Introduction:

Since that time, the contention that animals possess 'rights' has been the subject of debates that are often
contentious and emotionally charged. The concept of "animal rights" is one that arises frequently, and it does so
in a variety of settings. Should we keep animals in farms? If so, what methods can you recommend? Should we
eat the meat of other animals? Should we go fishing and hunting for them? In the context of zoos, circuses,
horse racing, and other forms of entertainment involving animals, is it ethically permissible to employ animals
as sources of amusement? Concern for animals, like that for the environment, arises from an attachment to the
idea that Nature and the Earth are valuable places to live. It's possible that someone may bring up the issue of
animal rights during a discussion about biodiversity. The ethical standards in question are the subject of this
discussion.

The moral argument that all animals have the same rights as humans is the real driving force behind the animal
rights movement. This argument comes to the conclusion that conducting research on animals is immoral and
ought to be stopped, regardless of how useful the findings may be or how humanely the research is carried out,
on the grounds that all animals have the same rights as humans.

The meaning of animal rights is as follows:

The concept of animal rights refers to the belief that non-human animals should be granted the most
fundamental rights that are desired by all sentient beings. These rights include the liberty to live a natural life
unencumbered by human exploitation, unnecessary pain and suffering, and untimely death. This is the focus of
the animal rights movement; it is not an effort to achieve equality between humans and other species of animals.

The concept of animal rights refers to the idea that some or all non-human animals have a right to the ownership
of their own lives and that their most fundamental interests, such as the desire to live free from suffering, should
be given the same level of consideration as those of human beings who have similar interests.

The dilemma surrounding animal rights:

Animal rights activists contend that animals should no longer be considered property and should not be
exploited for human consumption, clothing, research subjects, entertainment, or as beasts of burden in any
context. Animism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism are just a few examples of the many religions and
philosophical schools from around the world that advocate for some sort of animal rights.

Animals are unable to engage into a social compact, and as a result, they cannot be possessors of rights,
according to those who oppose animal rights. They say that only humans have duties, and as a result, only
humans have rights. Roger Scruton, a prominent philosopher, was of the opinion that this should be done. The
use of animals as resources is permissible as long as there is no needless pain, which is an argument that is
similar to the first. They may have some moral standing, but their status is lower than that of human beings, and
to the extent that they have interests, those interests may be overruled. They are not on the same level as human
beings. Utilitarians subscribe to this point of view. Certain forms of animal rights activism, such as the
destruction of fur farms and animal laboratories by the Animal Liberation Front, have also attracted criticism,
including from within the animal rights movement itself. Additionally, these forms of animal rights activism
have prompted a reaction from the United States Congress, which resulted in the passage of the "Animal
Enterprise Protection Act" (amended in 2006 by the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act).

The conceptual underpinnings are as follows:

Aristotle and later the Stoics held the belief that the world was inhabited by an infinite number of beings that
were arranged in a hierarchical order according to the level of complexity and perfection that they possessed.
These beings ranged from the merely living to the merely sentient, the rational, and the wholly spiritual. In this
Great Chain of Being, every form of life was depicted as existing solely for the benefit of those forms that were
situated higher up the chain. Because of their higher level of rationality compared to other corporeal beings,
humans occupied the top place. Up until the middle of the 19th century, the Great Chain of Being was the
preeminent way of envisioning the universe in scientific, philosophical, and theological circles. It was one of the
most influential ways of thinking about the cosmos.

Stoics believed that all non-human animals were irrational and treated them as if they were slaves because of
this belief. After being championed by St. Augustine, these Stoic principles eventually found their way into
Christian theology. They were incorporated into Roman law, which may be seen mirrored in the treatises and
codifications of Justin, and then they were adopted by Europe in the 11th century, and eventually they were
forced into English (and, much later, American) common law. Animal welfare, on the other hand, remained a
relative backwater of philosophical inquiry and legal regulation until the latter decades of the 20th century.
During this time, arguments that urged respect for the interests of animals nearly vanished, and animal welfare
was not given much attention by the legal system.

The contemporary movement for the protection of animals:

The current animal rights movement is based on the fundamental idea that many nonhuman creatures have
inherent interests that require acknowledgment, consideration, and protection. This is the fundamental principle.
Animal rights activists believe that animals' moral and legal rights are derived from their ability to pursue their
fundamental interests. Regarding the moral rights of animals, there are a few significant schools of thought. Two
of the most prominent of these schools are represented by the philosophers Peter Singer of Australia and Tom
Regan of the United States.

Singer contends in his book published in 1975 titled "Animal Liberation" that the interests of humans and the
interests of animals should be given equal attention. Singer's book is titled "Animal Liberation." Singer is a
utilitarian, therefore he believes that activities are ethically correct to the extent that they maximize pleasure or
limit pain; the primary factor to take into account is whether or not an animal is sentient and may, as a result,
experience either pain or pleasure. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern utilitarianism, emphasized this point
when he wrote about animals and said, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? But, Can
They Go Through It? Singer contends that given the fact that animals are capable of experiencing suffering,
humans have a moral obligation to minimize or prevent the infliction of such suffering, just as they have an
obligation to minimize or prevent the infliction of suffering on other humans.

Regan, who is not a utilitarian, contends that at least some animals have fundamental moral rights due to the fact
that they possess the same advanced cognitive abilities that justify the attribution of fundamental moral rights to
humans. He does not believe that all animals have fundamental moral rights. These creatures have value not
only because of their usefulness but also because of the value that comes from their own nature. They are, in
Regan's words, "the subject of a life." [Citation needed] However, Regan, Singer, and the other philosophical
proponents of animal rights encountered opposition from some religious authors. [Citation needed]

These religious authors believed that since only humans possess an immortal soul, animals do not deserve the
same moral regard as humans and hence do not deserve moral attention at all. Many of them, following in the
footsteps of the Stoics, claimed that because animals are irrational, humans have no responsibilities toward
them. A few of them brought up the morally significant distinctions that exist between humans and other
animals, such as the ability to communicate, the existence of free choice, and participation in a moral society.
The problem with these counterarguments is that, with the exception of the theological argument, which cannot
be shown, none of them differentiate all people from all animals. The theological argument is the only exception
to this rule.

Conclusion:

Animal rights activists have been quite vocal in their condemnation of the more institutionalized and violent
treatment of animals in modern society, particularly in factory farms and laboratories engaged in biomedical
research, among other places. Animal rights teach us that there are certain things that are fundamentally
unethical to do to animals, and that there are also certain things that are unethical to do to animals in general.
Even if they are carried out in a humanitarian manner, those activities must not be carried out by human beings.
For instance, if it is recognized that animals have the right to avoid having their offspring bred and killed for
human consumption, then such practices should be prohibited. It doesn't matter if the animals are given five-star
treatment their entire lives and then are put to sleep without any fear or pain; what's being done is wrong, and
nothing can make it right. The moral argument that all animals have the same rights as humans is the real
driving force behind the animal rights movement. This argument comes to the conclusion that conducting
research on animals is immoral and ought to be stopped, regardless of how useful the findings may be or how
humanely the research is carried out, on the grounds that all animals have the same rights as humans.