. They suffer but cannot express themselves and need outside expression of their rights. Since the animal suffers there is no moral justification for refusing to consider the suffering that is occurring. If the animal were not capable of suffering there would be no moral basis for animal rights. Sentience is thus the defensible boundary that is breached by researchers using animals.

The racist breaches the principle of equality by providing greater consideration for the members of the same race, while the use of animals in research stems from “speciesism”, wherein the interests of the human species to which the researcher belongs is given superiority to the needs of any other member of the animal kingdom. Racism has gradually died out or is in its deathbed. “Speciesism “needs to follow racism in a similar manner. (9).

Should Animals Have the Same Rights as Humans? Essay Conclusion

Animals are used in huge numbers for scientific research. Such animals go through a painful existence and early death as a result of being subjects to scientific research. By subjecting them to such cruelty, animals are being denied the basic rights that are due to them as fellow being on this planet.

This discrimination against their sentience and as a result of speciesism demonstrated by humans needs to come to an end and will happen, when the rights of animals are recognized to and their indiscriminate use in scientific research comes to an end.

Ulrich, E. Roger. “ANIMAL RIGHTS, ANIMAL WRONGS AND THE QUESTION OF BALANCE”. Psychological Science, 2.3 (1991): 197-201.

Bowring, Finn. “Animal Wrongs”. New Humanist.

Miller, Talia. “Scientific Research Targeted by Anti-Animal Testing Activists”. 2006. NEWS HOUR EXTRA.

“Torture of animals in research & bull flipping, tail breaking rodeo”. 2002.

Geoghegan, Tom. “ Should apes have human rights ?” 2007. BBC News Magazine.

Hadley, John. “Why (some philosophers think) using animals in scientific research is seriously wrong”. ANZCART NEWS, 18.1 (2005): 1-6.

France, Malcolm. “So what exactly is ‘Animal Rights’?” ANZCART NEWS, 18.1 (2005): 11-12.

McFadden, John. “The shameful history at the heart of genetics”. Science & Technology. THE HINDU, 2007, p. 17.

Singer, Peter. “All Animals Are Equal”. 2007.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 9). Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons. https://studycorgi.com/animals-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans/

"Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons." StudyCorgi , 9 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/animals-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons'. 9 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/animals-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/animals-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons." January 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/animals-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans/.

This paper, “Animals Should Have the Same Rights as Humans: Pros and Cons”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: February 21, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Other ways to give

• Home  
• Education  

Should animals have the same basic rights as humans?

10 december 2022, by animal welfare director, dave neale.

In a world where animal use has become so central to our daily lives, is it possible for society to question societal norms and grant animals with rights similar to those that in general we agree are applicable to all humans ?

Rights are defined as ‘ legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement… ’ The process of establishing rights for people continues to be a long term battle with many wins along the way but still there is much work to do to ensure that all people have the same rights. 

It is safe to assume that most people will agree that all humans are entitled to equal human rights, despite many supporting practices that fundamentally impact on the rights of others. It is not so safe to assume that most people support the case for all animals to be entitled to equal rights, in fact the case for animals is often very unclear with legal, social and ethical differences existing between and within species.

The UK's Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 2006 defines ‘animal’ as ‘a vertebrate other than man’, but adds that invertebrates could be brought within the scope of the Act ‘if the appropriate national authority is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are capable of experiencing pain or suffering’ (s1(4)). In Nov 2021 the UK government extended the scope of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill to recognise lobsters, octopus, crabs and all other decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs as sentient beings. 

Whilst this is one of the most advanced pieces of global legislation for animals it still does not include millions of animal species from groups such as the insects, spiders, centipedes and millipedes, despite a growing body of research suggesting many such animals are capable of experiencing pain and anxiety leading to suffering.

Despite legislation such as the AWA being in place for all vertebrates, society continues to support/tolerate activities that actively cause certain species unnecessary suffering.  The AWA is, arguably, relevant for animals such as grouse and fish that have been under human care and released into human-managed environments, yet grouse shooting and recreational fishing persist.  Society is much less likely to tolerate such activities if we were to breed dogs or dolphins to be released into the wild to be hunted and killed in the same way. 

In another example, society actively encourages the breeding, raising, transportation and slaughter of animals such as hens, pigs, cows, turkeys etc for consumption. These animals are protected by the AWA yet many millions suffer miserable lives on intensive farms. Practices that once again it is highly unlikely we would tolerate if animals such as chimpanzees or elephants were being farmed for us to eat.

At the species level, rabbits (for example) straddle a number of differing legal and ethical positions. One rabbit may occupy a place in a loving home and be legally protected from harm as a companion animal, a second rabbit may occupy a place in a research laboratory where it has been deemed necessary to perform certain experiments upon them, even though they may cause some degree of suffering. 

A third may be caged on an intensive farm being fattened for slaughter with minimal legal protections in place to ensure they do not suffer, and a fourth may suffer in the wild as they are deemed as a ‘pest’ and the law allows the extermination of pest species with no consideration to their individual welfare.

These examples represent clear social and ethical differences in the value that we assign to both different species and individuals within the same species, and subsequently different species and individuals being afforded greater and lesser protection despite all being covered within the law.

The values that we as individuals assign to animals, in general, reflect the society in which we have grown up within. If we grow up in a society where the suffering of animals within intensive farms or for our entertainment is deemed necessary then it is likely that these views will persist across the generations. But simply because current societal views support such acts this does not make them the right thing to do.

Changing public opinion and subsequent behaviours is the bedrock upon which campaigns for the rights of animals are built upon. 

Scientific discoveries first in anatomy, then evolutionary theory, and most recently in animal behaviour and cognition have developed our understanding of animals as socially, emotionally and cognitively complex individuals, sentient beings able to feel pain and with the capacity to suffer, and this understanding has led to our increasing concern for their welfare. 

This in turn has led to subsequent political advancements with legislation protecting animals now existing within countries across the world. Yet despite these major advancements billions of animals continue to suffer due to our unequal treatment of them at the species and intraspecies level.

International Animal Rights Day provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our own values towards both the animals that we interact with and those we impact upon via our daily behaviours and choices. A chance to think about the complex emotional and cognitive lives of so many other animals that have not as yet been granted the same societal, ethical and in many cases the legal rights that we have given to animals such as our companion animals living in our homes. And a chance for us to change our behaviours to help to address this imbalance.

The Importance of Animal Rights Essay

Animal rights are a matter of active debate in society nowadays since there are many related issues that, being unresolved, may endanger many creatures inhabiting the planet. Animals play a significant part in human lives, which is why humanity puts much effort into protecting them, creating various associations, organizing charity events, and educating children about the importance of different species. However, many people treat other living creatures as if they had no rights, which often leads to suffering, high mortality rates, and generally poor animal welfare. They should have legal rights since they significantly influence the economy, make people’s lives better, and do not significantly differ from humans in many senses.

First of all, animals significantly impact human lives since many species contribute to the world economy by producing fur, food, and other essential products. Blattner argues that animals are people’s co-workers, which is a common opinion among researchers and farmers (33). However, people do not always recognize the contributions to society made by animals. According to statistics, a single cow produces more than 5,000 liters of milk per year, which is probably enough for several people to consume at the same time (Blattner 33). Many cows have to suffer to achieve that production level as they are forcefully impregnated and separated from their families. In other words, people treat cows improperly to gain as much benefit as possible, and they do not even appreciate animals for their contribution to food production.

Furthermore, animals can help vulnerable groups such as autistic children or people with mental illnesses. Concerning humans, animals do not understand disabilities or ugliness, which is why these creatures can love others under no conditions (Baka et al. 11). Thus, domestic pets can provide a positive atmosphere of socialization for people who lack an opportunity or desire to socialize among humans. Baka et al. report that animals can also help little children develop empathy as they can learn to understand others’ needs by putting themselves into their pets’ places (11). Animals can make people’s lives better, which is a weighty reason for them to have the same rights as people do.

Finally, it is imperative to clarify that there is no actual reason to consider rights only as an element of human society. Humans and animals are living creatures that inhabit the same Earth, and all of them should have the same rights here. It is well-known that various animal species lived on this planet long before the first human was born. These facts make it unclear why the only species that should have legal rights are humans. Cesario argues that rights should not be “limited to members of a species that can petition for rights and respect the rights of others” (40). In many respects, humans are animals, which is why both groups should have the same, or at least similar, rights.

Overall, animals should have rights as they contribute to the world economy and improve people’s lives by providing favorable socializing conditions, and there is no reason to believe that animals are different from humans. Like any living creature, every animal is a part of this planet, and it should be outlawed to treat them as if they had no rights. Animals should not be subjected to torture and poor living conditions, and people should ensure their welfare by giving them the corresponding rights.

Works Cited

Baka, Alexandra, et al., “Animal rights.” Open Schools Journal for Open Science, vol. 3, no. 3, 2020, pp. 1-14.

Blattner, Charlotte. “Should Animals Have a Right to Work? Promises and Pitfalls.” Animal Studies Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, 2020, pp. 32-92.

Cesario, Anthony. “Reconciling the Irreconcilable: A Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Animal Rights Debate.” Studia Humana, vol. 10, no. 4, 2021, pp. 36-65.

• The Future for Zoos and Aquariums Bibliography
• Animal Rights and the Importance of Their Protection
• Is Faux Fur Responsible for the Rebirth of the highly coveted Real Fur to the Fashion Industry?
• Hybrid Cows That Produce Human Milk for Infants
• Comedy "Twelfth Night" by William Shakespeare
• Ethics of Using Animals in Biological Research
• Circus as the Central Place of Animal Rights Violation
• Fight for Animal Rights in Modern Realities
• Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Negative Effects
• Ethical Question on Producing Eggs From Caged Chicken
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, February 18). The Importance of Animal Rights. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-importance-of-animal-rights/

"The Importance of Animal Rights." IvyPanda , 18 Feb. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/the-importance-of-animal-rights/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'The Importance of Animal Rights'. 18 February.

IvyPanda . 2023. "The Importance of Animal Rights." February 18, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-importance-of-animal-rights/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Importance of Animal Rights." February 18, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-importance-of-animal-rights/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Importance of Animal Rights." February 18, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-importance-of-animal-rights/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

NCERT Books

Animal Right Essay | Essay on Animal Right for Students and Children in English

Animal Rights Essay: Animal Rights is the thought or idea that says that some or all animals are entitled to their basic rights such as possession of their life, and other crucial needs to survive.

It is the idea that all animals are born free like humans, and we should not subject them to exploitation for our needs. Animal rights aim to give animals the same rights as humans in which they are not killed or tortured at the hands of people.

Long and Short Essays on Animal Right for Students and Kids in English

We provide children and students with essay samples on an extended essay of 500 words and a short piece of 150 words on the topic “Animal Rights” for reference.

Long Essay on Animal Rights 500 Words in English

Long Essay on Animal Rights is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Is it unjust to kill animals to feed ourselves? If you are a vegetarian or an animal lover, you might find killing animals to feed ourselves as unethical. There are various views on the subject, and continuous debates and articles try to resolve the matter.

Animal rights are the thought process that all animals have basic rights like all human beings, and they do not deserve to be killed at our hands or made to suffer. It is best not to view animals as our commodities. It is wrong to view them as our resources. If we can accept the fact that animals are not born to be killed or exploited at our hands, we can approach a human view of treating animals and can then genuinely discuss the rights of animals.

We wrongly believe that animals are the commodities that we use. If we adopt this thought, our actions towards them will be unethical and regrettable. If we think that animals have no moral status, we will be extremely apathetic, which is diametric to human nature. The wrong thought process can hamper the understanding and reasoning of everything in our life.

Animals are living creatures, and so are we. They too feel pain and suffering. Hence, it is not illogical to consider the topic of animals having rights.

Believing that animals have rights does not necessarily mean that eating meat is wrong or unethical. People of different backgrounds and religions follow different diets and have different eating habits. Some of them include non-vegetarian diets, and some of them don’t.

Eating meat is a lifestyle for some people, and others should respect it. But, eating meat is not the only question that comes to mind when we think about animal rights. Thousands of animals are kept in farms and slaughterhouses. They are brought up in extremely inhospitable environments and are ultimately killed. Many of them are brought and stored in labs, and people perform all sorts of heinous and inexplicable experiments on them.

You can now access more Essay Writing on this topic and many more.

Humans torture millions of animals every year in labs. They burn, cut or starve animals in the name of research that does not always bear results. Most drugs that work on animals might not work for humans or not have the same efficiency. Hence, it is barbaric to meaninglessly kill animals and think that they do not have any rights.

People should never believe that animals are useless, dumb creatures. They too have a soul and can feel. Their emotions might not be as complex as humans, but they deserve to be acknowledged.

Humans are different than other animals. We have a moral compass and try to justify the events around us. Hence, when we think about any living creature being hurt, it makes us sad.

If you see an abused animal or an injured animal, you could walk past it. You could also report the animal abuse if it is a domestic animal, or take it to the vet for treatment. We should have realized that it is more peaceful to care for animals contently, than kill or capture them. Animals are soulful creatures like us and magnificent creation. We should respect them, and they do have rights.

Short Essay on Animal Rights 150 Words in English

Short Essay on Animal Rights is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

The animal right is the thought that all animals have birthrights like humans. It is the liberal thought process where we consider all animals to have basic rights that would protect them from being subjected to torture, starvation, slaughtering, etc. for our benefits.

There are a lot of disagreements regarding animals having rights. Some people argue that animal rights should be protected, while others argue that there is no need for animal rights.

People who say that animals have no rights, think it to be true because they view animals as commodities that we can exploit whenever required. Some people think that animals are created for our pleasure and our needs since we are at the top of the food chain. These people are largely mistaken.

All animals have souls and are living beings just like us. They have sensations and can feel everything around them just like humans can. Hence, we are morally obliged to acknowledge the rights of animals and not harvest them.

10 Lines on Animal Rights Essay in English

1. Animal rights are the concept that animals have similar rights as human. 2. Many people support animal rights, and many people don’t. 3. Many believe that animal rights should be established to protect the basic needs of all animals. 4. Others believe that animals don’t require any rights, and are present to satisfy the needs of humans. 5. It is a wrong thought that animals are commodities for humans, and can be used as objects. 6. Animals are projected to cruel treatments in places like animal farms, animal testing labs, etc. 7. The animal rights issue is a hotly debated topic. 8. All animals are living organisms and can feel like us. Hence, we should treat them as such. 9. Humans are superior to other animals in terms of evolutions, but we belong to the animal kingdom as well. 10. Humans have morals, unlike other animals. We should use it to support the cause of animal rights.

FAQ’s on Animal Rights Essay

Question 1. What are animal rights?

Answer: Animal right is the idea that animals deserve similar rights like a human. People who are supporters of animal rights believe that all animals have fundamental rights, such as the right to live and not tortured.

Question 2. What is animal testing?

Answer: Animal testing is the method of using animals as test-subjects for testing drugs and products on animals.

Question 3. Why is animal right relevant?

Answer: We use animals as a commodity and use them as we will. As human beings who have morals, we can think about considering the rights of animals too.

Question 4. Why should we give rights to animals?

Answer: Like human beings, animals also are living being who can feel what goes on around them. Hence, animals should have the basic right to survive.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Animal Ethics — Persuasive Animal Rights And The Importance Of Treating Animals With Respect

Persuasive Animal Rights and The Importance of Treating Animals with Respect

• Categories: Animal Cruelty Animal Ethics

About this sample

Words: 1394 |

Published: Jan 28, 2021

Words: 1394 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, works cited.

• American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). (n.d.). Animal cruelty laws in Canada. Retrieved from https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/canada
• Animal Equality. (n.d.). Animal testing. Retrieved from https://www.animalequality.org/issues/animal-testing
• Animal Welfare Act. (1966). 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq.
• Bekoff, M. (2013). The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy — and why they matter. New World Library.
• Cartmill, M. (1996). A view to a death in the morning: Hunting and nature through history. Harvard University Press.
• Dawkins, M. S. (2006). Through our eyes only? The search for animal consciousness. Oxford University Press.
• Francione, G. L. (1995). Animals, property, and the law. Temple University Press.
• Herzing, D. L. (2010). Dolphin communication: A window into the complexity of human language. In S. M. Reader & K. Laland (Eds.), Animal social complexity: Intelligence, culture, and individualized societies (pp. 293-311). Harvard University Press.
• Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.
• Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation. Harper Perennial.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1084 words

2 pages / 742 words

2 pages / 813 words

1 pages / 518 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Ethics

The existence of zoos serves a broader purpose beyond mere entertainment. The benefits that zoos provide in terms of conservation, education, research, and public engagement are undeniable. Through dedicated efforts, zoos [...]

De La Cruz, R. A. 'Ecological and Interspecies Ethics'.Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.

The practice of keeping animals in zoos has sparked a passionate debate that revolves around ethical considerations and conservation goals. This essay explores the multifaceted arguments for and against the existence of zoos, [...]

Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." The New York Times. 10 November 2002. Salzman, J. "Animal Law." Foundation Press, 2011. Singer, P. "Animal Liberation." Harper Perennial, 2009.

The Bahamas are a ground of about 700 islands and 2,400 uninhabited islets and cays lying 50 mi off the east coast of Florida. Only about 30 of the islands are inhabited; the most important is New Providence (80 sq. mi; 207 sq. [...]

For the introduction of this animal rights, I will firstly give the definition of rights as a whole. Right is a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. As people’s rights are something [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• All Lessons
• General Training
• IELTS Tests
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Animal Rights Essay

This IELTS  animal rights essay  discusses the exploitation of animals by humans.

People who believe in animal rights think that they should not be treated cruelly, for example in experiments or for sport.

'To exploit' means to benefit from something in an unfair way. Take a look at the question:

A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Discussing 'Two Opinions'

Animals should not be exploited by people and they should have the same rights as humans. Humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

In this essay you are being given two opposing opinions to discuss.

This is the first opinion:

• Animals should not be exploited by people and they should have the same rights as humans.

This is the second opinion:

• Humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

In this type of essay, you must look at both sides. In other words you need to discuss the arguments FOR animal rights and AGAINST .

You must also ensure you give YOUR opinion.

Organising the Essay

One way to organize an essay like this is to consider both opinions, then give your opinion in a final paragraph ( see this example ) or dedicate a whole final paragraph to your opinion ( see this example ).

Another way to write an essay like this is to also make one of the 'for' or 'against' opinions your opinion as well.

Look at the model animal rights essay below. The second body paragraph discusses the first opinion, but the topic sentence makes it clear that this paragraph is also representing the writers opinion as well:

However, I do not believe these arguments stand up to scrutiny.

This now means that in two body paragraphs you have covered all three parts of the question from the animal rights essay:

1. First opinion 2. Second opinion 3. Your opinion

The advantage of doing it this way rather than having a separate paragraph is that you do not need to come up with new ideas for a new paragraph.

If you have a separate paragraph with your opinion you may find you cannot think of any new ideas or you may end up repeating the same things as in your previous paragraphs.

IELTS Writing Example

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Animal Rights Essay - Model Answer

Animals have always been used by humans in some form to satisfy their needs. However, while some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way humans are and have similar rights, others think that it is more important to use them as we desire for food and medical research. 

With regard to the exploitation of animals, people believe it is acceptable for several reasons. Firstly, they think that humans are the most important beings on the planet, and everything must be done to ensure human survival. If this means experimenting on animals so that we can fight and find cures for diseases, then this takes priority over animal suffering. Furthermore, it is believed by some that animals do not feel pain or loss as humans do, so if we have to kill animals for food or other uses, then this is morally acceptable.

However, I do not believe these arguments stand up to scrutiny. To begin, it has been shown on numerous occasions by secret filming in laboratories via animal rights groups that animals feel as much pain as humans do, and they suffer when they are kept in cages for long periods. In addition, a substantial amount of animal research is done for cosmetics, not to find cures for diseases, so this is unnecessary. Finally, it has also been proven that humans can get all the nutrients and vitamins that they need from green vegetables and fruit. Therefore, again, having to kill animals for food is not an adequate argument.

To sum up, although some people argue killing animals for research and food is ethical, I would argue there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case, and, therefore, steps must be taken to improve the rights of animals.

(Words 290) 

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Discuss Two Opinion Essays:

Childcare Essay: Should family or carers look after young children?

Childcare Essay: In the essay you have to discuss two sides of an argument. The first is that it is better if pre-school children are looked after at home with relatives such as grandparents. The second opinion is that children should be looked after at childcare centres.

IELTS Writing Example: What are the aims of a university education?

IELTS writing example essays. This is an essay on the aims of university education. In this essay, two opposing opinions need to be discussed. It is important to understand how to answer this type of question in the IELTS exam.

IELTS Essays: What is the best way to reduce crime?

IELTS essays online with comments by an IELTS instructor - A writing sample on the topic of reducing crime.

Zoo Essay: Are zoos cruel or do they protect animals?

This is a recent zoo essay question from the IELTS test (June 2018). Essay about zoos have come up a few times in the IELTS test so it's worth studying same sample questions and sample essays about the topic.

Sources for Stories Essay: Should parents read to their children?

This sources for stories essay asks for your opinion on the best way for children to get stories. Is it from parents reading to them or other ways?

Diet and Health Essay: Who is responsible for diet and health?

Diet and Health Essay for IELTS: This model examines the extent to which individuals or governments should be responsible for health. Read a model answer and useful comments about the essay which will help you to improve your IELTS Score.

Child Development Essay: What factors influence a child's development?

Child Development Essay for IELTS. The essay is about the factors that affect the way that children develop. It provides you with a model answer and comments on the response to help you know how to improve your band score.

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay- Model answer for IELTS. Who has had the most influence on our world? In this essay you have to discuss both sides.

Donating Money to Charity Essay: Where should the money go?

Donating Money to Charity Essay: IELTS model answer to an essay on the topic of giving locally or to national and international charities.

IELTS Essay Becoming Independent

This IELTS essay discussed whether people are becoming more independent than they were in the past. This is a question that has come up a few times in the test. This is discussion type essay as you have to discuss both sides of an argument and come to a conclusion.

Formal and Informal Education Essay: What age should it start?

This formal and informal education essay is about whether it is best for children to begin their formal education at school when they are 7 rather than much younger.

Extraterrestrial Life Essay: Should we look for life on other planets?

This extraterrestrial life essay is an IELTS opinion essay where you have to discuss both sides of an issue then give your own opinion.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

Bargain eBook Deal! 30% Discount

All 4 Writing eBooks for just  $25.86 Find out more >>

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

IELTS Academic or General: Which One Should You Take?

Sep 28, 24 02:59 AM

Selling a Mobile Phone to a Friend

Sep 15, 24 02:20 AM

Tips and Technique for IELTS Speaking Part 1

Sep 14, 24 02:41 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Before you go...

30% discount - just $25.86 for all 4 writing ebooks.

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Rights of Nature, Rights of Animals

• Kristen Stilt
• See full issue

The fields of animal law and environmental law have an uneasy relationship. At a basic level, they are intertwined by the fundamental observation that animals, human and nonhuman, exist in the environment. Environmental law is generally concerned with animals at the level of species (and specifically endangered or threatened species), whereas animal law is concerned with all animals, regardless of particular characteristics. The issue of wild horses in the western United States illustrates this tension. Some environmentalists view the horses as “feral pests” that damage the fragile ecosystem and compete with wildlife — and privately owned cattle — for resources. 1 They argue that the horses should be gathered through helicopter-led “roundups” and euthanized or sold. 2 Animal protection advocates argue that these roundups are cruel and note that the millions of cattle also grazing on these lands are far more damaging to the environment than the horses. 3 They insist that these wild horses should not be killed — the life of each individual animal matters and should be protected. 4

Environmental law is the older and more established field of law. There are many ways to measure this, such as at the constitutional level, which shows environmental law’s seniority and success. Most constitutions address the environment, and the typical phrasing is anthropocentric: a human right to a healthy environment as seen, for example, in article 42 of the Constitution of Kenya: “Every person has the right to a clean and healthy environment . . . .” 5 Newer trends adopt ecocentric or biocentric approaches and grant rights to nature (or its component parts, such as a river) at the constitutional or legislative level or through judicial decisions. 6

In contrast to environmental rights, it is only a fairly recent phenomenon that assigns “constitutional significance to the experiences of individual nonhuman animals.” 7 Animals are protected in just a handful of constitutions with no clear adoption trend: Switzerland (1973), 8 India (1976), 9 Brazil (1988), 10 Slovenia (1991), 11 Germany (2002), 12 Luxembourg (2007), 13 Austria (2013), 14 Egypt (2014), 15 and Russia (2020). 16 ) (Russ.), translated in World Constitutions Illustrated ( HeinOnline, 2020) . The year accompanying each country listed above indicates when the provision was added to an existing constitution or when a new constitution with the provision was adopted. These provisions use terms such as the “welfare” of animals, 17 the “dignity” of animals, 18 animal “protection,” 19 “compassion” toward animals, 20 and animal “cruelty” 21 — all of which follow a general animal welfare approach. In contrast to the environmental context, none of the provisions uses the term “rights.” 22

In this Essay, I show how developments and achievements in the field of environmental rights and specifically rights of nature can be instructive, intellectually and practically, to the cause of animal protection and animal rights. 23 That instruction includes not only positive examples but also notes of caution, where animal law may face different and more formidable challenges. The Essay first assesses the role that a human right to a healthy environment has played in the development of environmental rights and rights of nature, and then it discusses the relevance of this experience for animal rights. In Part II, it turns to how rights of nature have been interpreted and applied in several prominent court decisions and suggests insights that animal rights can take from this jurisprudence. Given the brevity of Forum essays, I cannot be comprehensive. Rather, I chart out the range of my arguments and support them with some notable examples, with the intention to treat this topic more fully in a future work.

I. A Human Right to a Healthy Environment, A Human Right to Animal Protection

The anthropocentric formulation of a human right to a healthy environment initially may not seem like a helpful framing for the cause of animal rights, but it is actually very instructive. “Rights of Nature” have roots in two sources. First, these rights emerged from a recent recognition that current environmental law, including the human right to a healthy environment, has failed to address the global ecological crisis and notably climate change. 24 Second, indigenous traditions and jurisprudence “that have always treated humans as part of nature, rather than distinct from it,” have long provided a rights of nature framework and approach. 25 The widespread acceptance of a human right to a healthy environment served as part of the foundation for the development of a stronger rights of nature approach, which synergistically connected with indigenous approaches to nature.

In an animal context, an analogous formulation would be a human right to animal protection, a right of humans to have all animals adequately protected. This may sound like awkward phrasing, but such an approach does closely match how, in general, legal systems currently treat animals. 26 That is, animal interests are protected to the extent that humans want them to be and benefit from those protections and limitations.

An anthropocentric approach to animal protection along these lines is likely politically more acceptable than an animal rights–based approach. If it were widely adopted, however, it could serve merely to entrench the status quo in animal law. Alternatively, a human right to animal protection could offer the possibility of far more robust protection than currently exists under animal welfare laws. Because different humans will have different ideas about what the protection of animals should involve, a human right could allow more protective views to be recognized. It could also provide an intermediate step to animal rights, laying a foundation for future expansion. More needs to be known about the evolution from the right to a healthy environment to rights of nature, and how animal rights might be able to follow a similar path.

II. Rights of Nature, Rights of Animals

Ecocentric or biocentric approaches that lodge a right in nature or its component parts also may be promising for the development of legally recognized animal rights. Rights of nature are not widespread, but they have potential for growth and impact. At the constitutional level, Ecuador was the first to recognize the rights of nature. Article 71 begins: “Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.” 27 Bolivia adopted this approach through the Law on the Rights of Mother Earth (2010); 28 the enumerated rights are the rights to life, diversity of life, water, clean air, equilibrium, restoration, and pollution-free living. 29 Other countries have recognized the right in judicial opinions. 30

A. Animals as Part of Nature

At the most fundamental level, if nature has rights, and if nature includes animals, then rights-based claims could be made on behalf of animals using existing rights of nature doctrine and strategy. A 2008 case from the Superior Court of Justice in Brazil, known as the Wild Parrot case, illustrates this possibility. 31 The case involved an individual who had kept a single wild animal, a blue-fronted parrot, in custody for more than two decades and in inadequate living conditions. 32 This parrot was considered a wild species; this no doubt facilitated the connection to nature, but the court engaged in language that stretched beyond concern for a wild species. The court cited article 225 of the constitution as evidence for Brazil’s “ecological approach.” 33 Article 225 is an anthropocentric human right to an “ecologically balanced environment,” not a rights of nature provision, and the constitutional framing of animal protection comes through an environmental, “fauna and . . . flora” framework. 34 What is remarkable is that the court took this limited language as a starting point to reach a discussion of rights of nature and recognition of sentient beings in general.

The court called for a rethinking of the “Kantian, anthropocentric and individualistic concept of human dignity.” 35 Dignity should be reformulated to recognize “an intrinsic value conferred to non-human sensitive beings, whose moral status would be recognized and would share with the human beings the same moral community.” 36 The treatment of animals “must be based no longer on human dignity or human compassion, but on the very dignity inherent in the existence of nonhuman animals.” 37 The court brought together two strands of jurisprudence: the protection of animals in the German and Swiss Constitutions 38 and the rights of nature language in the Ecuadorean Constitution and Bolivian Law on the Rights of Mother Earth. By doing so, it reached a language of rights: “This view of nature as an expression of life in its entirety enables the Constitutional Law and other areas of law to recognize the environment and non-human animals as beings of their own value, therefore deserving respect and care, so that the legal system grants them the ownership of rights and dignity.” 39 The court conceptually moved nonhuman animals out of the environmental constraints of article 225 to attain their own independent status, for which the court advocated both rights and dignity.

B. Nonhuman Rights

Even if the concept of nature is not currently understood to include individual animals, provisions recognizing the rights of nature still implicitly acknowledge that a nonhuman can have rights. This may seem obvious since corporations and other nonhuman entities are legal persons and have rights, but entities such as rivers or ecosystems traditionally have not been extended the same recognition by legal systems worldwide. Rivers have been treated as legal persons in some jurisdictions, notably in Bangladesh, 40 Colombia, 41 Ecuador, 42 India, 43 New Zealand, 44 and the United States. 45

One of the most significant cases involving river rights was decided by the Constitutional Court of Colombia in 2016 (the Atrato River Case). 46 The plaintiffs challenged the pollution and degradation that industrial and illegal mining and logging had caused to the Atrato River basin, the tributaries, and surrounding territories. 47 They showed that the Atrato banks were the ancestral home to Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities such as themselves. 48 The river provided a subsistence means of living based on agriculture, hunting, fishing, and artisanal mining. 49 The plaintiffs asked the court to protect their fundamental rights to life, health, water, food security, a healthy environment, and the culture and territory of their ethnic communities. 50 They also asked the court to impose measures to address the crisis in the Atrato River basin resulting from the environmental pollution and degradation. 51

While the plaintiffs framed their claims as rights of the individuals living in the Atrato River basin, the court did not limit itself to a consideration of anthropocentric rights. For the court, the importance of nature “[was] established, of course, in reference to the humans that inhabit it and the need to count on a healthy environment to live a dignified life in conditions of well-being; but [nature’s importance was founded] also in connection with the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared, understood as entities deserving of protection in and of themselves .” 52 Nature was a subject of rights. 53

Thus, theoretically, the rights of nature may be violated even in the absence of any injury to humans. A decision from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights made this point clearly: “The Court consider[ed] it important to stress that, as an autonomous right, the right to a healthy environment, unlike other rights, protects the components of the environment, such as forests, rivers, and seas, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of the certainty or evidence of a risk to individuals.” 54

An excellent example of an approach that leads with the rights of nature is the Turag River case, decided by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in 2019. 55 Through time-sequenced photographs, a news article that the court relied on in its decision showed the encroachment on the Turag River due to “river-grabbers,” pollutants, and the failure to keep the river navigable through dredging. 56 Despite laws and many judicial decisions, encroachers walled off land in the river and deployed bulldozers and excavators to fill their newly claimed territory, expanding the reach of dry land at the river’s expense. 57 The same actions were taking place in other rivers in the capital of this “riverine country.” 58 The NGO Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh brought the case to eject all the illegal occupiers and stop landfilling and construction activities on the river’s territory. 59

The Turag River itself was at the center of the case from the outset. But the river for its own sake? The court echoed the language of the Daily Star article, speaking in terms of the Turag becoming a “dead river” 60 or facing “extinction” if the activity was not stopped. 61 The court also acknowledged that the occupation and pollution had caused a “major shortage of potable water, for which people are constantly facing health risks.” 62 And given the centrality of waterways to Bangladesh, “[d]estroying the rivers is . . . the same as our collective suicide.” 63 As a last resort to save the river, the court declared the Turag and indeed all rivers in the country legal persons. 64 It also ordered the removal of all unlawful pollution and construction and issued seventeen other wide-ranging orders. 65 The Turag River case and others show that rights can be lodged in a nonhuman, but in practice the human rights are also significant components.

C. Nonhuman Remedies and Enforcement

Finally, the remedies discussion in rights of nature cases demonstrates that there are adequate ways for humans to assess and implement the desires and needs of nonhuman entities. In what is known as the Deforestation Case, the Superior Court of Justice in Brazil held that in addition to the requirement to restore the damage caused to the environment, a defendant may also be required to pay monetary damages, or “pure ecological damage,” for “degrading nature in itself, an asset that is not and cannot be owned.” 66 Applied to the animal context, it could stand for the principle that wrongful treatment of an animal, for example, could require the payment of compensation without any particular showing of physical harm. The payment would presumably go into a trust established to support the needs of the animal or her ecosystem.

In the animal context, the idea that humans are capable of making such an assessment has been questioned. In Naruto v. Slater , 67 the Ninth Circuit took a generally irritated tone toward the organization that brought the case on behalf of Naruto, a crested macaque. 68 Concurring in part, Judge Smith stated: “But the interests of animals? We are really asking what another species desires. . . . We have millennia of experience understanding the interests and desires of humankind. That is not necessarily true of animals.” 69 If so — and without conceding the point — that is also not necessarily true of rivers, forests, or ecosystems, but courts that grant rights to nature routinely appoint guardianship bodies to make these determinations. 70

There is a limit to the analogy between nature and nonhuman animals that appears at the stage of remedies in some cases and goes to the heart of the comparison. For a river, the component of nature for which there is the most extensive case law, courts typically speak in terms of “rights that imply its protection, conservation, maintenance” and “restoration,” as in the Atrato River Case. 71 That court sought to have the conditions of the river improved so that the human communities could again make full use of the river for agriculture, hunting, fishing, and artisanal mining. The remedy raises a deeper question, one that the court did not ask: What is the intrinsic purpose of a river? The implication of rights of river judgments is not that a river simply seeks to be left alone. The purpose of a river in these decisions is to serve humans, through access to water, transportation, and the animals who live in them.

The rights that advocates seek for animals are far more robust and categorically reject that the inherent purpose of an animal is to serve human interests and uses. In the habeas corpus cases, the animals are in captivity, such as in a zoo or research facility. 72 The plaintiffs seek release of these animals to a setting in which they can live more natural lives, such as a sanctuary, given that these animals generally cannot be placed in a fully natural, wild environment. 73 While the presumption is that the transfer to better environments would aid in the protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration of these animals, the point was not that the animals will look and feel better for any kind of human benefit. The remedy of habeas corpus seeks to release the animals from a human environment so that they could be, to the extent possible, left alone to be animals.

This difference in the issue of remedies and their enforcement may be significant and may project back onto the fundamental question of whether humans will recognize animal rights at all. Rights of nature call for some major changes in the way that humans live in the world, as seen in the above cases. Viewed from the remedy angle, the rights of animals are an even greater challenge to the behavior of humans. Rights of animals impact fundamental questions such as what humans eat and drink, what they wear, and what kinds of entertainment they engage in, to name just a few. A judge may seek to avoid remedies that would alter human behavior in dramatic ways, and the mere possibility of these remedies may also work to undermine the cause of action itself. 74

Rights of nature approaches are instructive to the cause of animal rights, intellectually and practically. They do not offer a model to be copied wholesale, but instead call for careful study of the parallels and points of disconnection, of the commonalities and the conflicts, with the potential for significant results.

* Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Faculty Director, Harvard Animal Law & Policy Program. I thank Sam Bookman, Doug Kysar, Justin Marceau, Kathy Meyer, and Steve Wise for insightful comments on this Essay. I thank the editors of the Harvard Law Review for their thoughtful engagement and editorial assistance. Andy Stawasz, J.D. ’21, provided outstanding research assistance. I also thank the translators who assisted with translations of the cases cited in the Essay: Cibele Maria Melendez Texeira Bandeira and Harvard Law School S.J.D. candidates Beatriz Botero Arcila, Sannoy Das, and Nicolás Parra-Herrera.

^ Karin Brulliard, The Battle over Wild Horses , WASH. POST (Sept. 18, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/09/18/wild-horses-have-long-kicked-up-controversy-now-foes-say-they-have-solution [ https://perma.cc/L9BW-GJP7 ].

^ The constitution of Kenya , 2010, art. 42, in World Constitutions Illustrated ( HeinOnline , 2010) .

^ James R. May & Erin Daly, Global Environmental Constitutionalism 255–56 (2015). A biocentric approach places humans on the same level as all living beings, whereas an ecocentric approach considers all that is in the natural world — living beings and nonliving entities — to all be equally valued. Int’l Rivers et al., Rights of Rivers 10 (2020), https://3waryu2g9363hdvii1ci666p-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/86/2020/09/Right-of-Rivers-Report-V3-Digital-compressed.pdf [ https://perma.cc/JLG7-4QD5 ].

^ Jessica Eisen & Kristen Stilt, Protection and Status of Animals , in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law ¶ 1 (Rainer Grote, Frauke Lachenmann & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds., 2016), Oxford Constitutional Law (article updated Dec. 2016).

^ Id . ¶¶ 26–35.

^ Id . ¶¶ 11–17.

^ Id . ¶¶ 36–38.

^ Id . ¶¶ 39–41.

^ Id . ¶¶ 18–25.

^ Id . ¶¶ 47–56.

^ Id . ¶¶ 42–46.

^ Id . ¶¶ 63–65.

^ See Konstitutsiia Rossiĭskoĭ Federatsii [Konst. RF] [Constitution] art. 114(1)(e 5

^ Eisen & Stilt, supra note 7, ¶ 45.

^ Id . ¶ 31.

^ Id . ¶ 23.

^ Id . ¶ 12.

^ Id . ¶ 36.

^ Id . ¶ 69.

^ The desire for more rights is not an unqualified positive, as some have argued. While an important question, this Essay does not engage in that debate.

^ Int’l Rivers et al ., supra note 6, at 6.

^ Id . In the animal law context, more research is needed on the alignment of beliefs in indigenous communities with animal rights approaches — a partnership that has been important in the contemporary rights of nature movement. Due to issues such as whaling and seal hunting, this alignment has proven difficult, but with thoughtful engagement, it is within reach. See generally Maneesha Deckha, Unsettling Anthropocentric Legal Systems: Reconciliation, Indigenous Laws, and Animal Personhood , 41 J. Intercultural Stud . 77 (2020).

^ There is a long line of thinking in animal protection that preventing cruelty to animals is also beneficial for humans. One strand of this thinking focuses on a connection between violence against animals and violence against humans, referred to as the “link” theory. For a discussion and critique of this theory, see Justin Marceau , Beyond Cages 193–250 (2019).

^ Constitución de la República del Ecuador [Constitution] 2008 , art. 71, translated in World Constitutions Illustrated ( HeinOnline, Jefri Jay Ruchti, ed., Maria Del Carmen Gress & J.J. Ruchti, trans., 2018 ) .

^ Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra [Law of the Rights of Mother Earth], Ley 071 (2010) ( Bol .) .

^ See Int’l Rivers et al ., supra note 6, at 15–49.

^ S.T.J., No. 1.797.175/SP, Relator: Ministro OG Fernandes, 21.03.2019, Revista Eletrônica da Jurisprudência [R.S.T.J.], 13.05.2019 (Braz.), https://processo.stj.jus.br/processo/revista/documento/mediado/?componente=ITA&sequencial=1806039&num_registro=201800312300&data=20190513&peticao_numero=-1&formato=PDF [ https://perma.cc/TZ76-P4E3 ] (translation on file with the Harvard Law School Library) [hereinafter Wild Parrot Case].

^ Id . at 2–3.

^ Id . at 9.

^ Constitução Federal [C.F.] [Constitution] art. 225 (Braz.), translated in World Constitutions Illustrated ( HeinOnline, Jefri Jay Ruchi, ed., Keith S. Rosenn, trans., 2020) .

^ Wild Parrot Case, supra note 31, at 10.

^ Id . at 12.

^ See Eisen & Stilt, supra note 7, ¶¶ 22–24, 28–29.

^ Wild Parrot Case, supra note 31, at 14.

^ See Int’l Rivers et al ., supra note 6, at 47.

^ See id . at 23.

^ See id . at 33.

^ See id . at 44.

^ See id . at 17.

^ See id . at 39. In India, the decisions have been stayed by the Supreme Court. Id . at 46. In the U.S. context, Native American tribal jurisdictions have led the way in recognizing rights of nature. The Navajo Nation Code Annotated, tit. I, § 205 (2014), states that “[a]ll creation, from Mother Earth and Father Sky to the animals, those who live in water, those who fly and plant life have their own laws and have rights and freedoms to exist.” The publication of Christopher D. Stone’s Should Trees Have Standing? — Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects , 45 S. Cal. L. Rev . 450 (1972), was influential for Justice Douglas, dissenting in Sierra Club v. Morton , 405 U.S. 727, 741–42 (1972) (“Contemporary public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.”). Recently, some local governments in the United States have attempted to declare that natural communities and ecosystems have rights. For a discussion of these efforts, see David R. Boyd, The Rights of Nature 109–30 (2017).

^ Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], noviembre 10, 2016, Sentencia T-622/16 (Colom.), https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2016/t-622-16.htm [ https://perma.cc/CP7X-3NCJ ], translated in Center for Social Justice Studies v. Presidency of the Republic, Judgment T-622/16, Constitutional Court of Colombia (Nov. 10, 2016), The Atrato River Case , Dignity Rts. Project , http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload838.pdf [ https://perma.cc/SF8R-W8EC ] [hereinafter Atrato River Case].

^ Id . § I.2.1.

^ Id . § I.1.

^ Id . § I.2.10.

^ Id . § IV.9.27.

^ Id . § IV.9.31.

^ The Environment and Human Rights (Arts. 4(1) and 5(1) in Relation to Arts. 1(1) and 2 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 23, ¶ 62 (Nov. 15, 2017), https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_23_ing.pdf [ https://perma.cc/W3HZ-LPX9 ].

^ Bangladesh Supreme Court, High Court Division, Writ Petition No. 13898/2016 (2019) (official translation on file with the Harvard Law School Library) [hereinafter Turag River Case].

^ See id . at 3; Tawfique Ali, Time to Declare Turag Dead , Daily Star (Nov. 6, 2016), https://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/time-declare-turag-dead-1310182 [ https://perma.cc/R5NL-WA6M ].

^ See Ali, supra note 56.

^ See Turag River Case, supra note 55, at 3.

^ Id . at 4.

^ Id . at 54.

^ Id . at 449.

^ Id . at 449–50.

^ S.T.J., No. 1.145.083/MG, Relator: Ministro Heman Benjamin, 27.09.2011, Revista Eletrônica da Jurisprudência [R.S.T.J.], 04.09.2012, 10 (Braz.), https://processo.stj.jus.br/processo/revista/documento/mediado/?componente=ITA&sequencial=975073&num_registro=200901152629&data=20120904&formato=PDF [ https://perma.cc/FW7S-C6Q8 ] (translation on file with the Harvard Law School Library).

^ 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).

^ Id . at 420.

^ Id . at 432 (Smith, J., concurring in part).

^ Int’l Rivers et al ., supra note 6, at 8.

^ Atrato River Case, supra note 46, § IV.9.32.

^ See, e.g ., Cámara del Fuero Contencioso Administrativo y Tributario [CABA] [Chamber of Appeals in Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters], Buenos Aires, sala 1, 14/06/2016, “Asociación de Funcionarios y Abogados por los Derechos de los Animales y Otros c. GCBA s/ Amparo,” (Arg.), 3, https://www.animallaw.info/sites/default/files/1%20%E2%80%9CASOCIACIO%CC%81N%20DE%20FUNCIONARIOS%20Y%20ABOGADOS%20POR%20LOS%20DERECHOS%20DE%20LOS%20ANIMALES%20Y%20OTROS%20C%3A%20GCBA%20S%3A%20AMPARO%E2%80%9D%20.pdf [ https://perma.cc/7LD3-XCDG ] (translation on file with the Harvard Law School Library); Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], enero 23, 2020, Sentencia SU-016/20 (§§ I.1 to .3) (Colom.), https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/comunicados/Comunicado%20No.%2003%20del%2023%20de%20enero%20de%202020.pdf [ https://perma.cc/9EX8-UCYL ] (translation on file with the Harvard Law School Library). For an overview of habeas corpus cases brought in the United States on behalf of nonhuman animals, see Challenging the Legal Thinghood of Autonomous Nonhuman Animals , Nonhuman Rts. Project , https://www.nonhumanrights.org/litigation [ https://perma.cc/69P9-UU7M ].

^ CABA, 14/06/2016, “Asociación de Funcionarios y Abogados por los Derechos de los Animales y Otros c. GCBA s/ Amparo,” 2, 14; C.C., enero 23, 2020, Sentencia SU-016/20 (§§ I.1 to .3).

^ I thank Doug Kysar for the point that this also works in reverse; a judge in a jurisdiction with weak enforcement might be willing to go further with a finding of animal rights, knowing that the implications are unlikely to be seen as a practical matter.

• Environmental Law

March 20, 2021

More from this Issue

Private property managers, unchecked: the failures of federal compliance oversight in project-based section 8 housing.

• Molly Rockett

Why animals should be given the same legal rights as humans

In 2014, the Supreme Court of India, issued a precedent-setting decision. It extended the mantle of Article 21 of the nation’s constitution, which protects human life and liberty, to all animals: bulls, the court said, have an inalienable right “to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere, not to be beaten, kicked, bitten, tortured, plied with alcohol by humans or made to stand in narrow enclosures amidst bellows and jeers from crowds.” In Argentina two years later, a chimpanzee named Cecilia, confined alone in a concrete enclosure in a zoo in Mendoza, was sent to a Brazilian sanctuary after a judge declared for her “fundamental right to be born, to live, grow, and die in the proper environment for [her] species.” In July, a Colombian judge, citing the Argentinean precedent, set free an Andean spectacled bear.

For environmental lawyer and University of British Columbia professor David Boyd, author of The Rights of Nature , such legal developments are, “the first cracks in the wall of the way we treat individual animals.” And they are welcome, in-the-nick-of-time, emotionally moving developments too, he adds in an interview: “I just cried when I read the decision in Argentina about Cecilia—it’s really a beautiful judgment.” Even so, it wasn’t as significant as other legal landmarks, Boyd sees unfolding around the world, the ones involving entire ecosystems. “In the past four years, after longstanding negotiations between Indigenous Maori people and the government, New Zealand has passed two laws that are absolutely transformative in terms of our relationship with the natural world.” One turned the Whanganui River, the country’s third-longest, into a legal entity with rights of its own. The other did much the same with Te Urewera, a revered national park, making it “the first place on Earth where humans have relinquished control.”

MORE:  Our complicated relationship with zoos

It all adds up to a potentially transformative moment in the history of humans and the world around them, although, as Boyd delicately puts it, “the precise meaning” of this new relationship is yet to be worked out. The sad lives of charismatic mega-species in captivity—from chimps to elephants to orcas—evokes near total public sympathy. Everywhere, zoos are closing down or busy releasing animals to sanctuaries while turning themselves into research institutions devoted to endangered species. And in the developed world at least, national parks already hold quasi-sacred status. Boyd acknowledges, though, that when activities humans find profitable (factory farming) or pleasurable (horse racing) face the legal firing line, his campaign against “the breathtaking arrogance” behind the human assertion of ownership of the rest of creation is liable to inspire blowback against what critics will call the breathtaking arrogance of lawyers.

The power of the law in rights- and constitution-focused modern societies is precisely why this campaign is primarily legal and not political. Courts are not only more insulated than legislatures from the power of vested economic interests but are—in theory at least—dedicated to seeing justice done even if the heavens should fall, as the legal maxim has it. Moreover, they are faster than legislatures, and the rights they declare are more securely permanent than any law. Progressives in particular have long turned to judges to establish rights that politicians have been hesitant to recognize—it was Canadian courts, not Parliament, that established the right to same-sex marriage, to the great relief of cautious, not to say cowardly, MPs.

Boyd is deeply committed to his cause. He has lived on Pender Island, a three-hour ferry ride from Vancouver, for 17 years. “One of the things that drew my partner and I there was the presence of the southern resident killer whales , which swim literally past our house on a regular basis. It’s electrifying to see them, and very painful to know they are down to fewer than 80 individuals. So I’m highly motivated to do what I can in this field.” And that’s before his epiphany about animals in captivity. A few years ago Boyd was swimming along the periphery of a pool too small for decent laps. “Every few seconds I had to make a sharp turn. That was when I had this moment of thinking: this is what it’s like to be an orca in captivity, in a pool that’s a tiny fraction of its natural range.”

MORE:  A sad ending for the ‘world’s loneliest polar bear’

However passionate his personal beliefs, Boyd is confident his arguments are not out ahead of public opinion. Some of the aims of fellow rights-of-nature activists startle even him. When Ecuadoreans started talking about putting the rights of nature in their constitution in 2006, “my brain spun 180 degrees on its axis, it was such a radical concept for a lawyer to try and contemplate.” In Canada, Boyd receives an attentive hearing when he points out that while the end he advocates may be revolutionary, the process he envisages is evolutionary. It’s modern Western thought on nature—that animals essentially are property—that’s the outlier, he tells people. Traditional Indigenous belief and contemporary scientists are in agreement that humans are more enmeshed in nature and that animals far more conscious and self-aware than Westerners once thought. As for the law, we have been here before: there was a time when slaves were property without basic rights, when in Canada women were not “legal persons.” All rights expansion begins as the unthinkable; it moves from ridicule to discussion to adoption. (That the last step has historically involved violence, Boyd does not add.)

But the argument that resonates most loudly in our alienated era is the same one that turned the tide with the Ecuadorian constitution: the law already accommodates non-human “legal persons,” and the main beneficiaries are corporations. “Proponents there asked citizens what’s more important to the future of life and prosperity on Earth, actual nature or these artificial business fictions? When it was phrased that way, many people who were skeptics became supporters.”

MORE:  The 10 most recent animal extinctions in Canada

There is no gilding the lily, Boyd says, in either direction, towards rights for nature or continued human supremacy. Humans annually kill 100 billion animals, domestic and wild—an average of 14 per person, meaning far more in the richer parts of the world—and continue to wreak havoc on the habitats of the survivors. The planet’s sixth great extinction rolls on. The World Wildlife Fund Canada’s Living Planet Report , released in September, 2017, details how half of Canada’s 900 species—mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians—show often catastrophic population declines since 1974. And Canada, according to UBC biologist Sarah Otto, is doing better than the world at large. The “precise meaning” of Boyd’s legal revolution may still be hazy, but at a minimum, he says, it will require immediately “ending the expansion of human settlements and agriculture,” even though demographers calculate the planetary population will increase by another two to three billion before it peaks. Capping human territorial expansion and establishing the rights of nature in a world of hungry people—large numbers of whom still refuse to consider many of their fellow humans as equals—is going to be a long, hard slog.

Boyd doesn’t see another way forward. “In order for us to prevent a catastrophic loss of diversity of life on Earth over the next 100 years, we’re going to have to undergo substantial transformation. Continued incrementalism, which I’ve been working on for much of my career as an environmental lawyer, isn’t getting the job done. You just have to look at the trend lines. To me this notion of nature’s rights has the potential to spur a transformation of our ethics, laws and most importantly our behaviours, in a way that results in a sustainable future not just for humans but for the rest of creation.”

MORE ABOUT  BOOKS :

• Salman Rushdie says Donald Trump is “demolishing reality”
• Helen Humphreys’ latest book is a hybrid of fiction and fact
• The five books everyone is talking about in September
• How CanLit was born
• In the world of Shari Lapena, everyone has a secret
• The five books everyone is talking about this August
• Inside the sell off of Canada’s literary heritage
• Books just keep getting longer