good essay titles for animal rights

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

104 Animal Rights Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Animal rights is a topic of great importance in today's society. As our understanding of animals and their capabilities continues to grow, so does our responsibility to treat them with compassion and respect. Whether you are a student writing an essay or a concerned citizen looking to learn more about animal rights, here are 104 topic ideas and examples to inspire and inform your writing:

• The ethical implications of animal testing in scientific research.
• The impact of factory farming on animal welfare and the environment.
• The effectiveness of animal rights organizations in promoting change.
• The role of animal rights in the vegan and vegetarian movements.
• The relationship between animal cruelty and violence towards humans.
• The rights of animals in captivity, such as in zoos or aquariums.
• The controversy surrounding the use of animals in entertainment, such as circuses or rodeos.
• The moral dilemma of using animals for their fur or skin in the fashion industry.
• The legal protections for animals and their enforcement.
• The connection between animal rights and environmental conservation efforts.
• The role of pets in our society and their rights as sentient beings.
• The impact of hunting and trophy hunting on animal populations.
• The use of animals in medical research and the search for alternatives.
• The treatment of animals in the food industry, including slaughterhouses and fishing practices.
• The rights of endangered species and efforts to protect them.
• The psychological and emotional experiences of animals in different environments.
• The impact of climate change on animal habitats and their rights to survival.
• The role of animals in traditional and indigenous cultures, and their rights within those contexts.
• The ethical considerations of using animals in product testing, such as cosmetics or cleaning products.
• The role of animals in therapy and their rights to be treated with care and respect.
• The impact of animal agriculture on deforestation and habitat destruction.
• The rights of animals in educational institutions, such as in dissection practices.
• The role of animals in scientific advancements and the ethical boundaries that should be considered.
• The impact of animal trafficking and the illegal trade of exotic animals.
• The rights of animals in the entertainment industry, including in movies and TV shows.
• The connection between animal rights and feminism, and the intersectionality of these movements.
• The rights of animals in the tourism industry, including elephant rides or swimming with dolphins.
• The role of animals in sports and the ethical implications of their use.
• The impact of animal rights activism and the strategies used to promote change.
• The rights of animals in disaster situations and the importance of disaster management plans.
• The connection between animal abuse and domestic violence, and the need for intervention.
• The rights of animals in scientific experimentation, including the use of primates or rodents.
• The ethical considerations of using animals in circuses, including the training methods used.
• The impact of animal agriculture on water pollution and the rights of aquatic animals.
• The rights of animals in the pet trade, including puppy mills and exotic pet ownership.
• The connection between animal rights and indigenous rights, and the need for cultural sensitivity.
• The ethical implications of using animals for organ transplantation or medical advancements.
• The rights of animals in the fashion industry, including the use of fur or exotic skins.
• The impact of animal rights legislation on farming practices and the economy.
• The role of animals in human therapy and their rights to be treated with dignity and respect.
• The rights of animals in the military and the ethical considerations of using them in warfare.
• The connection between animal rights and children's education, and the importance of teaching empathy.
• The impact of animal rights on the tourism industry and the promotion of ethical travel.
• The rights of animals in the pet food industry and the regulations that should be in place.
• The ethical considerations of using animals for entertainment purposes, such as in theme parks.
• The connection between animal rights and climate justice, and the need for intersectional activism.
• The rights of animals in research institutions and the importance of ethical guidelines.
• The impact of animal rights on international trade and the need for global regulations.
• The role of animals in traditional medicine practices and the ethical implications involved.
• The rights of animals in the fashion accessories industry, such as in the production of leather goods.
• The ethical considerations of using animals in art and the boundaries that should be respected.
• The impact of animal rights on the pharmaceutical industry and the search for alternatives.
• The rights of animals in disaster response efforts and the importance of animal rescue teams.
• The connection between animal rights and environmental justice, and the need for collaboration.
• The rights of animals in the tourism industry, including in wildlife sanctuaries and safaris.
• The ethical implications of using animals for military experiments or weapons testing.
• The impact of animal rights on the food industry and the rise of plant-based alternatives.
• The role of animals in cultural traditions and the need for cultural sensitivity in animal rights.
• The rights of animals in the entertainment industry, including in commercials and advertisements.
• The connection between animal rights and social justice movements, such as Black Lives Matter.
• The ethical considerations of using animals in scientific education, such as dissection practices.
• The impact of animal rights on the pharmaceutical industry and the development of cruelty-free products.
• The rights of animals in disaster preparedness plans and the importance of evacuation protocols.
• The connection between animal rights and sustainable development goals, and the need for collaboration.
• The rights of animals in the fashion industry, including the use of animal-derived materials.
• The ethical implications of using animals for cosmetic testing and the search for alternatives.
• The impact of animal rights on the tourism industry and the promotion of ethical travel practices.
• The role of animals in cultural heritage and the importance of preserving their rights.
• The rights of animals in research institutions and the regulations that should be in place.
• The connection between animal rights and indigenous knowledge, and the need for cultural exchange.
• The ethical considerations of using animals in film and the boundaries that should be respected.
• The impact of animal rights on the pharmaceutical industry and the search for cruelty-free alternatives.
• The rights of animals in disaster response efforts and the importance of animal welfare organizations.
• The connection between animal rights and environmental sustainability, and the need for collective action.
• The rights of animals in the tourism industry, including in wildlife conservation projects.
• The ethical implications of using animals for military purposes, such as bomb detection dogs.
• The impact of animal rights on the restaurant industry and the rise of plant-based menus.
• The role of animals in religious practices and the need for religious tolerance in animal rights.
• The connection between animal rights and LGBTQ+ rights, and the need for intersectional activism.
• The ethical considerations of using animals in scientific education, such as in university laboratories.
• The impact of animal rights on the pharmaceutical industry and the development of cruelty-free medications.
• The rights of animals in disaster relief efforts and the importance of veterinary care.
• The connection between animal rights and sustainable agriculture, and the need for ethical farming practices.
• The ethical implications of using animals for cosmetic testing and the search for cruelty-free alternatives.
• The impact of animal rights on the tourism industry and the promotion of eco-friendly travel.
• The role of animals in cultural heritage and the importance of respecting their rights.
• The connection between animal rights and traditional knowledge, and the need for cultural exchange.
• The impact of animal rights on the pharmaceutical industry and the search for cruelty-free medications.
• The rights of animals in disaster response efforts and the importance of emergency veterinary care.
• The connection between animal rights and sustainable development, and the need for collaborative efforts.
• The rights of animals in the tourism industry, including in responsible wildlife tourism.
• The ethical implications of using animals for military purposes, such as search and rescue dogs.
• The impact of animal rights on the food industry and the rise of plant-based diets.
• The rights of animals in the entertainment industry, including in live performances and shows.
• The connection between animal rights and disability rights, and the importance of inclusion.
• The ethical considerations of using animals in scientific education, such as in school laboratories.
• The connection between animal rights and sustainable fashion, and the need for ethical clothing choices.

These topics provide a broad range of perspectives and issues within the field of animal rights. Whether you choose to focus on the ethical implications, legal protections, or the impact on various industries, there is no shortage of ideas to explore. Remember to conduct thorough research, consider different viewpoints, and present a well-balanced argument in your essay. Happy writing!

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

Animal Rights Essay: Topics, Outline, & Writing Tips

• 🐇 Animal Rights Essay: the Basics
• 💡 Animal Rights Essay Topics
• 📑 Outlining Your Essay
• ✍️ Sample Essay (200 Words)

🔗 References

🐇 animal rights essay: what is it about.

Animal rights supporters advocate for the idea that animals should have the same freedom to live as they wish, just as humans do. They should not be exploited or used in meat , fur, and other production. At long last, we should distinguish animals from inanimate objects and resources like coal, timber, or oil.

Interdisciplinary research has shown that animals are emotional and sensitive, just like we are.

Their array of emotions includes joy, happiness, embarrassment, resentment, jealousy, anger, love, compassion, respect, disgust, despair, and even grief.

However, animal rights legislation does not extend human rights to animals. It establishes their right to have their fundamental needs and interests respected while people decide how to treat them. This right changes the status of animals from being property to being legal entities.

The statement may sound strange until we recall that churches , banks, and universities are also legal entities. Their interests are legally protected by law. Then why do we disregard the feelings of animals , which are not inanimate institutions? Several federal laws protect them from human interference.

But the following statements are only some of the rules that could one day protect animal rights in full:

• Animals should not be killed by hunting.
• Animals’ habitats should allow them to live in freedom.
• Animals should not be bred for sale or any other purpose.
• Animals should not be used for food by industries or households.

Most arguments against the adoption of similar laws are linked to money concerns. Animal exploitation has grown into a multi-billion-dollar industry. The lives of many private farmers depend on meat production, and most people prefer not to change the comfortable status quo.

Animal Rights Argumentative Essay

An animal rights argumentative essay should tackle a problematic issue that people have widely discussed. While choosing ideas for the assignment, opt for the most debatable topics.

Here is a brief list of argumentative essay prompts on animal rights:

• The pros and cons of animal rights.
• Can humanity exist without meat production?
• Do animals have souls?
• Should society become vegan to protect animal rights?

As you see, these questions could raise controversy between interlocutors. Your purpose is to take a side and give several arguments in its support. Then you’ll have to state a counterargument to your opinion and explain why it is incorrect.

Animal Rights Persuasive Essay

An animal rights persuasive essay should clearly state your opinion on the topic without analyzing different points of view. Still, the purpose of your article is to persuade the reader that your position is not only reasonable but the only correct one. For this purpose, select topics relating to your opinion or formulated in questionary form.

For example:

• What is your idea about wearing fur?
• Do you think people would ever ban animal exploitation ?
• Is having pets a harmful practice?
• Animal factories hinder the development of civilization .

💡 53 Animal Rights Essay Topics

• Animal rights have been suppressed for ages because people disregard their mental abilities .
• Cosmetic and medical animal testing .
• Laws preventing unnecessary suffering of animals mean that there is some necessary suffering.
• Red fluorescent protein transgenic dogs experiment .
• Do you believe animals should have legal rights?
• Genetically modified animals and implications .
• Why is animal welfare important?
• Neutering animals to prevent overpopulation: Pros and cons.
• Animal testing: Arguments for and against .
• What is our impact on marine life ?
• Some animals cannot stay wild .
• Animal testing for medical purposes .
• We are not the ones to choose which species to preserve.
• Pavlov’s dog experiment .
• Keeping dogs chained outdoors is animal neglect.
• The use of animals for research .
• Animal dissection as a learning tool: Alternatives?
• More people beat their pets than we think.
• Duties to non-human animals .
• If we do not control the population of some animals, they will control ours.
• Animals in entertainment: Not entertaining at all.
• Animals in research, education, and teaching.
• Which non-animal production endangers the species?
• Is animal testing really needed?
• Why do some people think that buying a new pet is cheaper than paying for medical treatment of the old one?
• Animal experiments: benefits, ethics, and defenders.
• Can people still be carnivorous if they stop eating animals?
• Animal testing role .
• Marine aquariums and zoos are animal prisons.
• Animal experimentation: justification arguments .
• What would happen if we replace animals in circuses with people, keeping the same living conditions?
• The ethics of animal use in scientific research .
• Animal sports: Relics of the past.
• Animal testing ban: counterargument and rebuttal .
• Denial to purchase animal-tested cosmetics will not change anything.
• Animal research, its ineffectiveness and amorality .
• Animal rights protection based on their intellect level: It tells a lot about humanity.
• Debates of using animals in scientific analysis .
• How can we ban tests on rats and kill them in our homes at the same time?
• Animal testing in experiments .
• What is the level of tissue engineering development in leather and meat production?
• Equal consideration of interests to non-human animals .
• Animals should not have to be our servants .
• Zoos as an example of humans’ immorality .
• We should feed wild animals to help them survive.
• Animal testing in biomedical research .
• Abolitionism: The right not to be owned.
• Do you support the Prima facie rights theory?
• Psychologist perspective on research involving animal and human subjects .
• Ecofeminism: What is the link between animals’ and women’s rights ?
• No philosophy could rationalize cruelty against animals.
• Qualities that humans and animals share .
• Ancient Buddhist societies and vegetarianism: A research paper.

Need more ideas? You are welcome to use our free research topic generator !

📑 Animal Rights Essay Outline

An animal rights essay should be constructed as a standard 5-paragraph essay (if not required otherwise in the assignment). The three following sections provide a comprehensive outline.

Animal Rights Essay: Introduction

An introduction consists of:

• Background information,
• A thesis statement .

In other words, here you need to explain why you decided to write about the given topic and which position you will take. The background part should comprise a couple of sentences highlighting the topicality of the issue. The thesis statement expresses your plans in the essay.

For example: In this essay, I will explain why animal-based production harms the ecology.

Animal Rights Essay: Main Body

The main body is a place for you to argue your position . One paragraph equals one argument. In informative essays, replace argumentation with facts.

Start each section with a topical sentence consisting of a general truth. Then give some explanation and more specific points. By the way, at the end of this article, you’ll find a bonus! It is a priceless selection of statistics and facts about animal rights.

Animal Rights Essay: Conclusion

A conclusion restates your central ideas and thesis statement. Approach it as a summary of your essay, avoid providing new facts or arguments.

✍️ Animal Rights Essay Example (200 Words)

Why is animal welfare important? The term “animal welfare” evokes the pictures of happy cows from a milk advertisement. But the reality has nothing to do with these bright videos. Humane treatment of animals is a relative concept. This essay explains why animal welfare is important, despite that it does not prevent farms from killing or confining animals.

The best way to approach animal welfare is by thinking of it as a temporary measure. We all agree that the current state of the economy does not allow humanity to abandon animal-based production. Moreover, such quick decisions could make farm animals suffer even more. But ensuring the minimum possible pain is the best solution as of the moment.

The current legislation on animal welfare is far from perfect. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 prevents cruelty against animals in labs and zoos. Meanwhile, the majority of suffering animals do not fall under its purview. For example, it says nothing about the vivisection of rats and mice for educational and research purposes, although the procedure is extremely painful for the creature. Neither does it protect farm animals.

Unfortunately, the principles of animal welfare leave too much room for interpretation. Animals should be free from fear and stress, but how can we measure that? They should be allowed to engage in natural behaviors, but no confined space would let them do so. Thus, the legislation is imprecise.

The problem of animal welfare is almost unresolvable because it is a temporary measure to prevent any suffering of domesticated animals. It has its drawbacks but allows us to ensure at least some comfort for those we unjustifiably use for food. They have the same right to live on this planet as we do, and animal farming will be stopped one day.

📊 Bonus: Statistics & Facts for Your Animal Rights Essay Introduction

Improve the quality of your essay on animal rights by working in the following statistics and facts about animals.

• According to USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service , about 4.6 billion animals — including hogs, sheep, cattle, chickens, ducks, lambs, and turkey — were killed and used for food in the United States last year (2015).
• People in the U.S. kill over 100 million animals for laboratory experiments every year, according to PETA .
• More than 40 million animals are killed for fur worldwide every year. About 30 million animals are raised and killed on fur farms, and nearly 10 million wild animals are hunted and killed for the same reasons — for their valuable fur.
• According to a report by In Defense of Animals , hunters kill more than 200 million animals in the United States yearly.
• The Humane Society of the United States notes that a huge number of cats and dogs — between 3 and 4 million each year — are killed in the country’s animal shelters. Sadly, this number does not include dogs or cats killed in animal cruelty cases.
• According to the ASPCA , about 7.6 million companion animals enter animal shelters in the United States yearly. Of this number, 3.9 Mil of dogs, and 3.4 Mil of cats.
• About 2.7 million animals are euthanized in shelters every year (1.4 million cats and 1.2 million dogs).
• About 2.7 million shelter animals are adopted every year (1.3 million cats and 1.4 million dogs).
• In total, there are approximately 70-80 million dogs and 74-96 million cats living as pets in the United States.
• It’s impossible to determine the exact number of stray cats and dogs living in the United States, but the number of cats is estimated to be up to 70 million.
• Many stray cats and dogs were once family pets — but they were not kept securely indoors or provided with proper identification.

Each essay on animals rights makes humanity closer to a better and more civilized world. Please share any thoughts and experience in creating such texts in the comments below. And if you would like to hear how your essay would sound in someone’s mind, use our Text-To-Speech tool .

• Why Animal Rights? | PETA
• Animal Rights – Encyclopedia Britannica
• Animal ethics: Animal rights – BBC
• Animal Health and Welfare – National Agricultural Library
• The Top 10 Animal Rights Issues – Treehugger
• Animal welfare – European Commission

Research Paper Analysis: How to Analyze a Research Article + Example

Film analysis: example, format, and outline + topics & prompts.

140+ Outstanding Animal Rights Research Paper Topics

An animal rights research paper is commonly written to highlight how animals get exploited by humans and how their rights are violated. The paper aims to bring out the various forms of abuse animals may face in the name of medical experimentation, entertainment, sports, shows, tricks, and pranks.

When writing an essay on animal rights topics for research paper, there are certain things to remember to have an effective writeup at hand. Often when your professor assigns you an essay, it could be focused on animal welfare vs. animal rights topics or may even require you to discuss conflicting approaches to animal rights.

Whatever your topic, make sure that you start by creating an outline for your writeup. This will help you organize your thoughts. Always have an impressive introduction as an overview. In the body, you can discuss the various aspects of the topic you want to bring out and conclude with your opinion.

It is always best to search online for some good sample essays. This will give you great ideas and a suitable example to proceed with. Compiled here are some great topics that you can consider for writing an impressive essay on animal rights. Take a look –

Animal Rights Research Topics

Here are some common animal rights topics that never get obsolete and make great titles to create effective and well-scoring essays. You will easily find information on these topics.

• The right of animals to be treated with respect – relevance and importance
• What are persuasive animal rights
• Why should we keep animals safe – importance and relevance to the present-day world
• Discussing at length the adverse effects of animal abuse
• Animal abuse – forms and effects
• Organizations against animal testing – history and progress
• Saving animals from ending up in labs
• Animal cruelty and how we ignore it
• How important is it to treat animals humanely
• Animal protection laws – an in-depth analysis
• Stringent laws needed to prevent animal abandonment
• Factors affecting animal adoption from shelters
• The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – an overview
• PETA – an overview across decades
• Human cruelty against animals – a violation of rights
• Types of human cruelty against animals
• The unknowing mistreatment rendered on animals
• Animal rights – a philosophical perspective
• Violence against animals – how can it be curtailed
• Better laws needed to prevent violence against animals
• Is animal life so cheap that it can be ended for research?
• Every baby animal needs their mommy just like humans – how do we justify
• Conservation reserves – is the environment suitable?
• Animal rights – what has changed in the US over the last three decades
• Animal rights – changes in the UK over the last two decades
• The moral philosophy behind human wrongs and animal rights
• Ecology, social justice, and animal rights – a relationship to understand
• Animal rights – a legal perspective
• The cruelty behind the sale of old animals for making leather
• Do animals really have any rights?
• Are wildlife reserves and national parks actually beneficial?
• What makes factory farm animal treatment inhumane?

Animal Rights Debate Topics

If you are looking for topics that offer ample scope for debate and make for the best argumentative essay topics about animal rights with a lot to write on, here are some good ones. Take a look:

• Farm animal housing – understanding animal rights and restrictions
• The egg industry – violations of animal rights and its effect
• Is it alright to use animals for research and experimentation
• Animal use for drug testing – The accurate picture
• Forbidding or reducing animal testing – which is the right approach
• Should imprisonment be applicable for perpetrators of animal abandonment?
• Analyzing the different perspectives in support of and against animal testing for drugs
• Is it the insufficiency of animal protection laws that is leading to an imbalance
• Animal abuse or animal welfare – what happens when animals are employed in shows and films.
• Why is there a need to protect animals from abuse?
• Laws related to animal abuse
• Should genetic engineering be banned on animals?
• Animal abandonment – is it justified?
• Purchasing meat – Does it support cruelty against animals?
• Use of traps for hunting animals – the immorality and cruelty of the act
• Is eating animals against their rights or just the norm of nature?
• Do we unknowingly mistreat animals and violate their rights?
• Pros and cons of using animals for entertainment
• Accepting cruelty happening in puppy mills and chicken farms
• The growing menace of elephant poaching and its aftermath
• Using animals for clothing and food – how justified is that
• Circus animals and their plight – can things change?
• Hunting for fun – is an open season a valid enough reason to take animal life?
• Defending violence against animals – how do we justify
• Poaching – what has changed in Africa over the decades
• Killing Turkey – Can we find another way to say ‘thanks.’
• Traditions Vs. Animal Abuse – A time to rethink and make amends
• Problems associated with stress responses in animal husbandry
• Eating animals for survival Vs. being a regular non-vegetarian
• Using cultured cells Vs. Animals in Labs
• Experimental testing on animals benefits animals and humans both
• Banning animal extinction caused by human action
• Euthanizing stray dogs – Humane or inhumane?
• Camel racing – entertaining or disturbing
• Is keeping fish in bowls without filters and oxygen ethical

Animal Rights Controversial Topics

These are topics that, when discussed, are sure to draw attention. You will find people to have strong opinions on them, and as a result, they become persuasive speech topics on animal rights. Here are a few to consider:

• Mistreatment of dogs for breeding and commercial sale
• Abuse of stray dogs and their relocation
• Animal abandonment – where does the law lack?
• Should FDA ban the use of animals for drug testing?
• Why is it unethical to conduct tests on animals
• Animal protection laws – are they sufficient?
• Are Hollywood and films world over propagating animal abuse
• How can we make animal abandonment detrimental?
• Are some dog breeds facing more abuse than others
• Bullfighting in Mexico – Its impact
• Dogfighting world over is a clear violation of animal rights
• Cockfights – a menace and its impact
• Genetic engineering on animals – the pitfalls
• Being violent against animals for fun sake – how is that justified.
• Is it alright to kill animals so that humans stand to benefit
• Separating dairy cows from their calves – Unethical and cruel
• Is legal hunting justified?
• Animal testing – breeding animals for experiments.
• Thanksgiving with Turkey – another case of animal abuse
• The other side of training dogs for shows
• Benefits of using animals for therapy – Are animal rights considered?
• Rescuing pets from abusive owners
• The killing of stray animals
• The economics of profit in animal health research
• How is animal testing justifiable in medicine but not in cosmetics?
• Chaining dogs outside the house – Is it ethical?
• How is euthanizing stray animals a humane solution
• Hunting for sport – inhumane and unethical
• Should animal races be allowed for entertainment?
• Need for better norms related to pet care and treatment
• Training penguins, seals, and dolphins at zoos must be banned.
• Poor factory farm conditions lead to avian flu and preventive killing of many birds.
• The breeding of foxes into companion animals – unethical
• How justified is capturing snakes for poison extraction
• Spraying and neutering of pets to keep population is checked as an acceptable solution

Hot Topics On Animal Rights

These are topics that will make grab attention and offer multiple perspectives to work with.

• Animal abuse based on fear of harm and misconception
• The need to reduce animal testing and experimentation
• Consider The Lobster’ – A review like none other
• Where do animal protection laws need amendment?
• Is research increasingly unethical against animals?
• What are the forms of animal abuse in everyday life
• The Whooping Cranes’ – How humans relate to animals
• Tiger poaching — the path to extinction of a species
• The growing need for strict legal action against animal abuse
• Animal abandonment – are our laws enough
• Eating animals – an act against animal rights
• Growing instances of sex with animals – an unfathomable abuse
• Do we need stricter laws against poaching?
• Can circus animals be rehabilitated?
• Keeping wild animals as pets – a form of animal abuse
• Illegal hunting – a massive problem for wildlife
• How we benefit from animal testing
• Animal husbandry and the humane treatment of animals
• Dolphin training in zoos – Is it ethical
• Creating zoos in big cities – is it not an animal rights violation

Interesting Animal Rights Research Paper Topics

Here are some topics you will enjoy working on, and they will help you create an equally exciting writeup for discussion or submission as essay.

• Alternative approaches to product testing to protect animals
• Abandoned animals and what they go through
• Are shelters doing enough for abandoned animals?
• How humans are mindlessly violent against animals
• Poaching – a significant threat to wildlife
• The illegal trade of Bengal Tiger skin and the ethics of animal rights violation
• How is killing for research justified as non-abusive against animals?
• Animal abuse – an ignored global issue with profound impact
• Animal Testing – A burning question the world needs to answer
• Horse and camel racing – is the sport justified?
• Educating pet owners on the extent of commitment should be mandatory before adoption/buying
• Is it morally alright to keep exotic pets?
• Should laws be made to ban animal fashion
• Is it ethical to use live bugs as broaches and jewels
• The morality behind animal sacrifices in religious ceremonies.

If you are still unsure of what to write on and how to proceed with your essay, you can consider taking professional assignment help. For best-rated help with research paper, feel free to get in touch with us. We have some of the most experienced writers on our team who offer high-quality writing solutions to college students at cheap and affordable prices.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Get it done risk-free

With top experts across the board, 10 days to request free revisions, and a 60-day money-back guarantee, sleep tight while we handle your.

• Dissertation
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Book Report/Review
• Research Proposal
• Math Problems
• Proofreading
• Movie Review
• Cover Letter Writing
• Personal Statement
• Nursing Paper
• Argumentative Essay
• Research Paper

How to Deal with Animal Right Essays: Quick & Simple Prompts

Table of Contents

Whether you’re a student at the Ethics, Biology, or Medicine department, you can receive an assignment to write animal right essays from time to time.

On the one hand, the task may seem simple and manageable at first glance. On the other hand, such essays (as any other type of academic work) require careful research, outlining, structuring, and writing in line with top academic standards. Thus, if you’re stuck on this task with no ideas in mind, read on to find valuable tips for this kind of essay.

Here we compiled valuable recommendations from our writing experts about:

• Finding an interesting, relevant topic.
• Composing an animal rights outline.
• Developing an effective animal rights thesis statement.
• Researching credible sources for animal right essays.
• Structuring your arguments.
• Effective editing and proofreading of the assignment.

Why It Is Important to Discuss Animal Rights

Whenever you approach writing about animal rights, this topic’s relevance always surfaces as a critical vantage point of your animal rights essays. It’s a commonly recognized fact that throughout history, humans have been too cruel toward animals, and they have ruined much of the authentic wildlife ecosystems in the process of industrialization and urbanization. As a result, numerous species lost their habitats and were urged to seek shelter elsewhere, thus altering other natural habitats by residing in places where they shouldn’t be.

Even in cities, where people and animals seem to have different lives, cruel treatment and abuse of human authority are evident.

First, pets are not always treated ethically and respectfully, mainly because of their legal status as human property.

Second, many pets are abandoned and flood the streets, where they are either killed by other street animals or are doomed to wandering the streets and surviving by eating trash and food remnants.

Third, corporate breeding animals for food (e.g., children farms and daily factories) is highly inhumane, involving cruel treatment of animals and their stay in awful conditions.

The situation with wildlife is not much better, with hunters and poachers killing wild animals for fun and entertainment. Fires and floods caused by human-made climate change also urge wild animals to seek shelter and food in human residences, which often ends in their killing or captivation.

Thus, as one can see, the problem of animal rights and human oppression of the planet’s fauna is pressing, with so many manifestations of unethical, inconsiderate, and cruel attitudes to all creatures, great and small.

Main Points to Elaborate on

Given the problems surrounding animal protection and rights today, you can approach the subject from numerous perspectives in your academic assignment:

• Legal rights of animals in your country or abroad. Comparison of legal policies towards wildlife and pet protection.
• Pet protection and a new legal status for pets.
• Legal and ethical standards for corporate farming.
• Legal and ethical standards for animal use with medical/experimental purposes.
• Wildlife protection and conservation.
• Protection of marine life from exploitative industrial practices.

How to Write Animal Rights Essay Introduction

All animal right essays should start with an impactful introduction so that your audience understands what you’re talking about, what you’re driving at, and what your key arguments are.

To achieve this goal, we recommend structuring an introduction as follows:

• First, discuss the broad context of the paper – animal rights in general, what kinds of rights they possess, and what abuses of those rights are observed globally.
• You may also boost the interest of your readers by citing some shocking stats or providing some anecdotal evidence. Anyway, this information should be relevant, pointing to the serious, pressing problem in the field of animal rights you have identified.
• Next, it’s vital to formulate the problem clearly and indicate how you will resolve/discuss it. It will be your thesis statement.

Following this structure, you’re sure to make a captivating intro that will urge your audience to read the paper until its end.

Animal Rights Essay Outline

To complete animal right essays quickly and effectively, you need to perform some pre-writing work. Composing an outline is always a helpful approach to organizing the basis for your writing process as you receive a roadmap for the further composition of your essay’s vital parts.

Here is a sample outline for a paper about pet rights and legal status. Still, you can successfully appropriate this outline for any other topic by following the instructions about each part’s content.

INTRODUCTION

Introduce your subject and give some background information. Underline the problem’s significance. State your key idea of the paper.

Pets are typically a part of the family in which they live, causing warm feelings and enjoying commitment from the people who invited them to their homes. Still, sadly, pets are considered property by law in 90% of countries, limiting the protection of cruelly treated and abandoned animals. Thus, a legal change is required to improve pet coverage by law and enable animal rights advocates to take measures against pet maltreatment.

BODY OF THE PAPER

Paragraph #1-3 – Indicate a topic sentence with each paragraph’s key idea. Support that key idea with some supporting data from credible sources. Offer your interpretation of the information in those external sources. Make a transition to the next paragraph and then to the conclusion.

Paragraph #1 – statistics on pet maltreatment. Animal abandonment and abuse.

Paragraph #2 – protective legislation. E.g., the UK Animal Welfare Act (2007), felony animal cruelty laws in the USA.

Paragraph #3 – animal rights advocacy organizations (e.g., ALDF). Actions they take to prevent and minimize pet maltreatment.

Summarize your arguments concisely and refer them back to the general argument. Clarify the arguments’ significance for the broader subject of your research. Again, stress the importance of dwelling on this subject theoretically and with practical steps.

Pet abuse is still commonplace because of the legal status of home animals as human property. Still, numerous laws and activist organizations work to change the situation. A broader legal change is required to change pets’ status and enhance their protection.

How to Write Animal Rights Thesis Statement

The thesis statement for animal right essays should be clear and concise, communicating your central message and purpose of the paper. The thesis should not be too long or too short. It should also incorporate the central arguments you’ll expand in the following sections of your text.

In this way, this statement will function as your readers’ roadmap leading them from one argument to another one and helping them follow your logic.

20 Animal Topics for Research Papers – Choose the Best Idea

Looking for some bulletproof animal topics for research papers? Here is a list you can use on all occasions to compose various academic works with ease.

• Is it realistic to protect all animal rights today?
• Is the animals’ right to no selective breeding compatible with the human needs?
• What is the best way to protect animals from the harmful impact of humans?
• Is hunting ethical on any grounds?
• Hunting and animal species extinction – a need for a more effective protective policy.
• Is experimentation on animals generally avoidable?
• How does the human-made climate change affect the well-being of fauna?
• Is pet euthanasia a reality?
• The impact of massive fishing on biodiversity and fish species survival.
• Increasing peopling of suburbs and the loss of animal habitat – a reverse side of people’s flight from the vices of urbanization.
• What is the impact of invasive species on the local wildlife? Discuss with examples.
• Cruel handling of corporately farmed animals.
• Is overbreeding of pets a pressing problem? What are the far-reaching consequences of overbreeding?
• Destroying predators – a step towards human safety or an ecological crime? Discuss the fundamental role of predators in local wildlife and the adverse effects of these species’ minimization.
• Are police and military dogs given similar rights upon retirement as people who served their motherland? Discuss more extensive coverage of police/military dog health and care services.
• What kinds of experiments on animals are unavoidable to save people’s lives? And what are senseless and cruel?
• Animal abuse in zoos – the reverse side of human entertainment and endangered species conservation.
• Is it ethical to use animals in hard manual/agricultural labor?
• What can people do to enhance animal rights protection?
• Is it ethical to consider animals human property? The need for a legal change of pet status as a vital contribution to the more humane treatment of home pets.

With these topics, you’re sure to beat all professors’ expectations and develop an attention-grabbing, exciting argument.

Need Professional Help?

Writing animal right essays is an exciting activity that can help you hone your writing skills and, at the same time, enhance your understanding of the topic. But what can you do if the task seems too complicated or you have too little time for composing several urgent papers?

No panic; our service is available 24/7, and experts employed here are ready to respond to all student needs quickly and effectively. So, if you’re short of time or are stuck with no ideas in mind, no need to get an F for that essay. Contact us today, and our skilled authors will compose an impressive A-grade assignment to cover your back.

Place an order today and sit back, relaxing and knowing that your task is in the expert hands.

Preparing to Write a Depression Research Paper

HOW TO PREPARE AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Interesting Facts That Should Go into Your Essay on Sexual Harassment

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
• About University of Oxford Faculty of Law
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction: the need for legal animal rights theory, 2. can animals have legal rights, 3. do animals have (simple) legal rights, 4. should animals have (fundamental) legal rights, 5. conclusion.

• < Previous

Towards a Theory of Legal Animal Rights: Simple and Fundamental Rights

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Saskia Stucki, Towards a Theory of Legal Animal Rights: Simple and Fundamental Rights, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , Volume 40, Issue 3, Autumn 2020, Pages 533–560, https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaa007

• Permissions Icon Permissions

With legal animal rights on the horizon, there is a need for a more systematic theorisation of animal rights as legal rights. This article addresses conceptual, doctrinal and normative issues relating to the nature and foundations of legal animal rights by examining three key questions: can, do and should animals have legal rights? It will show that animals are conceptually possible candidates for rights ascriptions. Moreover, certain ‘animal welfare rights’ could arguably be extracted from existing animal welfare laws, even though these are currently imperfect and weak legal rights at best. Finally, this article introduces the new conceptual vocabulary of simple and fundamental animal rights, in order to distinguish the weak legal rights that animals may be said to have as a matter of positive law from the kind of strong legal rights that animals ought to have as a matter of future law.

Legal animal rights are on the horizon, and there is a need for a legal theory of animal rights—that is, a theory of animal rights as legal rights. While there is a diverse body of moral and political theories of animal rights, 1 the nature and conceptual foundations of legal animal rights remain remarkably underexplored. As yet, only few and fragmented legal analyses of isolated aspects of animal rights exist. 2 Other than that, most legal writing in this field operates with a hazily assumed, rudimentary and undifferentiated conception of animal rights—one largely informed by extralegal notions of moral animal rights—which tends to obscure rather than illuminate the distinctive nature and features of legal animal rights. 3 A more systematic and nuanced theorisation of legal animal rights is, however, necessary and overdue for two reasons: first, a gradual turn to legal rights in animal rights discourse; and, secondly, the incipient emergence of legal animal rights.

First, while animal rights have originally been framed as moral rights, they are increasingly articulated as potential legal rights. That is, animals’ moral rights are asserted in an ‘ought to be legal rights’-sense (or ‘manifesto sense’) 4 that demands legal institutionalisation and refers to the corresponding legal rights which animals should ideally have. 5 A salient reason for transforming moral into legal animal rights is that purely moral rights (which exist prior to and independently of legal validation) do not provide animals with sufficient practical protection, whereas legally recognised rights would be reinforced by the law’s more stringent protection and enforcement mechanisms. 6 With a view to their (potential) juridification, it seems advisable to rethink and reconstruct animal rights as specifically legal rights, rather than simply importing moral animal rights into the legal domain. 7

Secondly, and adding urgency to the need for theorisation, legal animal rights are beginning to emerge from existing law. Recently, a few pioneering courts have embarked on a path of judicial creation of animal rights, arriving at them either through a rights-based interpretation of animal welfare legislation or a dynamic interpretation of constitutional (human) rights. Most notably, the Supreme Court of India has extracted a range of animal rights from the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and, by reading them in the light of the Constitution, elevated those statutory rights to the status of fundamental rights. 8 Furthermore, courts in Argentina 9 and Colombia 10 have extended the fundamental right of habeas corpus , along with the underlying right to liberty, to captive animals. 11 These (so far isolated) acts of judicial recognition of animal rights may be read as early manifestations of an incipient formation of legal animal rights. Against this backdrop, there is a pressing practical need for legal animal rights theory, in order to explain and guide the as yet still nascent—and somewhat haphazard—evolution of legal animal rights.

This article seeks to take the first steps towards building a more systematic and nuanced theory of legal animal rights. Navigating the existing theoretical patchwork, the article revisits and connects relevant themes that have so far been addressed only in a scattered or cursory manner, and consolidates them into an overarching framework for legal animal rights. Moreover, tackling the well-known problem of ambiguity and obscurity involved in the generally vague, inconsistent and undifferentiated use of the umbrella term ‘animal rights’, this article brings analytical clarity into the debate by disentangling and unveiling different meanings and facets of legal animal rights. 12 To this end, the analysis identifies and separates three relevant sets of issues: (i) conceptual issues concerning the nature and foundations of legal animal rights, and, more generally, whether animals are the kind of beings who can potentially hold legal rights; (ii) doctrinal issues pertaining to existing animal welfare law and whether it confers some legal rights on animals—and, if so, what kind of rights; and (iii) normative issues as to why and what kind of legal rights animals ought ideally to have as a matter of future law. These thematic clusters will be addressed through three simple yet key questions: can , do and should animals have legal rights?

Section 2 will show that it is conceptually possible for animals to hold legal rights, and will clarify the formal structure and normative grounds of legal animal rights. Moreover, as section 3 will demonstrate, unwritten animal rights could arguably be extracted from existing animal welfare laws, even though such ‘animal welfare rights’ are currently imperfect and weak legal rights at best. In order to distinguish between these weak legal rights that animals may be said to have as a matter of positive law and the kind of strong legal rights that animals ought to have potentially or ideally, the new conceptual categories of ‘ simple animal rights’ and ‘ fundamental animal rights’ will be introduced. Finally, section 4 will explore a range of functional reasons why animals need such strong, fundamental rights as a matter of future law.

As a preliminary matter, it seems necessary to first address the conceptual issue whether animals potentially can have legal rights, irrespective of doctrinal and normative issues as to whether animals do in fact have, or should have, legal rights. Whether animals are possible or potential right holders—that is, the kind of beings to whom legal rights can be ascribed ‘without conceptual absurdity’ 13 —must be determined based on the general nature of rights, which is typically characterised in terms of the structure (or form) and grounds (or ultimate purpose) of rights. 14 Looking at the idea of animal rights through the lens of general rights theories helps clarify the conceptual foundations of legal animal rights by identifying their possible forms and grounds. The first subsection (A) focusses on two particular forms of conceptually basic rights—claims and liberties—and examines their structural compatibility with animal rights. The second subsection (B) considers the two main competing theories of rights—the will theory and interest theory—and whether, and on what grounds, they can accommodate animals as potential right holders.

A. The Structure of Legal Animal Rights

The formal structure of rights is generally explicated based on the Hohfeldian typology of rights. 15 Hohfeld famously noted that the generic term ‘right’ tends to be used indiscriminately to cover ‘any sort of legal advantage’, and distinguished four different types of conceptually basic rights: claims (rights stricto sensu ), liberties, powers and immunities. 16 In the following, I will show on the basis of first-order rights 17 —claims and liberties—that legal animal rights are structurally possible, and what such legal relations would consist of. 18

(i) Animal claim rights

To have a right in the strictest sense is ‘to have a claim to something and against someone’, the claim right necessarily corresponding with that person’s correlative duty towards the right holder to do or not to do something. 19 This type of right would take the form of animals holding a claim to something against, for example, humans or the state who bear correlative duties to refrain from or perform certain actions. Such legal animal rights could be either negative rights (correlative to negative duties) to non-interference or positive rights (correlative to positive duties) to the provision of some good or service. 20 The structure of claim rights seems especially suitable for animals, because these are passive rights that concern the conduct of others (the duty bearers) and are simply enjoyed rather than exercised by the right holder. 21 Claim rights would therefore assign to animals a purely passive position that is specified by the presence and performance of others’ duties towards animals, and would not require any actions by the animals themselves.

(ii) Animal liberties

Liberties, by contrast, are active rights that concern the right holder’s own conduct. A liberty to engage in or refrain from a certain action is one’s freedom of any contrary duty towards another to eschew or undertake that action, correlative to the no right of another. 22 On the face of it, the structure of liberties appears to lend itself to animal rights. A liberty right would indicate that an animal is free to engage in or avoid certain behaviours, in the sense of being free from a specific duty to do otherwise. Yet, an obvious objection is that animals are generally incapable of having any legal duties. 23 Given that animals are inevitably in a constant state of ‘no duty’ and thus ‘liberty’, 24 this seems to render the notion of liberty rights somewhat pointless and redundant in the case of animals, as it would do nothing more than affirm an already and invariably existing natural condition of dutylessness. However, this sort of ‘natural liberty’ is, in and of itself, only a naked liberty, one wholly unprotected against interferences by others. 25 That is, while animals may have the ‘natural liberty’ of, for example, freedom of movement in the sense of not having (and not being capable of having) a duty not to move around, others do not have a duty vis-à-vis the animals not to interfere with the exercise of this liberty by, for example, capturing and caging them.

The added value of turning the ‘natural liberties’ of animals into liberty rights thus lies in the act of transforming unprotected, naked liberties into protected, vested liberties that are shielded from certain modes of interference. Indeed, it seems sensible to think of ‘natural liberties’ as constituting legal rights only when embedded in a ‘protective perimeter’ of claim rights and correlative duties within which such liberties may meaningfully exist and be exercised. 26 This protective perimeter consists of some general duties (arising not from the liberty right itself, but from other claim rights, such as the right to life and physical integrity) not to engage in ‘at least the cruder forms of interference’, like physical assault or killing, which will preclude most forms of effective interference. 27 Moreover, liberties may be fortified by specific claim rights and correlative duties strictly designed to protect a particular liberty, such as if the state had a (negative) duty not to build highways that cut across wildlife habitat, or a (positive) duty to build wildlife corridors for such highways, in order to facilitate safe and effective freedom of movement for the animals who live in these fragmented habitats.

(iii) Animal rights and duties: correlativity and reciprocity

Lastly, some remarks on the relation between animal rights and duties seem in order. Some commentators hold that animals are unable to possess legal rights based on the influential idea that the capacity for holding rights is inextricably linked with the capacity for bearing duties. 28 Insofar as animals are not capable of bearing legal duties in any meaningful sense, it follows that animals cannot have legal (claim) rights against other animals, given that those other animals would be incapable of holding the correlative duties. But does this disqualify animals from having legal rights altogether, for instance, against legally competent humans or the state?

While duties are a key component of (first-order) rights—with claim rights necessarily implying the presence of a legal duty in others and liberties necessarily implying the absence of a legal duty in the right holder 29 —neither of them logically entails that the right holder bear duties herself . As Kramer aptly puts it:

Except in the very unusual circumstances where someone holds a right against himself, X’s possession of a legal right does not entail X’s bearing of a legal duty; rather, it entails the bearing of a legal duty by somebody else. 30

This underscores an important distinction between the conceptually axiomatic correlativity of rights and duties—the notion that every claim right necessarily implies a duty—and the idea of a reciprocity of rights and duties—the notion that (the capacity for) right holding is conditioned on (the capacity for) duty bearing. While correlativity refers to an existential nexus between a right and a duty held by separate persons within one and the same legal relation , reciprocity posits a normative nexus between the right holding and duty bearing of one and the same person within separate, logically unrelated legal relations.

The claim that the capacity for right holding is somehow contingent on the right holder’s (logically unrelated) capacity for duty bearing is thus, as Kramer puts it, ‘straightforwardly false’ from a Hohfeldian point of view. 31 Nevertheless, there may be other, normative reasons (notably underpinned by social contract theory) for asserting that the class of appropriate right holders should be limited to those entities that, in addition to being structurally possible right holders, are also capable of reciprocating, that is, of being their duty bearers’ duty bearers. 32 However, such a narrow contractarian framing of right holding should be rejected, not least because it misses the current legal reality. 33 With a view to legally incompetent humans (eg infants and the mentally incapacitated), contemporary legal systems have manifestly cut the connection between right holding and the capacity for duty bearing. 34 As Wenar notes, the ‘class of potential right holders has expanded to include duty-less entities’. 35 Similarly, it would be neither conceptually nor legally apposite to infer from the mere fact that animals do not belong to the class of possible duty bearers that they cannot belong to the class of possible right holders. 36

B. The Grounds of Legal Animal Rights

While Hohfeld’s analytical framework is useful to outline the possible forms and composition of legal animal rights, Kelch rightly points out that it remains agnostic as to the normative grounds of potential animal rights. 37 In this respect, the two dominant theories of rights advance vastly differing accounts of the ultimate purpose of rights and who can potentially have them. 38 Whereas the idea of animal rights does not resonate well with the will theory, the interest theory quite readily provides a conceptual home for it.

(i) Will theory

According to the will theory, the ultimate purpose of rights is to promote and protect some aspect of an individual’s autonomy and self-realisation. A legal right is essentially a ‘legally respected choice’, and the right holder a ‘small scale sovereign’ whose exercise of choice is facilitated by giving her discretionary ‘legal powers of control’ over others’ duties. 39 The class of potential right holders thus includes only those entities that possess agency and legal competence, which effectively rules out the possibility of animals as right holders, insofar as they lack the sort or degree of agency necessary for the will-theory conception of rights. 40

However, the fact that animals are not potential right holders under the will theory does not necessarily mean that animals cannot have legal rights altogether. The will theory has attracted abundant criticism for its under-inclusiveness as regards both the class of possible right holders 41 and the types of rights it can plausibly account for, and thus seems to advance too narrow a conception of rights for it to provide a theoretical foundation for all rights. 42 In particular, it may be noted that the kinds of rights typically contemplated as animal rights are precisely of the sort that generally exceed the explanatory power of the will theory, namely inalienable, 43 passive, 44 public-law 45 rights that protect basic aspects of animals’ (partially historically and socially mediated) vulnerable corporeal existence. 46 Such rights, then, are best explained on an interest-theoretical basis.

(ii) Interest theory

Animal rights theories most commonly ground animal rights in animal interests, and thus naturally gravitate to the interest theory of rights. 47 According to the interest theory, the ultimate purpose of rights is the protection and advancement of some aspect(s) of an individual’s well-being and interests. 48 Legal rights are essentially ‘legally-protected interests’ that are of special importance and concern. 49 With its emphasis on well-being rather than on agency, the interest theory seems more open to the possibility of animal rights from the outset. Indeed, as regards the class of possible right holders, the interest theory does little conceptual filtering beyond requiring that right holders be capable of having interests. 50 Given that, depending on the underlying definition of ‘interest’, this may cover all animals, plants and, according to some, even inanimate objects, the fairly modest and potentially over-inclusive conceptual criterion of ‘having interests’ is typically complemented by the additional, more restrictive moral criterion of ‘having moral status’. 51 Pursuant to this limitation, not just any being capable of having interests can have rights, but only those whose well-being is not merely of instrumental, but of intrinsic or ‘ultimate value’. 52

Accordingly, under the interest theory, two conditions must be met for animals to qualify as potential right holders: (i) animals must have interests, (ii) the protection of which is required not merely for ulterior reasons, but for the animals’ own sake, because their well-being is intrinsically valuable. Now, whether animals are capable of having interests in the sense relevant to having rights and whether they have moral status in the sense of inherent or ultimate value is still subject to debate. For example, some have denied that animals possess interests based on an understanding of interests as wants and desires that require complex cognitive abilities such as having beliefs and language. 53 However, most interest theories opt for a broader understanding of interests in the sense of ‘being in someone’s interest’, meaning that an interest holder can be ‘made better or worse off’ and is able to benefit in some way from protective action. 54 Typically, though not invariably, the capacity for having interests in this broad sense is bound up with sentience—the capacity for conscious and subjective experiences of pain, suffering and pleasure. 55 Thus, most interest theorists quite readily accept (sentient) animals as potential right holders, that is, as the kind of beings that are capable of holding legal rights. 56

More importantly yet for legal purposes, the law already firmly rests on the recognition of (some) animals as beings who possess intrinsically valuable interests. Modern animal welfare legislation cannot be intelligibly explained other than as acknowledging that the animals it protects (i) have morally and legally relevant goods and interests, notably in their welfare, life and physical or mental integrity. 57 Moreover, it rests on an (implicit or explicit) recognition of those animals as (ii) having moral status in the sense of having intrinsic value. The underlying rationale of modern, non-anthropocentric, ethically motivated animal protection laws is the protection of animals qua animals, for their own sake, rather than for instrumental reasons. 58 Some laws go even further by directly referencing the ‘dignity’ or ‘intrinsic value’ of animals. 59

It follows that existing animal welfare laws already treat animals as intrinsically valuable holders of some legally relevant interests—and thus as precisely the sorts of beings who possess the qualities that are, under an interest theory of rights, necessary and sufficient for having rights. This, then, prompts the question whether those very laws do not only conceptually allow for potential animal rights, but might also give rise to actual legal rights for animals.

Notwithstanding that animals could have legal rights conceptually, the predominant doctrinal opinion is that, as a matter of positive law, animals do not have any, at least not in the sense of proper, legally recognised and claimable rights. 60 Yet, there is a certain inclination, especially in Anglo-American parlance, to speak—in a rather vague manner—of ‘animal rights’ as if they already exist under current animal welfare legislation. Such talk of existing animal rights is, however, rarely backed up with further substantiations of the underlying claim that animal welfare laws do in fact confer legal rights on animals. In the following, I will examine whether animals’ existing legal protections may be classified as legal rights and, if so, what kind of rights these constitute. The analysis will show (A) that implicit animal rights (hereinafter referred to as ‘animal welfare rights’) 61 can be extracted from animal welfare laws as correlatives of explicit animal welfare duties, but that this reading remains largely theoretical so far, given that such unwritten animal rights are hardly legally recognised in practice. Moreover, (B) the kind of rights derivable from animal welfare laws are currently at best imperfect and weak rights that do not provide animals with the sort of robust normative protection that is generally associated with legal rights, and typically also expected from legal animal rights qua institutionalised moral animal rights. Finally, (C) the new conceptual categories of ‘ simple animal rights’ and ‘ fundamental animal rights’ are introduced in order to distinguish, and account for the qualitative differences, between such current, imperfect, weak animal rights and potential, ideal, strong animal rights.

A. Extracting ‘Animal Welfare Rights’ from Animal Welfare Laws

(i) the simple argument from correlativity.

Existing animal welfare laws are not framed in the language of rights and do not codify any explicit animal rights. They do, however, impose on people legal duties designed to protect animals—duties that demand some behaviour that is beneficial to the welfare of animals. Some commentators contend that correlative (claim) rights are thereby conferred upon animals as the beneficiaries of such duties. 62 This view is consistent with, and, indeed, the logical conclusion of, an interest-theoretical analysis. 63 Recall that rights are essentially legally protected interests of intrinsically valuable individuals, and that a claim right is the ‘position of normative protectedness that consists in being owed a … legal duty’. 64 Under existing animal welfare laws, some goods of animals are legally protected interests in exactly this sense of ultimately valuable interests that are protected through the imposition of duties on others. However, the inference from existing animal welfare duties to the existence of correlative ‘animal welfare rights’ appears to rely on a somewhat simplistic notion of correlativity, along the lines of ‘where there is a duty there is a right’. 65 Two objections in particular may be raised against the view that beneficial duties imposed by animal welfare laws are sufficient for creating corresponding legal rights in animals.

First, not every kind of duty entails a correlative right. 66 While some duties are of an unspecific and general nature, only relational, directed duties which are owed to rather than merely regarding someone are the correlatives of (claim) rights. Closely related, not everyone who stands to benefit from the performance of another’s duty has a correlative right. According to a standard delimiting criterion, beneficial duties generate rights only in the intended beneficiaries of such duties, that is, those who are supposed to benefit from duties designed to protect their interests. 67 Yet, animal welfare duties, in a contemporary reading, are predominantly understood not as indirect duties regarding animals—duties imposed to protect, for example, an owner’s interest in her animal, public sensibilities or the moral character of humans—but as direct duties owed to the protected animals themselves. 68 Moreover, the constitutive purpose of modern animal welfare laws is to protect animals for their own sake. Animals are therefore clearly beneficiaries in a qualified sense, that is, they are not merely accidental or incidental, but the direct and intended primary beneficiaries of animal welfare duties. 69

Secondly, one may object that an analysis of animal rights as originating from intentionally beneficial duties rests on a conception of rights precisely of the sort which has the stigma of redundancy attached to it. Drawing on Hart, this would appear to cast rights as mere ‘alternative formulation of duties’ and thus ‘no more than a redundant translation of duties … into a terminology of rights’. 70 Admittedly, as MacCormick aptly puts it:

[To] rest an account of claim rights solely on the notion that they exist whenever a legal duty is imposed by a law intended to benefit assignable individuals … is to treat rights as being simply the ‘reflex’ of logically prior duties. 71

One way of responding to this redundancy problem is to reverse the logical order of rights and duties. On this account, rights are not simply created by (and thus logically posterior to) beneficial duties, but rather the converse: such duties are derived from and generated by (logically antecedent) rights. For example, according to Raz, ‘Rights are grounds of duties in others’ and thus justificationally prior to duties. 72 However, if rights are understood not just as existentially correlative, but as justificationally prior to duties, identifying intentionally beneficial animal welfare duties as the source of (logically posterior) animal rights will not suffice. In order to accommodate the view that rights are grounds of duties, the aforementioned argument from correlativity needs to be reconsidered and refined.

(ii) A qualified argument from correlativity

A refined, and reversed, argument from correlativity must show that animal rights are not merely reflexes created by animal welfare duties, but rather the grounds for such duties. In other words, positive animal welfare duties must be plausibly explained as some kind of codified reflection, or visible manifestation, of ‘invisible’ background animal rights that give rise to those duties.

This requires further clarification of the notion of a justificational priority of rights over duties. On the face of it, the idea that rights are somehow antecedent to duties appears to be at odds with the Hohfeldian correlativity axiom, which stipulates an existential nexus of mutual entailment between rights and duties—one cannot exist without the other. 73 Viewed in this light, it seems paradoxical to suggest that rights are causal for the very duties that are simultaneously constitutive of those rights—cause and effect seem to be mutually dependent. Gewirth offers a plausible explanation for this seemingly circular understanding of the relation between rights and duties. He illustrates that the ‘priority of claim rights over duties in the order of justifying purpose or final causality is not antithetical to their being correlative to each other’ by means of an analogy:

Parents are prior to their children in the order of efficient causality, yet the (past or present) existence of parents can be inferred from the existence of children, as well as conversely. Hence, the causal priority of parents to children is compatible with the two groups’ being causally as well as conceptually correlative. The case is similar with rights and duties, except that the ordering relation between them is one of final rather than efficient causality, of justifying purpose rather than bringing-into-existence. 74

Upon closer examination, this point may be specified even further. To stay with the analogy of (biological) 75 parents and their children: it is actually the content of ‘parents’—a male and a female (who at some point procreate together)—that exists prior to and independently of possibly ensuing ‘children’, whereas this content turns into ‘parents’ only in conjunction with ‘children’. That is, the concepts of ‘parents’ and ‘children’ are mutually entailing, whilst, strictly speaking, it is not ‘parents’, but rather that which will later be called ‘parents’ only once the ‘child’ comes into existence—the pre-existing content—which is antecedent to and causal for ‘children’.

Applied to the issue of rights and duties, this means that it is actually the content of a ‘right’—an interest—that exists prior to and independently of, and is (justificationally) causal for the creation of, a ‘duty’, which, in turn, is constitutive of a ‘right’. The distinction between ‘right’ and its content—an interest—allows the pinpointing of the latter as the reason for, and the former as the concomitant correlative of, a duty imposed to protect the pre-existing interest. It may thus be restated, more precisely, that it is not rights, but the protected interests which are grounds of duties. Incidentally, this specification is consistent with Raz’s definition of rights, according to which ‘having a right’ means that an aspect of the right holder’s well-being (her interest) ‘is a sufficient reason for holding some other person(s) to be under a duty’. 76 Now, the enactment of modern animal welfare laws is in and of itself evidence of the fact that some aspects of animals’ well-being (their interests) are—both temporally and justificationally—causal and a sufficient reason for imposing duties on others. Put differently: animal interests are grounds of animal welfare duties , and this, in turn, is conceptually constitutive of animal rights .

In conclusion, existing animal welfare laws could indeed be analysed as comprising unwritten ‘animal welfare rights’ as implicit correlatives of the explicit animal welfare duties imposed on others. The essential feature of legal rules conferring rights is that they specifically aim at protecting individual interests or goods—whether they do so expressis verbis or not is irrelevant. 77 Even so, in order for a right to be an actual (rather than a potential or merely postulated) legal right, it should at least be legally recognised (if not claimable and enforceable), 78 which is determined by the applicable legal rules. In the absence of unequivocal wording, whether a legal norm confers unwritten rights on animals becomes a matter of legal interpretation. While theorists can show that a rights-based approach lies within the bounds of a justifiable interpretation of the law, an actual, valid legal right hardly comes to exist by the mere fact that some theorists claim it exists. For that to happen, it seems instrumental that some public authoritative body, notably a court, recognises it as such. That is, while animals’ existing legal protections may already provide for all the ingredients constitutive of rights, it takes a court to actualise this potential , by authoritatively interpreting those legal rules as constituting rights of animals. However, because courts, with a few exceptions, have not done so thus far, it seems fair to say that unwritten animal rights are not (yet) legally recognised in practice and remain a mostly theoretical possibility for now. 79

B. The Weakness of Current ‘Animal Welfare Rights’

Besides the formal issue of legal recognition, there are substantive reasons for questioning whether the kind of rights extractable from animal welfare laws are really rights at all. This is because current ‘animal welfare rights’ are unusually weak rights that do not afford the sort of strong normative protection that is ordinarily associated with legal rights. 80 Classifying animals’ existing legal protections as ‘rights’ may thus conflict with the deeply held view that, because they protect interests of special importance, legal rights carry special normative force . 81 This quality is expressed in metaphors of rights as ‘trumps’, 82 ‘protective fences’, 83 protective shields or ‘No Trespassing’ signs, 84 or ‘suits of armor’. 85 Rights bestow upon individuals and their important interests a particularly robust kind of legal protection against conflicting individual or collective interests, by singling out ‘those interests that are not to be sacrificed to the utilitarian calculus ’ and ‘whose promotion or protection is to be given qualitative precedence over the social calculus of interests generally’. 86 Current ‘animal welfare rights’, by contrast, provide an atypically weak form of legal protection, notably for two reasons: because they protect interests of secondary importance or because they are easily overridden.

In order to illustrate this, consider the kind of rights that can be extracted from current animal welfare laws. Given that these are the correlatives of existing animal welfare duties, the substance of these rights must mirror the content laid down in the respective legal norms. This extraction method produces, first, a rather odd subgroup of ‘animal welfare rights’ that have a narrow substantive scope protecting highly specific, secondary interests, such as a (relative) right to be slaughtered with prior stunning, 87 an (absolute) right that experiments involving ‘serious injuries that may cause severe pain shall not be carried out without anaesthesia’ 88 or a right of chicks to be killed by fast-acting methods, such as homogenisation or gassing, and to not be stacked on top of each other. 89 The weak and subsidiary character of such rights becomes clearer when placed within the permissive institutional context in which they operate, and when taking into account the more basic interests that are left unprotected. 90 While these rights may protect certain secondary, derivative interests (such as the interest in being killed in a painless manner ), they are simultaneously premised on the permissibility of harming the more primary interests at stake (such as the interest in not being killed at all). Juxtaposed with the preponderance of suffering and killing that is legally allowed in the first place, phrasing the residual legal protections that animals do receive as ‘rights’ may strike us as misleading. 91

But then there is a second subgroup of ‘animal welfare rights’, extractable from general animal welfare provisions, that have a broader scope, protecting more basic, primary interests, such as a right to well-being, life, 92 dignity, 93 to not suffer unnecessarily, 94 or against torture and cruel treatment. 95 Although the object of such rights is of a more fundamental nature, the substantive guarantee of these facially fundamental rights is, to a great extent, eroded by a conspicuously low threshold for permissible infringements. 96 That is, these rights suffer from a lack of normative force, which manifests in their characteristically high infringeability (ie their low resistance to being overridden). Certainly, most rights (whether human or animal) are relative prima facie rights that allow for being balanced against conflicting interests and whose infringement constitutes a violation only when it is not justified, notably in terms of necessity and proportionality. 97 Taking rights seriously does, however, require certain safeguards ensuring that rights are only overridden by sufficiently important considerations whose weight is proportionate to the interests at stake. As pointed out by Waldron, the idea of rights is seized on as a way of resisting, or at least restricting, the sorts of trade-offs that would be acceptable in an unqualified utilitarian calculus, where ‘important individual interests may end up being traded off against considerations which are intrinsically less important’. 98 Yet, this is precisely what happens to animals’ prima facie protected interests, any of which—irrespective of how important or fundamental they are—may enter the utilitarian calculus, where they typically end up being outweighed by human interests that are comparatively less important or even trivial, notably dietary and fashion preferences, economic profitability, recreation or virtually any other conceivable human interest. 99

Any ‘animal welfare rights’ that animals may presently be said to have are thus either of the substantively oddly specific, yet rather secondary, kind or, in the case of more fundamental prima facie rights, such that are highly infringeable and ‘evaporate in the face of consequential considerations’. 100 The remaining question is whether these features render animals’ existing legal protections non-rights or just particularly unfit or weak rights , but rights nonetheless. The answer will depend on whether the quality of special strength, weight or force is considered a conceptually constitutive or merely typical but not essential feature of rights. On the first view, a certain normative force would function as a threshold criterion for determining what counts as a right and for disqualifying those legal protections that may structurally resemble rights but do not meet a minimum weight. 101 On the second view, the normative force of rights would serve as a variable that defines the particular weight of different types of rights on a spectrum from weak to strong. 102 To illustrate the intricacies of drawing a clear line between paradigmatically strong rights, weak rights or non-rights based on this criterion, let us return to the analogy with (biological) ‘parents’. In a minimal sense, the concept of ‘parents’ may be essentially defined as ‘biological creators of a child’. Typically, however, a special role as nurturer and caregiver is associated with the concept of ‘parent’. Now, is someone who merely meets the minimal conceptual criterion (by being the biological creator), but not the basic functions attached to the concept (by not giving care), still a ‘parent’? And, if so, to what extent? Are they a full and proper ‘parent’, or merely an imperfect, dysfunctional form of ‘parent’, a bad ‘parent’, but a ‘parent’ nonetheless? Maybe current animal rights are ‘rights’ in a similar sense as an absent, negligent, indifferent biological mother or father who does not assume the role and responsibilities that go along with parenthood is still a ‘parent’. That is, animals’ current legal protections may meet the minimal conceptual criteria for rights, but they do not perform the characteristic normative function of rights. They are, therefore, at best atypically weak and imperfect rights.

C. The Distinction between Simple and Fundamental Animal Rights

In the light of the aforesaid, if one adopts the view that animals’ existing legal protections constitute legal rights—that is, if one concludes that existing animal welfare laws confer legal rights on animals despite a lack of explicit legal enactment or of any coherent judicial recognition of unwritten animal rights, and that the kind of rights extractable from animal welfare law retain their rights character regardless of how weak they are—then an important qualification needs to be made regarding the nature and limits of such ‘animal welfare rights’. In particular, it must be emphasised that this type of legal animal rights falls short of (i) our ordinary understanding of legal rights as particularly robust protections of important interests and (ii) institutionalising the sort of inviolable, basic moral animal rights (along the lines of human rights) that animal rights theorists typically envisage. 103 It thus seems warranted to separate the kind of imperfect and weak legal rights that animals may be said to have as a matter of positive law from the kind of ideal, 104 proper, strong fundamental rights that animals potentially ought to have as a matter of future law.

In order to denote and account for the qualitative difference between these two types of legal animal rights, and drawing on similar distinctions as regards the rights of individuals under public and international law, 105 I propose to use the conceptual categories of fundamental animal rights and other, simple animal rights. As to the demarcating criteria, we can distinguish between simple and fundamental animal rights based on a combination of two factors: (i) substance (fundamentality or non-fundamentality of the protected interests) and (ii) normative force (degree of infringeability). Accordingly, simple animal rights can be defined as weak legal rights whose substantive content is of a non-fundamental, ancillary character and/or that lack normative force due to their high infringeability. In contradistinction, fundamental animal rights are strong legal rights along the lines of human rights that are characterised by the cumulative features of substantive fundamentality and normative robustness due to their reduced infringeability.

The ‘animal welfare rights’ derivable from current animal welfare laws are simple animal rights. However, it is worth noting that while the first subtype of substantively non-fundamental ‘animal welfare rights’ belongs to this category irrespective of their infringeability, 106 the second subtype of substantively fundamental ‘animal welfare rights’ presently falls in this category purely in respect of their characteristically high infringeability. Yet, the latter is a dynamic and changeable feature, insofar as these rights could be dealt with, in case of conflict, in a manner whereby they would prove to be more robust. In other words, while the simple animal rights of the second subtype currently lack the normative force of legal rights, they do have the potential to become fundamental animal rights. Why animals need such fundamental rights will be explored in the final section.

Beyond the imperfect, weak, simple rights that animals may be said to have based on existing animal welfare laws, a final normative question remains with a view to the future law: whether animals ought to have strong legal rights proper. I will focus on fundamental animal rights—such as the right to life, bodily integrity, liberty and freedom from torture—as these correspond best with the kind of ‘ought to be legal rights’ typically alluded to in animal rights discourse. Given the general appeal of rights language, it is not surprising that among animal advocates there is an overall presumption in favour of basic human rights-like animal rights. 107 However, it is often simply assumed that, rather than elucidated why, legal rights would benefit animals and how this would strengthen their protection. In order to undergird the normative claim that animals should have strong legal rights, the following subsections will look at functional reasons why animals need such rights. 108 I will do so through a non-exhaustive exploration of the potential legal advantages and political utility of fundamental animal rights over animals’ current legal protections (be they animal welfare laws or ‘animal welfare rights’).

A. Procedural Aspect: Standing and Enforceability

Against the backdrop of today’s well-established ‘enforcement gap’ and ‘standing dilemma’, 109 one of the most practical benefits typically associated with, or expected from, legal animal rights is the facilitation of standing for animals in their own right and, closely related, the availability of more efficient mechanisms for the judicial enforcement of animals’ legal protections. 110 This is because legal rights usually include the procedural element of having standing to sue, the right to seek redress and powers of enforcement—which would enable animals (represented by legal guardians) to institute legal proceedings in their own right and to assert injuries of their own. 111 This would also ‘decentralise’ enforcement, that is, it would not be concentrated in the hands (and at the sole discretion) of public authorities, but supplemented by private standing of animals to demand enforcement. Ultimately, such an expanded enforceability could also facilitate incremental legal change by feeding animal rights questions into courts as fora for public deliberation.

However, while standing and enforceability constitute crucial procedural components of any effective legal protection of animals, for present purposes, it should be noted that fundamental animal rights (or any legal animal rights) are—albeit maybe conducive—neither necessary nor sufficient to this end. On the one hand, not all legal rights (eg some socio-economic human rights) are necessarily enforceable. Merely conferring legal rights on animals will therefore, in itself, not guarantee sufficient legal protection from a procedural point of view. Rather, fundamental animal rights must encompass certain procedural rights, such as the right to access to justice, in order to make them effectively enforceable. On the other hand, animals or designated animal advocates could simply be granted standing auxiliary to today’s animal welfare laws, which would certainly contribute towards narrowing the enforcement gap. 112 Yet, standing as such merely offers the purely procedural benefit of being able to legally assert and effectively enforce any given legal protections that animals may have, but has no bearing on the substantive content of those enforceable protections. Given that the issue is not just one of improving the enforcement of animals’ existing legal protections, but also of substantially improving them, standing alone cannot substitute for strong substantive animal rights. Therefore, animals will ultimately need both strong substantive and enforceable rights, which may be best achieved through an interplay of fundamental rights and accompanying procedural guarantees.

B. Substantive Aspect: Stronger Legal Protection for Important Interests

The aforesaid suggests that the critical function of fundamental animal rights is not procedural in nature; rather, it is to substantively improve and fortify the protection of important animal interests. In particular, fundamental animal rights would strengthen the legal protection of animals on three levels: by establishing an abstract equality of arms, by broadening the scope of protection to include more fundamental substantive guarantees and by raising the burden of justification for infringements.

First of all, fundamental animal rights would create the structural preconditions for a level playing field where human and animal interests are both reinforced by equivalent rights, and can thus collide on equal terms. Generally speaking, not all legally recognised interests count equally when balanced against each other, and rights-empowered interests typically take precedence over or are accorded more weight than unqualified competing interests. 113 At present, the structural makeup of the balancing process governing human–animal conflicts is predisposed towards a prioritisation of human over animal interests. Whereas human interests are buttressed by strong, often fundamental rights (such as economic, religious or property rights), the interests at stake on the animal side, if legally protected at all, enter the utilitarian calculus as unqualified interests that are merely shielded by simple animal welfare laws, or simple rights that evaporate quickly in situations of conflict and do not compare to the sorts of strong rights that reinforce contrary human interests. 114 In order to achieve some form of abstract equality of arms, animals’ interests need to be shielded by strong legal rights that are a match to humans’ rights. Fundamental animal rights would correct this structural imbalance and set the stage for an equal consideration of interests that is not a priori biased in favour of humans’ rights.

Furthermore, as defined above, fundamental animal rights are characterised by both their substantive fundamentality and normative force, and would thus strengthen animals’ legal protection in two crucial respects. On a substantive level , fundamental animal rights are grounded in especially important, fundamental interests. Compared to substantively non-fundamental simple animal rights, which provide for narrow substantive guarantees that protect secondary interests, fundamental animal rights would expand the scope of protection to cover a wider array of basic and primary interests. As a result, harming fundamentally important interests of animals—while readily permissible today insofar as such interests are often not legally protected in the first place 115 —would trigger a justification requirement that initially allows those animal interests to enter into a balancing process. For even with fundamental animal rights in play, conflicts between human and animal interests will inevitably continue to exist—albeit at the elevated and abstractly equal level of conflicts of rights—and therefore require some sort of balancing mechanism. 116

On this justificatory level , fundamental animal rights would then demand a special kind and higher burden of justification for infringements. 117 As demonstrated above, substantively fundamental yet highly infringeable simple animal rights are marked by a conspicuously low threshold for justifiable infringements, and are regularly outweighed by inferior or even trivial human interests. By contrast, the normative force of fundamental animal rights rests on their ability to raise the ‘level of the minimally sufficient justification’. 118 Modelling these more stringent justification requirements on established principles of fundamental (human) rights adjudication, this would, first, limit the sorts of considerations that constitute a ‘legitimate aim’ which can be balanced against fundamental animal rights. Furthermore, the balancing process must encompass a strict proportionality analysis, comprised of the elements of suitability, necessity and proportionality stricto sensu , which would preclude the bulk of the sorts of low-level justifications that are currently sufficient. 119 This heightened threshold for justifiable infringements, in turn, translates into a decreased infringeability of fundamental animal rights and an increased immunisation of animals’ prima facie protected interests against being overridden by conflicting considerations and interests of lesser importance.

Overall, considering this three-layered strengthening of the legal protection of animals’ important interests, fundamental animal rights are likely to set robust limits to the violability and disposability of animals as means to human ends, and to insulate animals from many of the unnecessary and disproportionate inflictions of harm that are presently allowed by law.

C. Fallback Function: The Role of Rights in Non-ideal Societies

Because contemporary human–animal interactions are, for the most part, detrimental to animals, the latter appear to be in particular need of robust legal protections against humans and society. 120 Legal rights, as strong (but not impenetrable) shields, provide an instrument well suited for this task, as they operate in a way that singles out and protects important individual goods against others and the political community as a whole. For this reason, rights are generally considered an important counter-majoritarian institution, but have also been criticised for their overly individualistic, antagonistic and anti-communitarian framing. 121 Certainly, it may be debated whether there is a place for the institution of rights in an ideal society—after all, rights are not decrees of nature, but human inventions that are historically and socially contingent. 122 However, rights are often born from imperfect social conditions, as a ‘response to a failure of social responsibility’ 123 and as corrections of experiences of injustice, or, as Dershowitz puts it: ‘ rights come from wrongs ’. 124 Historical experience suggests that, at least in non-ideal societies, there is a practical need for rights as a safety net—a ‘position of fall-back and security’ 125 —that guarantees individuals a minimum degree of protection, in case or because other, less coercive social or moral mechanisms fail to do so.

Yet, as Edmundson rightly points out, this view of rights as backup guarantees does not quite capture the particular need for rights in the case of animals. 126 It is premised on the existence of a functioning overall social structure that can in some cases, and maybe in the ideal case, substitute for rights. However, unlike many humans, most animals are not embedded in a web of caring, affectionate, benevolent relations with humans to begin with, but rather are caught up in a system of exploitative, instrumental and harmful relations. For the vast majority of animals, it is not enough to say that rights would serve them as fallbacks, because there is nowhere to fall from—by default, animals are already at (or near) the bottom. Accordingly, the concrete need for rights may be more acute in the case of animals, as their function is not merely to complement, but rather to compensate for social and moral responsibility, which is lacking in the first place. 127 To give a (somewhat exaggerated) example: from the perspective of a critical legal scholar, meta-theorising from his office in the ivory tower, it may seem easier, and even desirable, to intellectually dispense with the abstract notion of rights, whereas for an elephant who is actually hunted down for his ivory tusks, concrete rights may make a very real difference, literally between life and death. Therefore, under the prevailing social conditions, animals need a set of basic rights as a primary ‘pull-up’ rather than as a subsidiary backup—that is, as compensatory baseline guarantees rather than as complementary background guarantees.

D. Transformative Function: Rights as ‘Bridges’ between Non-ideal Realities and Normative Ideals

Notwithstanding that animals need fundamental rights, we should not fail to recognise that even the minimum standards such rights are designed to establish and safeguard seem highly ambitious and hardly politically feasible at present. Even a rudimentary protection of fundamental animal rights would require far-ranging changes in our treatment of animals, and may ultimately rule out ‘virtually all existing practices of the animal-use industries’. 128 Considering how deeply the instrumental and inherently harmful use of animals is woven into the economic and cultural fabric of contemporary societies, and how pervasive animal cruelty is on both an individual and a collective level, the implications of fundamental animal rights indeed seem far removed from present social practices. 129 This chasm between normative aspirations and the deeply imperfect empirical realities they collide with is not, however, a problem unique to fundamental animal rights; rather, it is generally in the nature of fundamental rights—human or animal—to postulate normative goals that remain, to some extent, aspirational and unattainable. 130 Aspirational rights express commitments to ideals that, even if they may not be fully realisable at the time of their formal recognition, act as a continuous reminder and impulse that stimulates social and legal change towards a more expansive implementation. 131 In a similar vein, Bilchitz understands fundamental rights as moral ideals that create the pressure for legal institutionalisation and as ‘bridging concepts’ that facilitate the transition from past and present imperfect social realities towards more just societies. 132

This, then, provides a useful lens for thinking about the aspirational nature and transformative function of fundamental animal rights. Surely, the mere formal recognition of fundamental animal rights will not, by any realistic measure, bring about an instant practical achievement of the ultimate goal of ‘abolishing exploitation and liberating animals from enslavement’. 133 They do, however, create the legal infrastructure for moving from a non-ideal reality towards more ideal social conditions in which animal rights can be respected. For example, a strong animal right to life would (at least in industrialised societies) preclude most forms of killing animals for food, and would thus certainly conflict with the entrenched practice of eating meat. Yet, while the current social normality of eating animals may make an immediate prohibition of meat production and consumption unrealistic, it is also precisely the reason why animals need a right to life (ie a right not to be eaten), as fundamental rights help to denormalise (formerly) accepted social practices and to establish, internalise and habituate normative boundaries. 134 Moreover, due to their dynamic nature, fundamental rights can generate successive waves of more stringent and expansive duties over time. 135 Drawing on Bilchitz, the established concept of ‘progressive realisation’ (originally developed in the context of socio-economic human rights) may offer a helpful legal framework for the gradual practical implementation of animal rights. Accordingly, each fundamental animal right could be seen as comprising a minimum core that has to be ensured immediately, coupled with a general prohibition of retrogressive measures , and an obligation to progressively move towards a fuller realisation . 136 Therefore, even if fundamental animal rights may currently not be fully realisable, the very act of introducing them into law and committing to them as normative ideals places animals on the ‘legal map’ 137 and will provide a powerful generative basis—a starting point rather than an endpoint 138 —from which a dynamic process towards their more expansive realisation can unfold.

The question of animal rights has been of long-standing moral concern. More recently, the matter of institutionalising moral animal rights has come to the fore, and attaining legal rights for animals has become an important practical goal of animal advocates. This article started out from the prefatory observation that the process of juridification may already be in its early stages, as judicially recognised animal rights are beginning to emerge from both animal welfare law and human rights law. With legal animal rights on the horizon, the analysis set out to systematically address the arising conceptual, doctrinal and normative issues, in order to provide a theoretical underpinning for this legal development. The article showed that the idea of legal animal rights has a sound basis in both legal theory as well as in existing law. That is, legal animal rights are both conceptually possible and already derivable from current animal welfare laws. However, the analysis has also revealed that the ‘animal welfare rights’ which animals may be said to have as a matter of positive law fall short of providing the sort of strong normative protection that is typically associated with legal rights and that is furthermore expected from legal animal rights qua institutionalised moral animal rights. This discrepancy gave rise to a new conceptual distinction between two types of legal animal rights: simple and fundamental animal rights.

While the umbrella term ‘animal rights’ is often used loosely to refer to a wide range of legal protections that the law may grant to animals, distinguishing between simple and fundamental animal rights helps to unveil important differences between what we may currently call ‘legal animal rights’ based on existing animal welfare laws, which are weak legal rights at best, and the kind of strong, fundamental legal rights that animals should have as a matter of future law. This distinction is further conducive to curbing the trivialisation of the language of animal rights, as it allows us to preserve the normative force of fundamental animal rights by separating out weaker rights and classifying them as other, simple animal rights. Lastly, it is interesting to note that, with courts deriving legal animal rights from both animal welfare law and from constitutional, fundamental or human rights law, first prototypes of simple and fundamental animal rights are already discernible in emerging case law. Whereas Christopher Stone once noted that ‘each successive extension of rights to some new entity has been … a bit unthinkable’ throughout legal history, 139 the findings of this article suggest that we may presently be witnessing a new generation of legal rights in the making—legal animal rights, simple and fundamental.

This article is the first part of my postdoctoral research project ‘Trilogy on a Legal Theory of Animal Rights’, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. For helpful comments on earlier versions of this article, I am indebted to William Edmundson, Raffael Fasel, Chris Green, Christoph Krenn, Visa Kurki, Will Kymlicka, Nico Müller, Anne Peters, Kristen Stilt, MH Tse, Steven White, Derek Williams and the anonymous reviewers for the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.

Seminally, Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (University of California Press 1983); Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights (OUP 2011).

See, notably, Matthew H Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (2001) 14 CJLJ 29; Tom L Beauchamp, ‘Rights Theory and Animal Rights’ in Tom L Beauchamp and RG Frey (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics (OUP 2011); William A Edmundson, ‘Do Animals Need Rights?’ (2015) 23 Journal of Political Philosophy 345; Gary L Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (first printed 1995, Temple UP 2007) 91ff; Steven M Wise, ‘Hardly a Revolution—The Eligibility of Nonhuman Animals for Dignity-Rights in a Liberal Democracy’ (1998) 22 Vt L Rev 793; Anne Peters, ‘Liberté, Égalité, Animalité: Human-Animal Comparisons in Law’ (2016) 5 TEL 25; Thomas G Kelch, ‘The Role of the Rational and the Emotive in a Theory of Animal Rights’ (1999) 27 BC Envtl Aff L Rev 1.

Much legal scholarship deals with animal rights in a rather cursory and incidental manner, because it typically focusses on parallel debates that are closely related to, but seen as preceding, the issue of rights. For example, much has been written about the systemic shortcomings of animal welfare legislation, which—within the entrenched animal welfare/rights-dualism—has served to undergird calls for shifting towards a rights -paradigm for legal protection of animals. Another focal point of legal scholars has been to change the legal status of animals from property to person , which is taken to be a prerequisite for right holding. Yet, even though legal rights for animals may be the ultimate goal informing these debates, surprisingly little detailed attention has been given to such envisaged legal animal rights per se.

Joel Feinberg, Social Philosophy (Prentice-Hall 1973) 67.

See eg Alasdair Cochrane, Animal Rights Without Liberation: Applied Ethics and Human Obligations (Columbia UP 2012) 14–15, 207 (whose ‘account of the moral rights of animals … proposes what the legal rights of animals ought to be ’); cf Joel Feinberg, ‘In Defence of Moral Rights’ (1992) 12 OJLS 149 (describing this indirect way of referencing legal rights as the ‘“There ought to be a law” theory of moral rights’, 156).

As noted by Favre, what is required is ‘that the legal system intervene when personal morals or ethics do not adequately protect animals from human abuse’. David Favre, ‘Integrating Animal Interests into Our Legal System’ (2004) 10 Animal Law Review 87, 88.

Even though moral and legal rights are intimately connected (see HLA Hart, ‘Are There Any Natural Rights?’ (1955) 64 Philosophical Review 175, 177), a somewhat distinct (or at least modified and refined) theorisation is warranted because, unlike moral animal rights, legal animal rights are constituted by legal systems, and their existence and scope have to be determined based on the applicable legal rules. As Wise puts it: ‘philosophers argue moral rights; judges decide legal rights’. Steven M Wise, Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights (Perseus 2002) 34.

Supreme Court of India 7 May 2014, civil appeal no 5387 of 2014 [27] [56] [62ff]; see further Kerala High Court 6 June 2000, AIR 2000 KER 340 (expressing the opinion that ‘legal rights shall not be the exclusive preserve of the humans’, [13]); Delhi High Court 15 May 2015, CRL MC no 2051/2015 [3] [5] (recognizing birds’ ‘fundamental rights to fly in the sky’).

Tercer Juzgado de Garantías de Mendoza 3 November 2016, Expte Nro P-72.254/15; this landmark decision was preceded by an obiter dictum in Cámara Federal de Casación Penal Buenos Aires, 18 December 2014, SAIJ NV9953 [2] (expressing the view that animals are right holders and should be recognized as legal subjects).

Corte Suprema de Justicia 26 July 2017, AHC4806-2017 (MP: Luis Armando Tolosa Villabona). This ruling was later reversed in Corte Suprema de Justicia 16 August 2017, STL12651-2017 (MP: Fernando Castillo Cadena). In January 2020, the Constitutional Court of Colombia decided against granting habeas corpus to the animal in question.

Similar habeas corpus claims on behalf of chimpanzees and elephants, brought by the Nonhuman Rights Project, have not been accepted by US courts. See, notably, Tommy v Lavery NY App Div 4 December 2014, Case No 518336.

On the ambiguity of the term ‘animal rights’, see eg Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson, ‘Rights’ in Lori Gruen (ed), Critical Terms for Animal Studies (University of Chicago Press 2018) 320; in using the umbrella term ‘animal rights’ without further specifications, it is often left unclear what exactly is meant by ‘rights’. For example, the term may refer to either moral or legal animal rights—or both. Furthermore, in a broad sense, ‘animal rights’ sometimes refers to any kind of normative protection for animals, whereas in a narrow sense, it is often reserved for particularly important and inviolable, human rights-like animal rights. Moreover, some speak of ‘animal rights’ as if they already existed as a matter of positive law, while others use the same term in a ‘manifesto sense’, to refer to potential, ideal rights.

Joel Feinberg, ‘Human Duties and Animal Rights’ in Clare Palmer (ed), Animal Rights (Routledge 2008) 409; the class of potential right holders comprises ‘any being that is capable of holding legal rights, whether or not he/she/it actually holds such rights’. Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 29.

See generally Alon Harel, ‘Theories of Rights’ in Martin P Golding and William A Edmundson (eds), Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (Blackwell 2005) 191ff.

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, ‘Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’ (1913) 23 Yale LJ 16; Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’ (1917) 26 Yale LJ 710.

See Hohfeld, ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions’ (n 15) 717; these Hohfeldian incidents of rights are merely ‘atomic’ units, whereas many common rights are complex aggregates, clusters or ‘molecular rights’ consisting of combinations thereof. ibid 746; Leif Wenar, ‘The Nature of Rights’ (2005) 33 Philosophy & Public Affairs 223, 225, 234.

First-order rights (claims and liberties) directly concern someone’s actual rather than normative conduct, whereas powers and immunities are second-order rights (‘meta-rights’) that concern other legal relations; by prioritising, for the sake of this analysis, first-order rights regarding (in)actions of and towards animals, this is not to say that second-order rights are not important to accompany and bolster the first-order rights of animals. For instance, just as many complex (eg fundamental) rights contain immunities, that is, the freedom from the legal power of another (the disability bearer) to change the immunity holder’s rights, animals’ claims and liberties may be bolstered by immunity rights that protect those first-order rights from being altered, notably voided, by others. For example, one of the most basic rights frequently discussed for animals, the ‘right not to be property’ (Gary L Francione, Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (first printed 2000, Temple UP 2007) 93ff), may be explained as an immunity that would strip away the legal powers that currently go along with the state of legal disposability entailed by animals’ property status, and would thus disable human ‘owners’ to decide over animals’ rights. As passive rights, immunities are quite easily conceivable as animal rights, because they are specified by reference to the correlative position, that is, by what the person disabled by the animal’s immunity right cannot legally do (see generally Matthew H Kramer, ‘Rights Without Trimmings’ in Matthew H Kramer, NE Simmonds and Hillel Steiner, A Debate Over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries (OUP 1998) 22). By contrast, a power refers to one’s control over a given legal relation and entails one’s normative ability to alter another’s legal position (see Hohfeld, ‘Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions’ (n 15) 55). Prima facie , powers may thus seem ill-suited for animals. This is because, unlike passive second-order rights (immunities), powers are active rights that have to be exercised rather than merely enjoyed and, unlike first-order active rights (liberties), powers concern the exercise of legal rather than factual actions and thus require legal rather than mere practical or behavioural agency. Notwithstanding, it may be argued that animals, not unlike children, could hold legal powers (eg powers of enforcement) that are exercisable through human proxies (cf Visa AJ Kurki, ‘Legal Competence and Legal Power’ in Mark McBride (ed), New Essays on the Nature of Rights (Hart Publishing 2017) 46).

For a discussion of Hohfeldian theory in the context of animal rights, see also Wise, ‘Hardly a Revolution’ (n 2) 799ff; Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (n 2) 96–7; Kelch, ‘The Role of the Rational’ (n 2) 6ff.

Joel Feinberg, ‘The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations’ in Joel Feinberg, Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy (Princeton UP 1980) 159; Hohfeld, ‘Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions’ (n 15) 55.

So far, animal rights theory has largely focussed on negative rights. See critically Donaldson and Kymlicka (n 1) 5ff, 49ff.

cf Wenar, ‘The Nature of Rights’ (n 16) 233.

See Hohfeld, ‘Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions’ (n 15) 55; Kramer, ‘Rights Without Trimmings’ (n 17) 10.

See eg Feinberg, ‘The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations’ (n 19) 162; but see Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 41–2 (arguing that it would not be impossible, though ‘cruel and perhaps silly’, to impose legal duties on animals).

A ‘liberty’ is the negation of ‘duty’ and may thus be redescribed as ‘no-duty’.

On the distinction between naked and vested liberties, see HLA Hart, ‘Legal Rights’ in HLA Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory (OUP 1982) 172.

Hart, ‘Legal Rights’ (n 25) 171, 173.

Hart, ‘Legal Rights’ (n 25) 171.

eg Richard L Cupp, ‘Children, Chimps, and Rights: Arguments from “Marginal” Cases’ (2013) 45 Ariz St LJ 1; see also Christine M Korsgaard, Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals (OUP 2018) 116ff.

See David Lyons, ‘Rights, Claimants, and Beneficiaries’ (1969) 6 American Philosophical Quarterly 173, 173–4.

Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 42.

Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 42.

In this vein, Tommy v Lavery NY App Div 4 December 2014, Case No 518336, p 4, 6; but see critically New York Court of Appeals, Tommy v Lavery and Kiko v Presti decision of 8 May 2018, motion no 2018-268, concurring opinion Judge Fahey.

For example, the Supreme Court of Colombia explicitly departed from this reciprocity paradigm and held that animals are right holders but not duty bearers. Corte Suprema de Justicia 26 July 2017, AHC4806-2017 (MP: Luis Armando Tolosa Villabona), 14ff; for a refutation of the contractarian reciprocity argument, see also Brief for Philosophers as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner-Appellant, Nonhuman Rights Project v Lavery 2018 NY Slip Op 03309 (2018) (Nos 162358/15 and 150149/16), 14ff.

See Peters (n 2) 45–6; David Bilchitz, ‘Moving Beyond Arbitrariness: The Legal Personhood and Dignity of Non-Human Animals’ (2009) 25 SAJHR 38, 42–3; Feinberg, ‘The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations’ (n 19) 163; but see Tommy v Lavery NY App Div 4 December 2014, Case No 518336, 5.

Leif Wenar, ‘The Nature of Claim Rights’ (2013) 123 Ethics 202, 207.

See Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 43.

See Kelch, ‘The Role of the Rational’ (n 2) 9.

For an overview, see generally Matthew H Kramer, NE Simmonds and Hillel Steiner, A Debate Over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries (OUP 1998).

Hart, ‘Legal Rights’ (n 25) 183, 188–9.

See Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 30; Hart, ‘Legal Rights’ (n 25) 185.

A problematic corollary of the will theory is its conceptual awkwardness, or inability, to accommodate as right holders not just non-human but also human non-agents, such as infants and the mentally incapacitated. As noted by Hart, ‘Are There Any Natural Rights?’ (n 7) 181, the will conception of rights ‘should incline us not to extend to animals and babies … the notion of a right’; see also Kramer, ‘Rights Without Trimmings’ (n 17) 69.

As pointed out by van Duffel, neither the will theory nor the interest theory may be a ‘plausible candidate for a comprehensive theory of rights’, and it may be best to assume that both theories simply attempt to capture the essence of different kinds of rights. See Siegfried van Duffel, ‘The Nature of Rights Debate Rests on a Mistake’ (2012) 93 Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 104, 105, 117 et passim .

Under the will theory, inalienable rights are not ‘rights’ by definition, as they precisely preclude the right holder’s power to waive the correlative duties. See DN MacCormick, ‘Rights in Legislation’ in PMS Hacker and J Raz (eds), Law, Morality, and Society: Essays in Honour of HLA Hart (OUP 1977) 198f; Kramer, ‘Rights Without Trimmings’ (n 17) 73.

The will theory is primarily modelled on active rights (liberties and powers) that directly facilitate individual autonomy and choice, but is less conclusive with regard to passive rights (claims and immunities) which do not involve any action or exercise of choice by the right holder herself. cf Harel (n 14) 194–5.

Hart, ‘Legal Rights’ (n 25) 190, conceded that the will theory does not provide a sufficient analysis of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights; legal animal rights, by contrast, are most intelligibly explained as public-law rights held primarily against the state which has correlative duties to respect and protect.

The will theory appears to limit the purpose of rights protection to a narrow aspect of human nature—the active, engaging and self-determining side—while ignoring the passive, vulnerable and needy side. Autonomy is certainly an important good deserving of normative protection, but it is hardly the only such good. See Jeremy Waldron, ‘Introduction’ in Jeremy Waldron (ed), Theories of Rights (OUP 1984) 11; MacCormick, ‘Rights in Legislation’ (n 43) 197, 208.

See Kelch, ‘The Role of the Rational’ (n 2) 10ff; for an interest-based approach to animal rights, see eg Feinberg, ‘The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations’ (n 19); Cochrane (n 5) 19ff.

Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 29; MacCormick, ‘Rights in Legislation’ (n 43) 192.

J Raz, ‘Legal Rights’ (1984) 4 OJLS 1, 12; Waldron, ‘Introduction’ (n 46) 12, 14.

See William A Edmundson, An Introduction to Rights (2nd edn, CUP 2012) 97; Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom (Clarendon Press 1986) 176; Feinberg, ‘The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations’ (n 19) 167.

See Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 33ff, 39.

Raz, The Morality of Freedom (n 50) 166, 177ff; see also Neil MacCormick, ‘Children’s Rights: A Test-Case for Theories of Right’ in Neil MacCormick, Legal Right and Social Democracy: Essays in Legal and Political Philosophy (OUP 1982) 159–60.

See RG Frey, Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals (OUP 1980) 78ff; HJ McCloskey, ‘Rights’ (1965) 15 The Philosophical Quarterly 115, 126; but see Tom Regan, ‘McCloskey on Why Animals Cannot Have Rights’ (1976) 26 The Philosophical Quarterly 251.

Harel (n 14) 195; Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 33.

See eg Feinberg, ‘The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations’ (n 19) 166; Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 39–40; Visa AJ Kurki, ‘Why Things Can Hold Rights: Reconceptualizing the Legal Person’ in Visa AJ Kurki and Tomasz Pietrzykowski (eds), Legal Personhood: Animals, Artificial Intelligence and the Unborn (Springer 2017) 79–80.

See eg Wenar, ‘The Nature of Claim Rights’ (n 35) 207, 227; Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 54; Feinberg, ‘The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations’ (n 19) 166.

See also Kurki, ‘Why Things Can Hold Rights’ (n 55) 80.

See Thomas G Kelch, ‘A Short History of (Mostly) Western Animal Law: Part II’ (2013) 19 Animal Law Review 347, 348ff; Bilchitz, ‘Moving Beyond Arbitrariness’ (n 34) 44ff; in this vein, the Constitutional Court of South Africa (8 December 2016, CCT 1/16 [57]) noted that ‘the rationale behind protecting animal welfare has shifted from merely safeguarding the moral status of humans to placing intrinsic value on animals as individuals ’ (emphasis added); the well-established German concept of ‘ethischer Tierschutz’ expresses this non-anthropocentric, ethical thrust of animal welfare law. See Margot Michel, ‘Law and Animals: An Introduction to Current European Animal Protection Legislation’ in Anne Peters, Saskia Stucki and Livia Boscardin (eds), Animal Law: Reform or Revolution? (Schulthess 2015) 91–2.

1999 Federal Constitution (Bundesverfassung) (CH), Article 120(2) and 2005 Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz) (CH), Article 1 and 3(a); 2010 Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz) (LI), Article 1; 2018 Animal Welfare Act (Loi sur la protection des animaux) (LU), Article 1; 1977 Experiments on Animals Act (Wet op de dierproeven) (NL), Article 1a; European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/63/EU of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes [2010] OJ L276/33, Recital 12.

See eg Steven M Wise, ‘Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals: The Case for Chimpanzees and Bonobos’ (1996) 2 Animal Law Review 179, 179; Richard A Epstein, ‘Animals as Objects, or Subjects, of Rights’ in Cass R Sunstein and Martha C Nussbaum (eds), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (OUP 2005) 144ff; Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (n 2) 91ff; Kelch, ‘The Role of the Rational’ (n 2) 18; Court of Appeal of Alberta, Reece v Edmonton (City) , 2011 ABCA 238 [6]; Herrmann v Germany App no 9300/07 (ECtHR, 26 June 2012), separate opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, 38; Noah v Attorney General HCJ 9232/01 [2002–2003] IsrLR 215, 225, 232, 253.

This type of current legal animal rights will be called ‘animal welfare rights’ in order to indicate their origin in current animal welfare laws.

See eg Cass R Sunstein, ‘Standing for Animals (with Notes on Animal Rights)’ (2000) 47 UCLA Law Review 1333 (claiming that current animal welfare law creates ‘a robust set of animal rights’ or even ‘an incipient bill of rights for animals’. ibid 1334, 1336); Bilchitz, ‘Moving Beyond Arbitrariness’ (n 34) 43ff, 48–9 (concluding that ‘the existing statutory framework can already be seen to confer certain legal rights upon animals’: 50 fn 61); Jerrold Tannenbaum, ‘Animals and the Law: Property, Cruelty, Rights’ (1995) 62 Social Research 539, 581; Beauchamp (n 2) 207; Wise, ‘Hardly a Revolution’ (n 2) 910ff; this view was endorsed by the Supreme Court of India 7 May 2014, civil appeal no 5387 of 2014 [27] (stating that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act ‘deals with duties of persons having charge of animals, which is mandatory in nature and hence confer corresponding rights on animals’).

See eg Joel Feinberg, ‘Human Duties and Animal Rights’ in Feinberg, Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty (n 19) 193–4 et passim ; Kramer, ‘Do Animals and Dead People Have Legal Rights?’ (n 2) 54; Wenar, ‘The Nature of Claim Rights’ (n 35) 218, 220; Visa AJ Kurki, A Theory of Legal Personhood (OUP 2019) 62–5.

Matthew H Kramer, ‘Legal and Moral Obligation’ in Martin P Golding and William A Edmundson (eds), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (Blackwell 2005) 188.

eg, for Sunstein correlativity seems to run both ways: ‘Not only do rights create duties, but the imposition of a duty also serves to create a right.’ Cass R Sunstein, ‘Rights and Their Critics’ (1995) 70 Notre Dame L Rev 727, 746.

On this objection, see also Kelch, ‘The Role of the Rational’ (n 2) 8–9.

See Lyons (n 29) 176; Waldron, ‘Introduction’ (n 46) 10; critically Kramer, ‘Rights Without Trimmings’ (n 17) 85ff; Visa AJ Kurki, ‘Rights, Harming and Wronging: A Restatement of the Interest Theory’ (2018) 38 OJLS 430, 436ff.

See eg Beauchamp (n 2) 207; Feinberg, ‘The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations’ (n 19) 161–2, 166; Bilchitz, ‘Moving Beyond Arbitrariness’ (n 34) 45–6; in this vein, a German high court held that, based on the criminal law justification of necessity (‘rechtfertigender Notstand’), private persons may be authorised to defend the legally protected goods of animals on behalf of the animals, independently of or even against the interests of their owners. OLG Naumburg, judgment of 22 February 2018, case no 2 Rv 157/17, recital II; on why animals need directed rather than indirect duties, see Edmundson, ‘Do Animals Need Rights?’ (n 2) 350ff.

See also Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (n 2) 100.

Hart, ‘Legal Rights’ (n 25) 181–2, 190.

MacCormick, ‘Rights in Legislation’ (n 43) 199.

Raz, The Morality of Freedom (n 50) 167, 170f; see also Alan Gewirth, ‘Introduction’ in Alan Gewirth, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications (University of Chicago Press 1982) 14.

See Kramer, ‘Rights Without Trimmings’ (n 17) 40.

Gewirth (n 72) 14.

For the sake of the argument, I am only referring to biological parents.

Raz, The Morality of Freedom (n 50) 166, 180–1.

See MacCormick, ‘Rights in Legislation’ (n 43) 191–2; Raz, ‘Legal Rights’ (n 49) 13–14.

According to some scholars, legal rights exist only when they are enforceable. See eg Ronald Dworkin, Justice for Hedgehogs (Harvard UP 2011) 405–6 (stating that legal rights are only those that the right holder is entitled to enforce on demand in directly available adjudicative processes).

A significant practical hurdle to the legal recognition of animal rights is that in virtually any legal order, animals are legal objects rather than legal persons. Because legal personhood and right holding are generally thought to be inextricably linked, many jurists refrain from calling the existing legal protections of animals ‘rights’. See critically Kurki, ‘Why Things Can Hold Rights’ (n 55) 71, 85–6.

See generally Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (n 2) 91ff.

On this, see Kai Möller, ‘Proportionality and Rights Inflation’ in Grant Huscroft, Bradley W Miller and Grégoire Webber, Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning (CUP 2014) 166; Harel (n 14) 197ff; Waldron, ‘Introduction’ (n 46) 14ff.

Ronald Dworkin, ‘Rights as Trumps’ in Waldron, Theories of Rights (n 46) 153.

Bernard E Rollin, ‘The Legal and Moral Bases of Animal Rights’ in HB Miller and WH Willliams (eds), Ethics and Animals (Humana Press 1983) 106.

Tom Regan, ‘The Day May Come: Legal Rights for Animals’ (2004) 10 Animal Law Review 11, 15–16.

Frederick Schauer, ‘A Comment on the Structure of Rights’ (1993) 27 Ga L Rev 415, 429 et passim .

Jeremy Waldron, ‘Rights in Conflict’ in Jeremy Waldron, Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981–1991 (CUP 1993) 209, 215–16 (emphasis added); see also Frederick Schauer, ‘Rights, Constitutions and the Perils of Panglossianism’ (2018) 38 OJLS 635, 637.

Correlative to Council Regulation (EC) 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing [2009] OJ L303/1, Article 4 and Annex I.

Correlative to European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/63/EU of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes [2010] OJ L276/33, Article 14(1)(2).

Correlative to 2008 Animal Welfare Ordinance (Tierschutzverordnung) (CH), Article 178a(3).

The permissive character of animal welfare law was highlighted by the Israeli High Court of Justice in a case concerning the force-feeding of geese. Commenting on the ‘problematic’ regulatory language, it noted that the stated ‘purpose of the Regulations is “to prevent the geese’s suffering.” Clearly these regulations do not prevent suffering; at best they minimize, to some extent, the suffering caused’. Noah v Attorney General (n 60) 234–5. See also Shai Lavi, ‘Humane Killing and the Ethics of the Secular: Regulating the Death Penalty, Euthanasia, and Animal Slaughter’ (2014) 4 UC Irvine Law Review 297, 321 (noting the disparity between ‘the resolution to overcome pain and suffering, which exists side-by-side with inhumane conditions that remain unchallenged and are often taken for granted’).

As MacCormick, ‘Children’s Rights’ (n 52) 159, has succinctly put it: ‘Consider the oddity of saying that turkeys have a right to be well fed in order to be fat for the Christmas table’; this is not to minimise the importance of existing animal welfare protections. Even though they are insufficient and weak compared to proper legal rights, that does not mean that they are insignificant. See, on this point, Regina Binder, ‘Animal Welfare Regulation: Shortcomings, Requirements, Perspectives’ in Anne Peters, Saskia Stucki and Livia Boscardin (eds), Animal Law: Reform or Revolution? (Schulthess 2015) 83.

eg correlative to 1972 Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz) (DE), § 1 and 17(1).

eg correlative to 2005 Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz) (CH), Article 1 and 26(1)(a).

eg derived from Animal Welfare Act 2006 (UK), s 4.

See eg Supreme Court of India 7 May 2014, civil appeal no 5387 of 2014 [62] (extracting from animal welfare law, inter alia , the right to life, to food and shelter, to dignity and fair treatment, and against torture); similarly, Court of Appeal of Alberta, Reece v Edmonton (City) , 2011 ABCA 238, dissenting opinion Justice Fraser [43].

For example, the prima facie right to be free from unnecessary pain and suffering is, in effect, rendered void if virtually any kind of instrumental interest in using animals is deemed necessary and a sufficient justification for its infringement.

See Edmundson, ‘Do Animals Need Rights?’ (n 2) 346; Harel (n 14) 198; Laurence H Tribe, ‘Ten Lessons Our Constitutional Experience Can Teach Us About the Puzzle of Animal Rights: The Work of Steven M Wise’ (2001) 7 Animal Law Review 1, 2.

See Waldron, ‘Rights in Conflict’ (n 86) 209–11.

See Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (n 2) 17ff, 109.

Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (n 2) 114.

For Schauer, a certain normative force seems to be constitutive of the concept of rights. He argues that a right exists only insofar as an interest is protected against the sorts of low-level justifications that would otherwise be sufficient to restrict the interest if it were not protected by the right. See Schauer, ‘A Comment on the Structure of Rights’ (n 85) 430 et passim .

In this vein, Sunstein holds that animal welfare laws ‘protect a form of animal rights, and there is nothing in the notion of rights or welfare that calls for much, or little, protection of the relevant interests’. Sunstein, ‘Standing for Animals’ (n 62) 1335.

On the universal basic rights of animals, see eg Donaldson and Kymlicka (n 1) 19ff.

‘Ideal right’ in the sense of ‘what ought to be a positive … right, and would be so in a better or ideal legal system’. Feinberg, Social Philosophy (n 4) 84.

In domestic public law, fundamental or constitutional rights are distinguished from other, simple public (eg administrative) law rights. Likewise, in international law, human rights can be distinguished from other, simple or ordinary international individual rights. See Anne Peters, Beyond Human Rights: The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law (CUP 2016) 436ff.

Indeed, substantively non-fundamental simple animal rights may be quite resistant to being overridden, and may sometimes even be absolute (non-infringeable) rights.

Nonetheless, the usefulness of legal rights is not undisputed within the animal advocacy movement. For an overview of some pragmatic and principled objections against animal rights , see Kymlicka and Donaldson (n 12) 325ff.

See generally Edmundson, ‘Do Animals Need Rights?’ (n 2); Peters (n 2) 46ff.

Today, animals’ legal protections remain pervasively under-enforced by the competent public authorities as well as practically unenforceable by the affected animals or their human representatives for lack of standing. See eg Sunstein, ‘Standing for Animals’ (n 62) 1334ff; Tribe (n 97) 3.

The link between rights and the legal-operational advantage of standing was famously highlighted by Christopher D Stone, ‘Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects’ (1972) 45 S Cal L Rev 450; see further Cass R Sunstein, ‘Can Animals Sue?’ in Cass R Sunstein and Martha C Nussbaum (eds), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (OUP 2005); Peters (n 2) 47–8.

See Stone (n 110) 458ff; Tribe (n 97) 3.

See eg Constitutional Court of South Africa 8 December 2016, CCT 1/16 (affirming the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ statutory power of private prosecution and to institute legal proceedings in case of animal cruelty offences).

See Frederick Schauer, ‘Proportionality and the Question of Weight’ in Grant Huscroft, Bradley W Miller and Grégoire Webber (eds), Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning (CUP 2014) 177–8.

See generally Saskia Stucki, Grundrechte für Tiere (Nomos 2016) 151ff.

For example, under the Swiss 2005 Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz), life itself is not a legally protected good, and the (painless, non-arbitrary) killing of an animal does not therefore require any justification.

See also Noah v Attorney General (n 60) 253–4 (pointing out that balancing different interests is ‘part and parcel of our legal system’).

See generally Edmundson, ‘Do Animals Need Rights?’ (n 2) 346; Sunstein, ‘Rights and Their Critics’ (n 65) 736–7.

On this threshold-raising conception of rights, see generally Schauer, ‘A Comment on the Structure of Rights’ (n 85) 430; Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard UP 1978) 191–2 (noting that a right cannot justifiably be overridden ‘on the minimal grounds that would be sufficient if no such right existed’).

At present, the overwhelming portion of permissible interferences with animals’ interests can hardly be said to be necessary or proportionate in any real sense of the word. See Francione, Introduction to Animal Rights (n 17) 9, 55.

As noted by Teubner, animal rights ‘create basically defensive institutions. Paradoxically, they incorporate animals into human society in order to create defences against the destructive tendencies of human society against animals’. Gunther Teubner, ‘Rights of Non-Humans? Electronic Agents and Animals as New Actors in Politics and Law’ (2006) 33 Journal of Law and Society 497, 521.

See eg Mark Tushnet, ‘An Essay on Rights’ (1984) 62 Tex L Rev 1363; Mary Ann Glendon, Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse (Free Press 1991); for a modern reformulation of the rights critique, see eg Robin L West, ‘Tragic Rights: The Rights Critique in the Age of Obama’ (2011) 53 Wm & Mary L Rev 713.

See generally Alan Dershowitz, Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (Basic Books 2004) 59ff.

See Sunstein, ‘Rights and Their Critics’ (n 65) 754.

Dershowitz (n 122) 9.

Jeremy Waldron, ‘When Justice Replaces Affection: The Need for Rights’ (1988) 11 Harv JL & Pub Pol’y 625, 629.

See Edmundson, ‘Do Animals Need Rights?’ (n 2) 358.

More generally, the practical need for rights as complementary or compensatory guarantees will vary depending on social context, and may be more immediate and pressing for the disempowered, disenfranchised, marginalised, victimised, vulnerable, disadvantaged or even oppressed portions of society. See generally Patricia J Williams, ‘Alchemical Notes: Reconstructing Ideals from Deconstructed Rights’ (1987) 22 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 401.

Donaldson and Kymlicka (n 1) 40, 49; see further Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (University of California Press 2004) 330ff, 348–9; Bilchitz, ‘Moving Beyond Arbitrariness’ (n 34) 69.

See Bilchitz, ‘Moving Beyond Arbitrariness’ (n 34) 69.

On the aspirational dimension of human rights, see generally Philip Harvey, ‘Aspirational Law’ (2004) 52 Buff L Rev 701.

ibid 717–18; Raz, ‘Legal Rights’ (n 49) 14–15, 19; ‘rights are to law what conscious commitments are to the psyche’. Williams (n 127) 424.

See David Bilchitz, ‘Fundamental Rights as Bridging Concepts: Straddling the Boundary Between Ideal Justice and an Imperfect Reality’ (2018) 40 Hum Rts Q 119, 121ff.

Donaldson and Kymlicka (n 1) 49; see also Gary L Francione, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (Temple UP 2007) 2.

cf Kymlicka and Donaldson (n 12) 331–2.

On the dynamic nature of rights and their generative power, see Raz, The Morality of Freedom (n 50) 171; Waldron, ‘Rights in Conflict’ (n 86) 212, 214.

See David Bilchitz, ‘Does Transformative Constitutionalism Require the Recognition of Animal Rights?’ (2010) 25 Southern African Public Law 267, 291ff.

Bilchitz, ‘Moving Beyond Arbitrariness’ (n 34) 71.

cf Harvey (n 130) 723 (noting that human rights will always remain a ‘work in progress rather than a finished project’); similarly, Kymlicka and Donaldson (n 12) 333.

Stone (n 110) 453.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1464-3820
• Print ISSN 0143-6503
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Animal Rights Essays

Animal Rights Argumentative Essay

Animal rights have been a consistent subject of debate, with animal activists emphasizing the need to differentiate between animal rights and welfare. The government’s failure to lay down sufficient legislation to help in the protection of animals from human predation has made it difficult for several people to believe in animal rights. It is essential to note that animal rights do not concern putting animals over and above humans but instead on the rejection of speciesism and sentience. Humans utilize several ways to exploit animals, including hunting, fur, circuses, and animal products like eggs and meat. There is an urgent need to help in securing strategies that will free animals from human exploitation. Therefore, this paper seeks to analyze the reasons against animal exploitation and reinforce the probable methods to uphold animal rights.

Struggling with your HW?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease. Just fill in your HW requirements and you can count on us!

• Customer data protection
• 100% Plagiarism Free

There is a general feeling that the use of animals for both scientific and medical research results yields significant improvement in living standards and medical advancements. Thus, it is sensible for many to agree over the use of animals to test how healthy or harmful a newly discovered medicine is before giving it to the human species for consumption (Lin n.p). However, such tests and exposure to chemicals often result in the killing of thousands of animals for courses that in some instances turn unhelpful (Garner 21). Therefore, animals’ mere use for sciences’ sake is unacceptable since the animals’ suffering vastly outweighs the satisfaction of human curiosity (Lin n.p). It is thus unnecessary to justify animal exploitation on immoral grounds.

Animals cannot think and make rational decisions concerning what should take place in their lives. However, the determination of rights should not be based on intelligence grounds. Otherwise, conducting intelligence tests would be necessary for all humans for them to enjoy certain fundamental rights. Exploiting animals based on their inability to think and reason is unreasonable (Lin n.p). This form of reasoning would mean that babies with no intelligence and mentally challenged humans would have no rights.

Preservation of animal rights and dignity is an appreciation for their life since it develops significant status. Individuals who hold contrary arguments on animal rights protection tend to believe that human life is more critical than animal life (Lin n.p). Therefore, destroying animal life to preserve human life is justifiable. This is an ineffective criterion to determine the importance of having rights since such are usually subjective, and individuals often have selfish personal interests (Garner 9). Interestingly, an individual may find their home-bred animals more important than a stranger in the neighborhood with this scope. It should not allow the individual to kill or misuse animals just for the sake of prioritizing and ranking the importance.

Used our essay samples for inspiration ?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

In conclusion, the concept that animals should have the ability to move freely without human interference and exploitation affirms the need for animal protection. With the ability to experience emotions, fear, pain, and happiness, the argument that the absence of cognitive abilities makes animals lesser than humans is baseless. Besides, arguments in favor of the protection of animals and giving more rights to animals does not mean putting them at the same level as humans, but attempts to show the value that animals have as a human source of food and labor objects. Therefore, upholding animals’ inherent value is critical for maintaining animals’ rights and ensuring the maintenance of a balanced and organized ecosystem where there is a significant minimization of human predation on animals.

Works Cited

• Garner, Robert, ed. Animal rights: The changing debate . Springer, 2016.
• Lin, Doris. What Are Animals Rights? 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-animal-rights-127600

Related Essays

Find Free Essays

We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling

Request must contain at least 2 characters

Popular Topics

Samples by Essay Type

Cite this page

About our services

Type Argumentative

Topic Animal Rights

Level College

This sample is NOT ORIGINAL. Get 100% unique essay written under your req

• Only $11 per page
• Free revisions included

Studyfy uses cookies to deliver the best experience possible. Read more.

Studyfy uses secured cookies. Read more.

Animal Rights

About animal rights, narrow the topic.

• Articles & Videos
• MLA Citation This link opens in a new window
• APA Citation This link opens in a new window

• Do animals have rights?
• Is animal experimentation justified?
• Should animals be allowed to experience pain for medical research?
• Should animals be used for food?
• Is animal experimentation bad science?
• Should the fur industry be shut down?
• How should substances which may be harmful to human health, be tested?
• What is acceptable pain?
• What obligations do humans have to animals?
• Are there alternatives to using animals for research?
• Would the advances in treatments for diseases have been possible without using animals?
• Should technologies replace animal dissection in science classes?
• Next: Library Resources >>
• Last Updated: Feb 6, 2024 11:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.broward.edu/animal_rights

• Services Paper editing services Paper proofreading Business papers Philosophy papers Write my paper Term papers for sale Term paper help Academic term papers Buy research papers College writing services Paper writing help Student papers Original term papers Research paper help Nursing papers for sale Psychology papers Economics papers Medical papers Blog

170 Animal Rights Research Paper Topics That Will Inspire You

Just as almost every social issue or topic can be written about as an essay or a research paper, so can you write about animal rights in either your dissertation, school essay, or whatever reason you’re writing a research paper for. Exploring your research writing with animal rights topics can provide you a lot to write about considering how mainstream the animal rights movement has been over time. When writing an essay on animal rights, there are so many angles through which you can structure your topic to get what you want. It’s better to hire a custom research paper service and get your papers complete on time.  Your research paper can either focus on animal welfare vs. animal rights topics, looking either at how animals are catered for today or the challenges animals in our societies face today and how they can be addressed. It’s important to note that animal rights topics for research papers can be drawn from different angles. Many sample topics engage animal rights issues and here are some of the modern topics to include in your animal rights research paper.

Animal Rights Research Paper Topics

The first step to understanding what you’re required to do when presented with a research paper on animal rights is to first understand the rationale behind animal rights. Animal rights focus on addressing the issue that surrounds the treatment of animals by humans and how with the enabling of animal rights, these issues can be curbed and in turn, the animal protected. There are so many topics that can be coined out when you’re writing precisely on animal rights. Here are some of them.

• Why do animals need to be treated with respect
• Local and exotic breeds: should crossbreeding be encouraged?
• The inhuman nature of animal experimentation.
• The use of animals for carrying out experiments and why it should be addressed
• Why animal rights should become legally binding across the globe
• The sustainability of animal rights sensitization
• Why animal advocates require legal backings
• How the growth of pet owners is gradually increasing the cases of pet abuse
• Navigating the pain and suffering of Animals
• Pet Abuse: why animals rights should be looked into
• How the embrace of vegetarianism is addressing the issue of using animals for food
• A sustainable measure on how to promote animal safety in the human environment
• The worth of animals as opposed to being used for consumption
• The inhumane nature of using animals as a means of transportation
• How the use of animals for sports can be detrimental to their health.
• How humans and animals can peacefully coexist
• An analysis of the animal legislative rights
• Legislation: how animals can feel safe in the environment
• How the legislation of animal rights affects man
• Should animals be viewed as properties?
• A study into the protection of animals in the United States.
• Why does animal cruelty will practically take longer to be eradicated
• The economic limitations animal rights can cause man
• A look into the future of animal rights in the human environment
• How culture backs animal cruelty

Animal Rights Debate Topics

Not every single human backs the animal rights movement. And the only way to draw the attention of people towards the challenges animals face in the human environment can be achieved in a research paper about animal rights that takes the form of a debate. Debates are mostly argumentative where either the speaker or writer compels the audience or reader through carefully chosen and thought out words to convey interests, ideas and emotion. There are so many growing conversations today surrounding animal rights and here are some animal rights debate topics to consider when writing.

• Does the promotion of animal rights affect humans?
• Mental health in animals: is that a real thing?
• Does the right of animals include the right of wild animals to exist as well?
• Why veterinary medicine should be encouraged in every locality
• Does the increase in the human population affect the welfare of animals?
• Do animals suffer challenges like distress and pain due to animal cruelty?
• Should every locality embrace the fundamental rules for animal protection?
• Should the law against animal violation be punitive?
• Can eating meat be completely stopped with the help of animal movements?
• How sustainable is the Vegan lifestyle to animal rights?
• The psychological effect of animal cruelty on animals
• The violation of animals right by using them as experiments and specimens
• Do animals have any legal rights?
• Should legal backing be encouraged for animals?
• Can the absence of legal rights affect the existence of animals?
• Are animals destined to be subjected to the whims of man?
• Animal right vs. animal welfare: what are the ways they diverge
• What are the moral backings of the use of animals for scientific research?
• Could personal belief play a role in animal cruelty?
• Does personal belief rub off on animal rights?
• Should animal welfare be chosen over animal rights?
• Why there needs to be a control to animal cruelty
• How historical events set the precedent for animal violation
• How history sets precedent for the animal rights movement
• Should the promotion of animal drugs for wild animals be encouraged?

Animal Rights Research Topics

Since the animal rights movement is still burgeoning, sensitizing people on the need to promote animal rights, there are therefore so many researchable topics into the subject that can be highlighted as a research topic. Here are some of them to look into.

• How the use of animals for food undermines animal rights
• How animal cruelty threatens to wipe off the existence of animals shortly
• The dispose of refuse into rivers, oceans, and seas and how detrimental it is to aquatic animals
• The regulation on scientific experiments on animals
• How hunting negates the animal rights movement
• Vegan lifestyle and how it promotes animal welfare and rights
• The role of empathy in the animal rights movement
• Animal welfare: the separation of domestic animals from wildlife
• The inbound nature of animal cruelty amongst animals
• Measures to curb animal cruelty amongst themselves
• Why sheep should be saved and wools forgone
• How detrimental human violence is to animals welfare
• Does owning a pet improve animal welfare?
• Affordable healthcare for animal welfare
• The role of zoo managers in animal welfare
• Animal welfare: the need for an affordable diet plan for animals
• The benefits of pet supplies to the animal rights movement
• Government’s role in improving the situation of animals and their welfare
• How Wildlife could wipe out domestic animals
• Should domestic animals be chosen over wildlife in the movement?
• The sustainable benefits of consuming organic eggs
• How crossbreeding benefits animals
• The potential threat of overbreeding.
• Fear is the default mode for most animals

Persuasive Speech Topics on Animal Rights

• Why purchasing meat should be discouraged to promote animal welfare
• Animal cruelty should be punitive
• Indecent acts against animals and how they must be addressed
• Why domestic animals should be tendered to more than wildlife
• Using chains as Dog leash is unethical
• Why animal rights agencies should supervise pet owners
• The moral backing of animals as pets
• Importance of cross-breeding amongst animals
• Why the view of animals as disposable is offensive
• Why domestic animals deserve human treatments
• Should how wild lives are a reason for animal cruelty?
• Surviving within a society without reliance on meat
• The importance of animal vaccination and checkups
• The diverse nature of domestic animal cruelty
• How egg consumption violates animals privacy
• Why farm animals need legal protections
• Why animals brought to the movies deserve compensation fees
• Another form of animal cruelty: Abandonment
• Effects of animal abandonment on animals
• Why animal insurance is important today
• The defense of violence on wildlife
• Getting leather from animals: how disturbing is that?
• The importance of protecting animals from violence, cruelty and the provision of shelter for them
• The importance of animal shelters and why they should be promoted

Animal Rights Controversial Topics

If you are passionate about animal rights and you’re embarking on writing an essay based on the topic, choosing controversial topics will give you an upper hand as you’ll be drawing in people’s attention through the topic of what you write as it’ll gradually marinate into the content of your work. The thing about choosing a controversial topic is that it requires that your essay will be persuasive enough to convey the thoughts and emotions.

• Why wildlife animals should be prioritized
• Why stray dogs and abandoned dogs should be fostered by founders
• Why humans must pay attention to animal abandonment
• Animals should be in the shelter and not in homes
• Why animal abandonment should be punishable by law
• The disturbing fact about bullfights
• Taking away chicken eggs and how unethical it is
• Invasion of animal privacy should be followed with adequate punishment
• The disturbing nature of butcher animals
• Animals play important roles in the society
• How Thanksgiving Turkey negates the principle of animal welfare
• License to rescue pets from violent homes
• Why pet emergency fund is important
• The use of animals as race materials: problematic or not?
• The importance of healthy eating for animals
• Why animal healthcare should be promoted.
• Domestic pets: why they need a hotline for rescue and protection
• The need to curb malnutrition in animals
• Why does the health of exotic animals matter more than their economic importance
• Animals should not be killed for human benefits
• Is it wise to keep animals as pets?
• Why the use of animals as a means of transportation should be stopped
• How to promote intensive care amongst animals
• The effect of climate change on animal health and welfare.

Argumentative Essay Topics About Animal Rights

So many conversations are ongoing on the need to prioritize the existence of animals and how to improve the general welfare of animals in society. These issues can be presented in an argumentative format and here are some topics that go in handy.

• Human violence is the leading cause of Animal cruelty
• Why embracing a vegan lifestyle will improve animal welfare
• Hunting as a sport contributes to the fatal extinction of animals
• How the continuous testing and experimentation using animals will lead to the decline of animals in the near future.
• Are farmers exposing animals to more harm?
• Why the legislation would improve the livelihood of animals
• Animal welfare for sustainable environmental growth
• Why pet adoption is better than buying pets
• Animal rights should be a human concern
• Why should the government legislate against the production of garments from animal skin
• Why animal rights should be included in students’ curriculum.
• Why butchering of animals is a barbaric practice
• Principal ways through which animal welfare can be encouraged
• Why society needs to pay more attention to the protection of wildlife
• Why cross-breeding amongst animals should be encouraged
• How water pollution is affecting aquatic animals
• Why do we need legislation for free pet healthcare
• Animal insurance should be free
• Domestic animals should be protected from wildlife
• How humans can improve the lives of animals through welfare
• Why animal welfare should be of community importance
• Testing of cosmetics on animals leads to health complications in animals
• Why animals should not be used for farm practices
• Why animals cannot protect themselves against abuse

Hot Topics on Animal Rights

Today, animals go through so much due to the increase in their commercial needs. With the help of movements on animal rights issues and the need to create awareness and consciousness on animal welfare and rights, so many aspects of animal-related topics are being looked into and some of the topic examples include:

• Battery cages for hen confinement as an animal welfare issue
• Factory farming: a growing discomfort to animal welfare
• The need to curb the slaughtering of wildlife for commercial purpose
• How overcrowded confinement causes depression in farm pigs
• Increase in the demand for Dairy milk as a challenge to Dairy cows
• Consumerism: a negative impact on Dairy Cows
• How Truth in labeling legislation will create awareness of animal cruelty
• A case study on how animal cruelty impacts the psychological well-being of farm animals
• The negative impact of Duck confinement
• How puppy farming risks the health of dogs
• The growing cases of animal cruelty on the wildlife.
• How factory farming affects animal welfare
• How overbreeding impacts the health and welfare of animals
• A psychological analysis of farm animals
• How animal cruelty negatively impacts animals
• Do animals develop mental aversions?
• How commercial slaughtering heightens animal violence
• Violence against animals and ways to curb it
• The displacement of animals through live exportation
• Undiagnosed depression amongst farm animals
• How Voiceless Animal Cruelty impacts animal welfare
• Addressing the issue of animal exploitation in American farm factories
• Growing need for animals shelters
• Why pet adoption should be encouraged

If you need the ideas and reliable assistance of professional writers or help with research paper writing on animal rights for your college essay, or you need assignment help in this field; look no further for there are expert online writers, best rated for their ability to coin brilliant research titles, carry out research writing effectively and also provide high-quality materials at an affordable and cheap rate. Contact us with a “ do my research paper now” request and get an A+. 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Terms & Conditions Loyalty Program Privacy Policy Money-Back Policy

Copyright © 2013-2024 MyPaperDone.com

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Rights

Essays on Animal Rights

As a college student, choosing the right essay topic is crucial to the success of your assignment. It's important to select a topic that not only interests you, but also allows for critical analysis and creative exploration. This webpage is designed to provide you with a variety of Animal Rights essay topics to consider, along with examples of and paragraphs for each topic.

Types of Animal Rights Essays and Topic Examples

Argumentative essays.

• The Ethics of Animal Testing
• Should Animals be Used for Entertainment?
• Animal Rights vs. Human Needs

Example Paragraph: The use of animals in scientific research has long been a controversial issue. While some argue that it is necessary for medical advancements, others believe it is unethical to subject animals to testing. In this essay, we will explore the ethical implications of animal testing and the potential alternatives.

Example Paragraph: The ethical implications of animal testing are complex and multifaceted. While there is no easy solution, it is crucial for society to continue exploring alternative methods that do not involve the use of animals.

Compare and Contrast Essays

• Differences in Animal Rights Laws Across Countries
• The Treatment of Domestic Animals vs. Wild Animals
• The Ethical Considerations of Eating Meat vs. Being Vegetarian

Example Paragraph: The treatment of animals varies significantly around the world, with different countries having their own laws and regulations. In this essay, we will compare and contrast the differences in animal rights laws across various countries, and explore the ethical implications of these differences.

Example Paragraph: It is clear that the treatment of animals is a complex issue that varies greatly depending on cultural, legal, and ethical considerations. By understanding these differences, we can work towards creating a more unified and compassionate approach to animal rights.

Descriptive Essays

• A Day in the Life of a Shelter Animal
• The Beauty of Wildlife Conservation
• The Emotional Lives of Farm Animals

Example Paragraph: The emotional lives of animals are often overlooked in discussions of animal rights. In this essay, we will delve into the emotional experiences of farm animals and the implications for their treatment and rights.

Example Paragraph: By acknowledging the emotional lives of farm animals, we can begin to reshape our perspective on their treatment and rights. It is crucial for society to recognize the emotional complexity of animals and work towards a more compassionate approach.

Persuasive Essays

• The Importance of Animal Rights Education
• Why We Should Ban Circuses that Use Animals
• The Moral Imperative to Protect Endangered Species

Example Paragraph: The use of animals in circuses has long been a topic of controversy. In this essay, we will explore the ethical implications of using animals for entertainment and argue for the banning of circuses that use animals.

Example Paragraph: It is clear that the use of animals in circuses raises significant ethical concerns. By advocating for the banning of these practices, we can work towards a more compassionate and ethical treatment of animals in entertainment.

Narrative Essays

• My Experience Volunteering at an Animal Shelter
• The Impact of Animal Rights Activism on My Life
• A Personal Reflection on the Importance of Compassion for Animals

Example Paragraph: My experience volunteering at an animal shelter opened my eyes to the challenges and joys of caring for animals in need. In this essay, I will reflect on the impact of this experience and the lessons I have learned about compassion and advocacy for animal rights.

Example Paragraph: Volunteering at the animal shelter has been a transformative experience that has deepened my understanding of the importance of compassion and advocacy for animal rights. It is crucial for individuals to continue advocating for the rights and welfare of animals in our society.

Puppy Mills Research Paper

Global concerns and debates regarding orca captivity, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Controversy of Zoos: Balancing Education, Conservation, and Ethics

The issue of animal abuse in modern world, the fight for animal rights and its importance, why wild animals should be conserved in captivity, 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

Discussion of The Issue of Animal Rights and Cruelty to Animals

Discussion of the worst cases of animal abuse, the principle of equality in accordance to animal rights, overview of the animal rights issues that can be identified nowadays, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Animal Rights Ethics: The Moral Dilemma with Animal Testing

Animal rights and cruelty in the circus life, animal deserve their own bill of rights, animal rights ethics and ineffectiveness of animal testing, the animal bill of rights is a step into the right direction, speciesism among animals, overview of the reasons and types of animal abuse, animals should not be kept in captivity, the arguments against keeping animals in captivity, discussion of whether animals should be kept in captivity, animal rights in the book of genesis, inhumane surgeries against animal rights, hostage animals: the reasons behind keeping animals in captivity, dangers of captivity: the issue of animal-welfare in zoos, the negative consequences of keeping animals in captivity, importance and significance of animal rights, the topic of animal rights in relation to the virtue theory, no more cat-hate: persuading the world to embrace feline companions, should animal testing be banned: a comprehensive analysis, zoos should be banned.

Animal rights are moral or legal entitlements attributed to nonhuman animals, usually because of the complexity of their cognitive, emotional, and social lives or their capacity to experience physical or emotional pain or pleasure.

Animal rights is the philosophy according to which many or all sentient animals have moral worth that is independent of their utility for humans, and that their most basic interests — such as in avoiding suffering — should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. More narrowly, "animal rights" refers to the idea that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as individuals—rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture that may not be overridden by considerations of aggregate welfare.

Earliest examples of animal rights being acknowledged date to Ancient Greece and India, where figures like Pythagoras and Buddha advocated for a vegetarian diet. In 2014 Sandra, an orangutan at Buenos Aires Zoo was granted basic human rights in an unprecedented ruling. The Great Ape Project advocates for basic human rights to be extended to our closest primate relatives.

Relevant topics

• Gun Violence
• Animal Testing
• Sexual Abuse
• Violence in Video Games
• Youth Violence
• Cyber Bullying
• Controversial Issue
• Illegal Immigration

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!

Bibliography

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

📕 Studying HQ

Argumentative essay topics about animals, rachel r.n..

• September 10, 2022
• Essay Topics and Ideas

Looking for a good argumentative essay topic about animals? You’re in luck! We’ve put together a list of 20 topics that will get you started.

Argumentative essay topics about animals can be divided into three categories: animal rights, animal welfare, and animal testing. Each one of these topics could be argued from multiple perspectives.

Animal rights is the belief that animals should have the same basic rights as humans, including the right to life and liberty. Animal welfare is the view that animals should be treated humanely and with compassion, and that their well-being should be given consideration. Animal testing is the use of animals in scientific experiments to further our understanding of health and disease.

All three of these topics are controversial , which makes them perfect for an argumentative essay. So without further ado, here are 20 argumentative essay topics about animals!

What You'll Learn

Thirty Argumentative Essay Topics about Animals

1. Zoos are inhumane and should be banned. 2. Animal testing is cruel and should be outlawed. 3. Pets should not be allowed in public places. 4. Service animals should be exempt from laws banning animals in public places. 5. Hunter education should be mandatory for all hunters. 6. Trapping should be banned because it’s inhumane. 7. Fur coats should be banned because of the cruelty involved in obtaining the fur. 8. The exotic animal trade should be banned because it’s cruel and often results in the animal’s death. 9. Animal hoarders should be required to get help for their mental health issues and have their animals seized. 10. It should be illegal to breed dogs for physical characteristics that cause them health problems.

11. Puppy mills should be outlawed because of the inhumane conditions the animals are kept in. 12. Animal fighting should be banned because it’s cruel and often results in the animal’s death. 13. The use of animals in entertainment should be banned because it’s cruel. 14. Factory farming should be banned because of the inhumane conditions the animals are kept in. 15. Animals should not be kept in zoos because it’s cruel and they’re often not able to live a natural life. 16. It should be illegal to hunt animals for sport because it’s cruel and often results in the animal’s death. 17. The use of animals for research should be banned because it’s cruel and often results in the animal’s death. 18. It should be illegal to buy or sell ivory because it contributes to the poaching of elephants. 19. It should be illegal to buy or sell endangered animal parts because it contributes to the decline of those species. 20. The ownership of exotic animals should be banned because it’s cruel and often results in the animal’s death

Twenty Argumentative Essay Topics on Animals to Write About

1. Is it morally wrong to keep animals in captivity? 2. Should the hunting of animals be banned? 3. Is it cruel to declaw cats? 4. Should there be a ban on bullfighting? 5. How does the animal welfare movement impact the lives of animals? 6. Is it morally wrong to eat meat? 7. Should more be done to protect endangered species? 8. What is the impact of zoos on animals? 9. How do humans benefit from keeping animals in zoos? 10. Are factory farms cruel to animals? 11. What is the impact of animal testing on human health? 12. Should the use of fur be banned? 13. What are the benefits of having a pet? 14. How does animal agriculture impact the environment? 15. What is the relationship between humans and animals? 16. How does our treatment of animals reflect our values as a society? 17. Do we have a responsibility to care for all animals, or just those that are cute and cuddly? 18. How can we make sure that all animals are treated humanely? 19. What are some ways that people mist

Animal topics for research papers

There are many different animal topics that you can choose to write about for your research paper. Here are some ideas to get you started:

1. Animal testing: Is it necessary? 2. The pros and cons of zoos 3. Are exotic animals good or bad pets? 4. The link between animal abuse and domestic violence 5. How do we define “humane” treatment of animals? 6. Should there be more regulations on the breeding of animals? 7. The impact of climate change on wildlife 8. How humans can coexist with dangerous animals 9. The ethical debate surrounding the consumption of animal products 10. Are there alternatives to using animals for research purposes?

Animal topics for essay

There are many different animal topics that you can choose to write about for your essay . Here are some ideas to get you started:

-The pros and cons of keeping animals in captivity -The ethical considerations of animal testing -The impact of human activity on endangered species -The complex social hierarchies of animal societies -The fascinating world of animal communication -The incredible adaptability of animals to changing environments-The unique and important role of animals in ecosystem

You can also check out :

How Many Sentences Are in a Paragraph

Creative Narrative Essay Topics

Creative Synthesis Essay Topics

1 Step on how to write an introduction for an argumentative essay

Find out more  Capstone Project Ideas for Nursing Leadership [50 Topics]

check out  130+ Good nursing capstone project ideas to Write About )

As you continue,  thestudycorp.com  has the top and most qualified writers to help with any of your assignments. All you need to do is  place an order

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Have a subject expert write for you now, have a subject expert finish your paper for you, edit my paper for me, have an expert write your dissertation's chapter, popular topics.

Business StudyingHq Essay Topics and Ideas How to Guides Samples

• Nursing Solutions
• Study Guides
• Free Study Database for Essays
• Privacy Policy
• Writing Service 
• Discounts / Offers 

Study Hub: 

• Studying Blog
• Topic Ideas 
• How to Guides
• Business Studying 
• Nursing Studying 
• Literature and English Studying

Writing Tools  

• Citation Generator
• Topic Generator
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Maker
• Research Title Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Summarizing Tool
• Terms and Conditions
• Confidentiality Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Refund and Revision Policy

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty. 

Contact Us:

📧 [email protected]

📞 +15512677917

2012-2024 © studyinghq.com. All rights reserved

Essay on Animal Rights

Students are often asked to write an essay on Animal Rights in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Animal Rights

Understanding animal rights.

Animal rights mean animals should be free from human harm, abuse, or use for personal gains. It’s the belief that animals deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. This concept is based on the idea that animals have feelings and interests just like humans.

Importance of Animal Rights

Animal rights are important because animals are living beings. They feel pain, experience emotions, and want to live a life free from harm. By respecting animal rights, we show our respect for all life forms. We also help maintain balance in nature.

Threats to Animal Rights

Animals face many threats. These include hunting, habitat loss, and cruel treatment in farms or circuses. Many animals are also used for scientific experiments. These practices cause pain and suffering to animals. They are clear violations of animal rights.

Steps to Protect Animal Rights

We can protect animal rights in many ways. We can adopt pets instead of buying them. We can avoid products tested on animals. We can also support organizations that work for animal rights. Teaching others about animal rights is another effective way to help.

Animal rights are a crucial part of a just society. By protecting animal rights, we also protect our environment and ourselves. It’s our duty to ensure that animals live free from harm and exploitation. We must respect all life forms and their rights.

Also check:

• Speech on Animal Rights

250 Words Essay on Animal Rights

What are animal rights.

Animal rights mean that animals deserve to live free from suffering, pain, and exploitation. This idea is based on the belief that animals have feelings too. They can feel joy, sadness, and pain just like us humans. So, they should be treated with kindness and respect.

Why are Animal Rights Important?

Animal rights are important for many reasons. Firstly, animals are living beings, not objects. They should not be used for our selfish needs like food, clothing, or entertainment. Secondly, respecting animal rights helps us become better humans. It teaches us values like compassion, empathy, and respect for all life. Lastly, animals play a crucial role in our ecosystem. If we harm them, it can disturb the balance of nature.

How can we Protect Animal Rights?

Protecting animal rights is not hard. We can start by being kind to animals. We should not hurt them or make them suffer. We can also stop using products that are tested on animals. Many companies test their products on animals, causing them pain and suffering. By refusing to buy such products, we can stand up for animal rights.

Role of Laws in Protecting Animal Rights

Many countries have laws to protect animal rights. These laws make it illegal to harm animals or use them in cruel ways. But, these laws are not always followed. So, it’s important for us to raise our voice against animal cruelty. We can report cases of animal abuse to the authorities and demand strict action.

In conclusion, animals have a right to live free from pain and suffering. It’s our duty to respect these rights and protect animals. After all, a world where all living beings are treated with kindness and respect is a better world for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Animal Rights

Animal rights mean that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration—what’s best for them. Regardless of how useful they are to humans, or how cute they are, they should be treated with respect. They should not be hurt or treated badly. Some people think animals should have the same rights as humans, while others believe they should have different rights.

Animal rights are important because animals are living beings. They can feel pain, they can suffer, and they have a will to live. Just like humans, they have feelings and emotions. They deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. Animal rights also help people. When we treat animals well, we also learn to treat people well.

Types of Animal Rights

There are two main types of animal rights. The first type is called ‘animal welfare’. This means that people should make sure animals are treated well. They should have good food, a nice place to live, and should not be hurt or made to suffer.

The second type is ‘animal liberation’. This means that animals should be free and not used by humans at all. People who believe in animal liberation think that animals should not be kept in zoos or farms, used for testing, or used for entertainment.

Animal Rights and Laws

Many countries have laws to protect animals. These laws say that people cannot hurt animals or make them suffer. They also say that animals should be treated with respect. But, not all countries have these laws, and in many places, these laws are not followed.

Animal Rights Movements

There are many groups that fight for animal rights. These groups work to change laws, to stop people from hurting animals, and to educate people about how to treat animals better. Some of these groups are big and well-known, like PETA and the Humane Society. Others are smaller and work in just one area or on one issue.

What Can We Do?

There are many ways we can help animals and support animal rights. We can adopt pets instead of buying them. We can choose not to go to places that use animals for entertainment, like circuses and zoos. We can eat less meat or no meat at all. And, we can tell others about why animal rights are important.

In conclusion, animal rights are about respecting and caring for animals. They are about understanding that animals have feelings and deserve to be treated well. By supporting animal rights, we are not just helping animals, we are also making the world a better place for all living beings.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Animal Exploitation
• Essay on Animals Also Have Feelings
• Essay on Animals Used For Entertainment

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Writing Guides

How to Come up with Amazing Essay Titles (Updated for 2020)

Pages: 10 (3125 words)

Subject: Education

Document Type: Writing Guide

Document: #M10140557

Download this document in word format (.doc)

Download this document in text format (.txt)

Table of Contents

Introduction, animal rights essay titles, fashion essay titles, vaccination essay titles, racism essay titles, american dream essay titles, happiness essay titles, hamlet essay titles, animal testing essay titles, football essay titles, death penalty essay titles, leadership essay titles, nursing essay titles, literature essay titles, cross-cultural communication essay titles, developmental psychology essay titles, cyber-bullying essay titles, marijuana legalization essay titles, same sex marriage essay titles, police brutality essay titles, technology essay titles, nature vs nurture essay titles, basketball essay titles, animal farm essay titles, qualitative research essay titles, deforestation essay titles.

• Women's Rights Essay Titles

Divorce Essay Titles

Abortion essay titles, about love essay titles, immigration essay titles.

Essay titles should be fun and creative while simultaneously giving the reader a heads up regarding the content of your paper.  Opaque, highly academic titles often sound stuffy and way too serious.  Even some scholars have realized that by coming across as too “hard” in their approach to readers their readers get turned off.  So turn your readers on with a great essay title that excites, scintillates, provokes, and engages your reader.  Give these titles a once over and see if any of them make you want to read more!

This guide will help you come up with the perfect essay titles, regardless of the topic you choose.

• Animals are People, Too, and Vice Versa:  From Darwinism to the Animal Rights Movement and Back Again
• Can Animals Have Rights If They Cannot Defend Them?
• The Mistreatment of Animals in the Modern World:  Why Animal Cruelty Needs to Stop
• McDonald’s and the Story of How Animal Rights are Denied in Order to Get You Your Happy Meal
• PETA and the Death of the Mink Fur
• If You Don’t Want to be Kept in a Cage, Why Should Animals?
• Zoos are Prisons for Animals:  The True Story of Harambe
• Nature Finds a Way because Nature Looks out for Her Own
• Animal Rights Activism and the New Path Towards Dystopia
• Cruelty to Animals is a Sign of Mental Illness:  Why Despising Nature and the Animal Kingdom Signals a Serious Problem in One’s Soul

• How to Spruce up Your Life by Starting with Your Closet
• Hit the Runway in Style:  Fashion as Communication in the Modern World
• When Fashion Goes out of Fashion:  The Post-Fashion Apocalypse
• Did Style Abandon Fashion?  The Problem of Youth and Dress Today
• Skinny Jeans Only Make Skinny People Look Skinny—Everyone Else Wearing Them Looks Hideous
• The Link between Fashion, Culture and Identity:  What Your Outfit Says about You and Where You Come From
• How Fashion Came to Be:  A History of Fashion throughout the Ages
• What Came First, the Fashion or the Trend Setter?
• When Fashion Speaks, Does Anyone Listen?  Queries into the Meaning of Fashions in the Post-Modern World
• Fashion is as Fashion Does:  Fashion Fascism and the Rise of Fashion as Enslavement
• To Vax or Not to Vax:  That is the Question
• What the Vaccine Industry Does Not Want You To Know
• If Vaccines are Fine for Your Kids, Why Did the Federal Government Set Aside Billions in Payout Money and Establish a Separate Court Just for Vaccine Lawsuits?
• The Link between Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
• If You Ask These Parents, Vaccinations Do Cause Autism
• Debunking the Studies that Debunk the Anti-Vax Crusade
• Why No Gold Standard Study on Vaccinations Has Ever Been Done
• The Rise of the Vaccination Industry:  An Object Lesson in Corruption
• Mommy, Where Do Vaccinations Come From?
• Vaccinations Didn’t Stop the Spread of Polio—They Started It
• Is It Possible to be Racist Against White People? Exploring the Differences Between Bigotry and Racism
• Economic Slavery: How Existing Economic Paradigms Continue to Disproportionately Impact People of Color
• When Did Nazis Become Acceptable?  An In-Depth Look at White Supremacy in America
• Does Being Anti-Israel Make Someone Anti-Semitic?
• Why Do So Many White People Say that White Privilege Does Not Exist?
• The American Dream is Still for Sale—But You May Not Want to Pay the Price
• American Dream or American Nightmare?  The Unknown Reality of Life for Many in the USA
• The Myth of Upward Mobilization in America:  America Dreaming
• Seeking the American Dream:  Why Some Still Believe in the 21 st Century
• I was Promised Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and All I Got was This Lousy T-Shirt
• What Happens When the American Dream Comes Crashing Down?
• How the American Dream Lured an Entire Generation of Immigrants into a Nightmare World of American Oppression
• The Sleep of Reason:  How American Dreaming Produces Monsters
• No More Light upon a Hill:  The Darkening of the American Dream
• How One Man Achieved the American Dream and Lived to Tell about It
• What Really Makes a Person Happy Might Not be What You Think
• Bad Habits are Killing You:  The Number Reason You Will Never be Happy Living the Way You Do
• Why Happiness is Contagious and How to Catch It and Spread It
• The Pursuit of Happiness May Lead You Down Surprising Roads
• Happiness in Acceptance and Other Small Mind-Steps That Work
• The Contentment of the Heart:  A Study on Happiness
• Happiness and Horror in the Films of Terrence Malick
• Happiness is a Life That is Pleasing to God:  The Dialogues of Plato
• Call No Day Happy Till It is Done, Call No Man Happy Till He is Dead:  Meditations on Reality
• Happiness is Obedience to a Structured Way of Life:  Lessons from Rock
• There are More Things in Heaven and Earth Than are Dreamt of in Your Philosophy, Horatio:  Lessons from Hamlet on Accepting the Mystery
• To Thine Own Self be True?:  The Villainy of Polonius
• On Whether the Ghost of Hamlet is from Purgatory or Hell
• Why Every Line of Hamlet Should be Memorized by Today’s Youths
• Who is Responsible for Ophelia’s Death—Hamlet or Polonius?
• Get Thee to a Nunnery:  Lessons from Hamlet on Choosing a Vocation
• The Self-Destruction of Hamlet:  How His Education at Wittenberg Set Him up for Failure
• The Link between Martin Luther and Hamlet
• How Hamlet Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Sword
• The Funeral Baked Meats:  Why Hamlet Takes His Time in Exacting His Revenge
• Why Animal Testing is Immoral and Cruel
• Why Animal Testing is Important and Necessary in Scientific Research
• Ethical Issues in Science:  Should Animal Testing be Permitted?
• Will Stem Cell Research Finally Put an End to Animal Testing?
• Do Beauty Products Really Need to be Tested on Animals?
• Five Discoveries That Would Not be Known Had Scientists Not Engaged in Animal Testing
• Examining the Laws on Animal Testing in America?
• If Americans Like Their Products, They Need to Stop Complaining about Animal Testing
• Alternative Options to Animal Testing That Work Just as Well
• Animal Testing is Better Than Human Testing, Right?:  Meet Five People Who Disagree

• 10 Reasons Tom Brady is and Ever Will Be the GOAT
• 10 Reasons Football is Now Unwatchable
• To Kneel or Not to Kneel:  The Politics of the National Anthem and Pro Football
• What Happens in the Massage Parlor Should Stay in the Massage Parlor:  The Unfair Persecution of Bob Kraft
• Has Football Gotten Too Soft?  Five Ways in Which Football is Not What It Used to Be
• The Top Five Reasons Football Really is Harmful for One’s Health
• Run for Daylight:  Life Lessons from Football
• The Role Vegas Plays in Pro Sports:  Examples from Pro Football
• When Football Becomes Politically Correct
• The Decline of NFL Viewership:  What Happened and Why

• 9 Reasons Why the Death Penalty Should be Abolished
• Cruel and Unusual:  Why Every Form of Death Penalty Should be Considered an Atrocity
• 12 Different Death Sentences Used Throughout History
• How Capital Punishment Has Been Enforced from Culture to Culture Through Time
• Necessary Evil:  How the Death Penalty Acts as a Deterrent
• Lost Innocence:  A Case Study of an Innocent Man Condemned to Death
• Execution by Gas:  A Survey of the Gas Chambers in America
• From the Guillotine to the Gas Chamber:  Instruments of Extermination in the Modern West
• Why Protests Against the Death Penalty Fall on Deaf Ears
• Capital Punishment is a Crime Against Humanity:  Lessons from Death Row
• The Leadership of Kobe Bryant:  What Made Mamba Mentality So Meaningful
• The Leadership of Alexander the Great:  The Influence of Aristotle on the Macedonian King
• It Takes Grit To Become a Leader:  How Grit and Toughness Defined a Generation of Leaders from WWII
• Leadership in the Jungles of Vietnam:  A Case Study on the Values and Leadership Styles That Worked and Those That Did Not
• Thou Shalt Not Offend:  New Challenges in Leadership in the 21 st Century
• The Biggest Complaint of Millennial Followers about Leaders Today
• The Leadership of Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump:  A Side-by-Side Comparison
• Looking at Leadership Styles in The Lord of the Rings
• Examples of Leadership from Around the World
• The Great Man Theory:  Revisiting an Old Concept and the Perception of Leaders Today
• Following to Lead: A Practical Application for Servant Leadership
• Leaders or Dictators: The Perils of Top-Down Leadership Paradigms
• Does Gender Impact Leadership Style?
• Learning by Example: How Good Leaders Create Great Leaders
• Elon Musk: Inspiring Leader or Terrifying Tyrant?
• Why Trait-Based Models of Leadership Fail
• The Effectiveness of the Servant-Leadership Model
• Strategic Leadership and Corporate Governance: An Analysis of Salesforce
• Sustainable Leadership in the 21st Century
• Resistance is Futile: Managing Organizational Change
• Reflection Paper: Personal Theory of Nurse Leadership
• The Changing Role of Nurse Leaders
• Strategies for Reducing the Nursing Shortage
• Nurse Attitudes Towards Evidence-Based Practice: A Critical Review of Literature
• On Caring: The Fundamental Principles of Nursing
• The Evolution of the Tragic Hero in Ancient Greek Literature
• A Feminist Reading of Macbeth
• The Contribution of Southern Authors to the Canon of American Literature
• Hawthorne and American Identity
• Motifs of Race, Class, and Gender in the Literature of the Harlem Renaissance
• The Importance of Non-Verbal Communication Cues
• How Multinational Firms Fail at Cross-Cultural Communication
• Do Leadership Styles Span Diverse Cultures?
• Communications Studies: A Multicultural Approach to Leadership
•  Are Piaget’s Stages of Development Still Relevant?
• They Grow Up So Fast: Comparing Different Models of Childhood Development
• Vygotsky vs. Piaget: A Developmental Psychology Showdown
• How Cyber-Bullying Leads to Teen Suicide:  Too Much Negative Feedback, Not Enough Detachment from Social Media
• Why Teens Should be Limited in the Amount of Time They Have Access to the Internet:  The Rise and Risk of Cyber-Bullying
• Using the Internet is a Privilege, Not a Right:  Teaching and Enforcing Cyber-Etiquette to Teens
• How to Prevent Cyber-Bullying:  Tips Parents Need to Know
• Teen Suicide Prevention Starts with Monitoring Social Media Use and Looking Out for Cyber-Bullying
• Disturbing Trends:  The Rise of Cyber-Bullying and Social Media Addiction among Adolescents
• From the Classroom to Facebook:  How Bullies are Now Following Their Victims Home from School via the Internet
• The Need for Creating Laws Prohibiting Cyber-Bulling
• The Effects of Cyber-Bullying on Victims:  An Examination of Mental, Social and Physical Health
• A Case Study on Cyber-Bullying:  Two Teens Who Took Their Lives and Two Who Fought Back
• This Bud’s for You:  New Marijuana Laws Make Weed Legal for Millions
• States Say It’s Good for You, Federal Law Still Says It’s a Schedule 1 Narcotic:  The Mixed Messages Sent by State and Federal Government over Marijuana
• The Push for Marijuana Legalization:  How Nearly a Century of Criminalization was Overturned at the State Level
• The War on Drugs and the Legalization of Marijuana:  Where Do We Go from Here?
• Medical Marijuana and the Dangers of Teenage Usage:  The Consequences of Legalizing Cannabis
• The Health Benefits of Legalizing Cannabis vs. The Risks of Addiction
• The Pros and Cons of Marijuana Legalization
• How Marijuana Legalization is Hurting the Nation’s Youth
• The War against Marijuana May be Coming to an End—but That Doesn’t Mean Everybody Should be Getting High
• How High is America Getting?  The Skyrocketing Usage of Marijuana and the Dangers of Too Much Weed
• The Primary Purpose of Marriage from the Standpoint of Traditional Catholic Teaching
• Sex without Procreation:  How the Use of Birth Control opened the Door for the Legitimization of Same Sex Marriage
• How the Divine Command to “Go Forth and Multiply” was Replaced by the PC Doctrine of Same Sex Rights
• The Cultural Shift That Led to the Advocacy of Same Sex Marriage
• The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and the Legal Adoption of Same Sex Marriage as a Constitutional Right
• Is Same Sex Marriage Really the Same as Heterosexual Marriage?  A Tale of Two Perspectives
• Same Sex Marriage and PBS Kids:  What the Show Arthur is Teaching Children about the Normalization of Homosexuality
• What Percentage of Same Sex Marriages End in Divorce?
• The Demolition of the Nuclear Family:  How Same Sex Marriage Put the Nail in the Coffin of Traditional Western Values
• Same Sex Marriage and the Celebration of Homosexual Rights:  How the Condescension of the Western World Opened a Pandora’ Box

• The Use of Body Cameras to Help Reduce and Stop Police Brutality
• Unconscious Bias and the Problem of Police Brutality
• Police Brutality and the Rise of Black Lives Matter
• The History of Police Brutality in America
• The Psychology behind Police Brutality and the Rise of the Police State
• Police Brutality, Prejudice and the Inherently Racist Criminal Justice System in America
• No Defense:  How Police Brutality Has Created a Culture of Fear
• Community Policing to Help Curb Police Brutality
• Pathways to Ending Police Brutality:  A Meditation on Restraint
• Creating a More Caring Culture in Policing:  The End of Police Brutality
• 10 Ways Technology Controls Us All in the 21 st Century
• The 5 Greatest Technological Breakthroughs of the Past 50 Years
• Slaves to Big Tech:  How 5 Companies Rule the World
• Chinese Sweatshops, American Prisons and Apple’s iPhones:  How Big Tech Uses New Slavery to Manufacture Products for You
• The Pros and Cons of Modern Technology
• Instant Communication:  How Technology Has Eliminated Time, Space and Distance in the Modern World
• Addicted to Technology?  A Case Study of Technological Dependency
• How the Internet Changed Virtually Everything
• Too Late to Go Back Now:  The Advance of a Technological Revolution and the Dangers it Poses to Humanity
• AI and the Dumbing Down of Modern Man
• Skinner vs. Darwin:  The Debate between Nature and Nature
• Nature vs. Nurture in the Theories of Piaget and Vygotsky
• The Frankenstein Dilemma:  Nature vs. Nurture and the Responsibility of Parents in the Molding of Children
• Whose Fault is It?  The Accountability of Parents in the Nature vs. Nurture Question
• Born This Way:  The Justification of Deviance
• Mama Didn’t Love Me:  How 2 Convicts Settled the Nature vs. Nurture Debate Once and for All
• A Case Study on Nature vs. Nurture:  How One Doctor Helped a Boy Raised as a Dog Find His Humanity
• The Reconciliation of Nature vs. Nurture in Social Psychology
• Too Many Loose Holes and Dead Ends:  The Labyrinthine Ways of the Nature vs. Nurture Dilemma
• Milton’s Satan:  The Nature/Nurture Issue in Literature
• Get in the Paint!  Basketball Rules for Life
• To Flop or Not to Flop?  Serious Contemplations on Life in the NBA
• The Death of Kobe and the Meaning of Life:  A Basketball Introspective
• Playing with Mamba Mentality and Winning with Grace
• King James on the Game:  Court is Now in Session
• Dribble, Hoop, Drive and Thrive:  What the Best Basketball Players Have to Say about Persevering
• Mental Health Awareness in the NBA:  How Kevin Love’s Essay Sparked a Movement
• Balancing Basketball and Life Commitments:  Lessons from Kyrie Irving
• The Biggest Busts in Basketball of All Time
• Does Sitting Stars When They are Healthy Upset Basketball Fans?
• Parallels between the Life of Snowball in Animal Farm and the Life of Trotsky
• A Who’s Who of Soviet Revolutionaries:  Identifying Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Molotov in Orwell’s Animal Farm
• Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad:  How the Pigs Use Propaganda to Create a Commune
• “Some Animals are More Equal Than Others”:  The Lie at the Heart of Communism
• How Orwell’s Animal Farm Destroys the Concept of a Communist Paradise
• Boxer to the Knacker, and Booze for Napoleon:  The Reality of Life in a Totalitarian Communist State
• How Solzhenitsyn’s Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich Compares to Orwell’s Animal Farm
• The Role of Moses the Raven in Animal Farm
• Animal Farm as Political Satire or Prediction for the Future?
• How Orwell’s Experiences with Totalitarianism in the Spanish Civil War Served as the Inspiration for Animal Farm
• The Phenomenology of Songwriting:  Experiencing How Artists Collaborate and Create to Identify Lessons for Leaders in Other Fields
• Is Fear a Good Motivator?  Case Study Analysis of Employees Working for a Boss Who Rules with an Iron Fist
• The Appeal of Trump for Evangelicals:  Interviews with a Dozen Fundamentalist Voters and What Their Perspective Reveals
• Diet and Exercise to Defeat Diabetes:  An Exploratory Study from the Marshall Islands
• Are Teens Addicted to Social Media?  Direct Observational Analysis from the Field
• Do They Really Believe What They are Saying?  Interviews with University Students about Political Correctness
• Goodbye, Classics:  A Review of Humanities Courses Offered at Major Colleges in America
• Cultural Changes in America:  Interviews with Three Generations of Diverse Populations
• Reflections on the Family:  A Case Study Analysis of a Single Parent Home
• Descending into Chaos, Rising into Fame:  A Narrative Analysis of the East Bay Punk Rock Scene, 1987 to 1996.
• Tesla and the Deforestation of Germany:  Why Environmentalists are Concerned about the Latest Gigafactory
• Where Do Animals Go When Forest Land is Converted into Farms?
• Causes and Effects of Deforestation:  Examples from around the World
• The Alarming Rate of Deforestation—More Than A Million Square Kilometers Gone in a Quarter Century
• From Hurricanes to Mining:  Natural and Human Causes of Deforestation—Which are Worse? 
• Soil Erosion and Greenhouse Gases:  The Legacy of Deforestation
• Is the Amazon Rainforest Disappearing Because of Deforestation?
• With 5 Billion Trees Cut Down Each Year, It May be Time to Find a New Alternative to Timber
• How Hemp and Hempcrete Can Replace Timber and Help End Deforestation
• The #TeamTrees Campaign and the Goal of Reversing the Effects of Deforestation

Women's Rights Essay Titles

• How the Women’s Movement of the 1910s Sold Out Their Anti-War Base for a Congressional Amendment on Suffrage
• Anita Berber and the New Frau as the Poster Girl for Feminism in the West and the Spirit behind the Push for Women’s Rights
• Ms. Magazine and the Articulation of Women’s Rights in the Second Half of the 20 th Century
• How Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique Fueled a New Women’s Rights Movement in America
• From Feminism to Post-Feminism:  What Has Changed and What Has Stayed the Same
• The Male Gaze:  Once Decried as Objectifying Now Embraced as Electrifying
• How Miley Cyrus and the Rest of the 21 st Century Sexpots are Dancing on the Grave of Old School Feminist Ideals
• The Loss of the Nuclear Family in the Cultural Pursuit of Women’s Rights
• Gloria Steinhem as the Original Feminist Sexpot:  How Second-Wave Feminists Used Sex to Sell Their Ideas
• First Wave, Second Wave, Third Wave and Fourth Wave Feminism Compared and Contrasted
• The Rising Rate of Divorce in America, 1920 to 2020
• How  a Loss of the Sense of the Purpose of Marriage Fueled the Exponential Rise in the Divorce Rate
• Single Parent Families and the Struggles Faced by Mothers
• Divorce and Remarriage:  The End of the Nuclear Family and the Rise of the Blended Family
• The Normalization of Adultery:  How Social Acceptance of Divorce Gave Way to New Conceptions of Conjugal Relationships
• How the Nuclear World Nuked the Nuclear Family and Left a Trail of Divorced Couples in Its Wake
• Divorce:  A Get out of Jail Free Card for Couples Who Do Not Want to Abide by Their Marriage Vows?—Or a Practical Solution to the Problem of Irreconcilable Differences?
• How Henry VIII Normalized Divorce for the Modern World
• The Effects of Divorce on Children:  A Longitudinal Study of Development Using the Erikson Model
• The Vatican and the Issue of Divorce
• Does Being Alive Grant a Person the Right to Use Someone Else’s Body?
• Are Anti-Abortion Activists Pro-Life or Anti-Woman?
• Should the Right to Choose Be Conditioned on a Woman’s Previous Choices: Why Exceptions for Rape and Incest Are Illogical
• Maybe People Should Be Required to Save Others Whenever Possible
• What Does a Heartbeat Mean in Terms of Life?
• Is Monogamy Outdated:  Exploring Modern Romantic Patterns
• Long Distance Love: A Guide to Creating an Enduring Romantic Relationship
• Is Marriage Still Relevant?
• Why Do Children Ruin So Many Marriages?
• Is Sex Essential to Romantic Relationships?
• It’s Not Your Land, Anyway: How Native Americans Feel About the Modern Immigration Debate
• Christopher Columbus: Explorer or Exploiter?
• Do Christians have a Religious Obligation to Welcome Refugees?
• The Color Test: How White Immigrants Receive Preferential Treatment
• Illegal Immigrants: What Are the Consequences to Criminalizing Someone’s Existence?

When working on coming up with your essay titles, first think about what your paper is about—and then try to say what it’s about in the most clever and creative way you can.  You want your title to be like a great movie trailer:  show just enough to get the audience interested—but no need to give away the whole plot!  If you can pull that off, your essay title will be like the perfect wrapping, ribbon and box and a gift that you can give to any reader to enjoy.  So don’t rush your titles and let them sound dull.  Spice them up with a catchy phrase or idea—and then pinpoint the exact subject to show how that phrase or concept is connected to the paper.  Experiment!  Try out a few different titles and see which works best for your paper’s tone, subject and audience!  But most of all, be sure to enjoy!—writing should always be fun.

Still have issues coming up with titles?  Try our essay title generator , which will provide you with amazing examples to help spark your mind.

Cite this Document

" How To Come Up With Amazing Essay Titles " 10 March 2020. Web.14 April. 2024. < https://www.studyspark.com/ >

" How To Come Up With Amazing Essay Titles " (2020, March 10) Retrieved April 14, 2024, from https://www.studyspark.com/

" How To Come Up With Amazing Essay Titles ", 10 March 2020, Accessed.14 April. 2024, https://www.studyspark.com/

Join thousands of other students and

"spark your studies"..

Study Guides

Studying / Writing Tools

Customer Service

Your customer service team resolved my issue in minutes!

Study Spark - providing your mind the spark it needs to help improve your grades.

©2020 Study Spark LLC.

Studyspark.com uses cookies to offer our users the best experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to receive cookies. Privacy Policy

• A Beginner’s Guide to IELTS
• Common Grammar Mistakes [for IELTS Writing Candidates]

Writing Correction Service

• Free IELTS Resources
• Practice Speaking Test

Select Page

Animal Rights Essay

Posted by David S. Wills | Jan 20, 2023 | Model Essays | 0

In the IELTS writing exam, you could be asked to write an essay about animals. Most likely, your question would relate to animal rights . This might seem challenging for some people, so I have written this article to help you understand it better.

Animal Rights and IELTS

For IELTS writing, you often have to discuss ethical issues. Thus, for the topic of animals, you would most likely have to write about animal rights. This could include:

• whether it is ethical to keep animals in a zoo
• discussing animal experimentation
• the ethics of eating meat
• whether humans should keep pets

Because IELTS requires no specialist knowledge, you would probably not have anything more specific than this to discuss. For example, you wouldn’t be asked about the ethics of purebred pet ownership because most people don’t know much about it. You would also not be given anything that is extremely controversial.

Therefore, the most common animal topics will be quite general and relate to animal rights.

Animal Rights Essay – Experimentation

Here is the question that we will examine today:

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Note that there are many variants upon this topic. I have seen this same idea with “ Discuss both views ” and “ To what extent do you agree/disagree ” question types.

This one, of course, is a two-part question . Therefore, don’t waste too much time reading the long part above the questions. Regardless of what that says, your task is to:

• Say whether or not experiments on animals can be justified.
• Say whether there are alternatives to this practice.

Be aware that your answer to the first question cannot negate having to answer the second. Whether you say that animal testing can or can’t be justified, you still have to say whether there are alternatives.

Language for an Animal Rights Essay

If you need to write an essay on animal rights, you need to know some appropriate language. Again, you do not need to be an expert, but you should have enough of a grasp of English to say something intelligent about the topic.

You may have noticed that I’ve used these expressions in this article:

• Animal experimentation
• Experiments on animals
• Animal testing

These all mean the same thing but it can be useful to employ different ways to do that, so that you don’t just repeat yourself.

Of course, what you say will also depend hugely on your position and your ideas. If you think that animal experimentation is wrong, then you’ll probably incorporate some rather negative language, such as:

• Impossible to justify

On the other hand, if you support animal testing, you might say something more positive:

It is also good to know some specific language related to the topic:

• Medical testing
• Subjected to

You can learn more language by reading articles on this topic. Try searching Google for “animal rights” or “animal testing.” You’ll find lots of articles. Just make sure that it is written by a native speaker or a professional writer. Also, be aware that with a contentious topic there will probably be a lot of passionate language and maybe even some misinformation.

Planning your Answer

First of all, you need to figure out what your position is in regards the question(s). Then, you need to think about how to explain your position in a straightforward way.

Here, we had two questions. Both of them are yes/no questions but of course you need to develop those ideas with explanations. Think of your answer as “Yes because…” or “No because…” This will help you to think of reasons that you can then incorporate into your answers.

Also, be aware that two-part questions are really easy to structure! You can just devote one body paragraph to each question:

My position is that animal experimentation cannot be justified, so I will explain that in my first body paragraph. I will start with the main argument in defence of animal testing, then refute it comprehensively.

For the next question, I will state that I don’t really know whether or not there are any alternatives. Thus, my structure will be:

Sample Band 9 Answer

Over the past few decades, animal testing has been fiercely debated due to the ethical problems inherent in this area of science. This essay will explain why it cannot be justified and that alternatives need to be sought.

The people who believe that animal testing is necessary tend to say that there are serious benefits to humanity, such as testing medicines before using them on human beings. They believe that this will help to figure out the cures to many serious illnesses, which will make the world a better place for humans. However, this is wrong for several reasons. Chief among them is the fact that animal testing is not as helpful in developing medicines as people think. Medicines that work on animals do not always work on humans, and vice versa. As such, these trials are not just unnecessary but also profoundly unhelpful. For example, if scientists give a mouse diabetes and then try various drugs to cure the problem, they may find that there are twelve drugs that do not work on the mouse. However, maybe one of those drugs would have worked on a human. As such, animal testing would have caused more problems than it solved.

Part of the reason for animal testing is that there are not many alternatives. Whilst it is obviously cruel and pointless to subject animals to experiments, most people would agree that it is worse to do this to human beings. However, there needs to be some sort of procedure by which testing can move from theoretical to human trials without the need for the evils of animal testing. What this process would be remains to be seen, but it is essential for any humane society.

In conclusion, people may argue that there are benefits that come from experimenting on animals, but in fact there is no good reason to continue doing this. Scientists need to immediately seek an alternative and end this barbaric and pointless practice. 

Notes on the Answer

This was a good answer because it gave fully developed explanations and used language accurately. Here are some words and phrases from the answer:

• fiercely debated
• ethical problems
• profoundly unhelpful
• cruel and pointless
• theoretical
• humane society

Paragraph two was also quite interesting. I felt that the most convincing way to make my point was to show conventional logic and then comprehensively debunk it. To do so, I gave a clear example and demonstrated through a simple explanation of just why animal testing is so useless.

About The Author

David S. Wills

David S. Wills is the author of Scientologist! William S. Burroughs and the 'Weird Cult' and the founder/editor of Beatdom literary journal. He lives and works in rural Cambodia and loves to travel. He has worked as an IELTS tutor since 2010, has completed both TEFL and CELTA courses, and has a certificate from Cambridge for Teaching Writing. David has worked in many different countries, and for several years designed a writing course for the University of Worcester. In 2018, he wrote the popular IELTS handbook, Grammar for IELTS Writing and he has since written two other books about IELTS. His other IELTS website is called IELTS Teaching.

Related Posts

Discuss Both views [Sample Answer]

February 7, 2020

Animal Testing Essay

October 21, 2022

Essay Correction: Family Topic [Task 2]

August 25, 2017

2 Model IELTS Essays

June 11, 2017

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Download my IELTS Books

Recent Posts

• Past Simple vs Past Perfect
• Complex Sentences
• How to Score Band 9 [Video Lesson]
• Taxing Fast Food: Model IELTS Essay
• Airport Vocabulary

Recent Comments

• David S. Wills on Writing Correction Service
• James Oluwasegun on Writing Correction Service
• Daisey Lachut on IELTS Discussion Essays [Discuss Both Views/Sides]
• David S. Wills on Describe a Historical Period
• Siavash on Describe a Historical Period
• Lesson Plans
• Model Essays
• TED Video Lessons
• Weekly Roundup

Animal Rights Essay. Research Paper on Animal Rights

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

This sample animal rights essay features an outline, 1000+ words, and a list of credible references.  If you would like to write a high quality research paper, ideas from this sample will give you a head start and the much needed inspiration. Animals are entitled to rights also that’s why MBA essay writers from Gudwriter are experts in writing such kind of essays for you.

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Animal Rights Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Animals are entitled to fundamental rights.

Paragraph 1:

Animals have an inherent worth just like human beings and this value is completely separate from their usefulness to humans.

• They should enjoy the right to freedom from suffering and pain.
• It wrong for society to view them as existing solely for human use
• They have emotions
• Animals have rights just like human being rights .

Paragraph 2:

Denying animals their rights is based on no meaningful argument but prejudice that is conducted by humans.

• It is only prejudice that makes humans to deny others the rights that they expect to have for themselves
• Prejudice is morally unacceptable in the society whether it is based on species, sexual orientation, gender, religion, or race.

Paragraph 3:

Animals are sentient just like the human species and it is only speciesism of animals that makes humans treating them differently.

• Speciesism is the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of nonhuman animals
• Speciesism is wrong because animals suffer when they are tortured

Paragraph 4:

Human rights opponents may argue that animals do not deserve rights because rights should be accompanied by responsibilities.

• This is wrong because animal rights are essentially about allowing animals to live freely
• This is a fundamental right that any creature should naturally enjoy by virtue of being a living being

Paragraph 5:

Opponents may contend that animals do not have the capacity to make free moral judgment

• However, some animals such as chimpanzees at times show behaviors that are truly altruistic
• Moreover, humans do not always make moral judgments
• Animals should have rights because they are living beings with the right to live freely
• They have an inherent value that cannot be separated from them just like humans
• There is no moral ground upon which humans should deny them their rights

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Animal Rights  

Almost everybody grew up going to zoos and circuses, wearing leather, and eating meat. People also visited pet shops and bought and kept their beloved “pets” and even went fishing and wore clothes made from silk and wool. Well, it turns out that while people did not care to find out the effects of all these activities on animals, they were going against animal rights. The debate about whether non-human animals have rights still rages on with some people saying they do while others saying they are non-human and thus do not. This debate is however irrelevant because animals, just like humans, are entitled to fundamental rights.

Animals have an inherent worth just like human beings and this value is completely separate from how they might be seen as being useful to humans. Every being that has a will to live should be able to enjoy the right to freedom from suffering and pain. It is thus wrong for society to view nonhuman animals as existing solely for human use. When it comes to such emotions as fear, loneliness, joy, love, and pain, the same feeling a human being has is the one an animal has. Each attaches immense value to their life and fights to keep it and that is why animals too try to avoid harm as much as they can (Smith, 2012). It is surprising that humans see no wrong in snatching this freedom from animals. Moreover, determining whether a living being has rights or not should not rest on whether it can reason or talk but on whether it has the capacity to suffer. Thus, humans should consider the extent of harm or suffering they would expose animals to before subjecting them to certain acts. This is because the capacity to suffer has more sensitivity and significance as compared to other characteristics such as the capacity to think, talk, or worship. Animals undergo suffering when exposed to harm just like humans do, and can also succumb to pain. They can feel pressure, frustration, and motherly love as well.

Denying animals their rights is based on no meaningful argument but prejudice that is conducted by humans. This is because it is only prejudice that makes humans to deny others, including animals, the rights that they expect to have for themselves (Smith, 2012). Prejudice is morally unacceptable in society whether it is based on species, sexual orientation, gender, religion, or race. It is this prejudice that makes humans to think of some animals as food and others as companions or pets. If a dog should be kept at home for security purposes, why should a cow for instance be butchered for its meat? Society should give similar levels of attention it gives to different forms of prejudices against humans to prejudices against animals because they are not justifiable.

Animals are sentient just like the human species and it is only speciesism that sends humans into treating them differently. Cochrane (2012) defines speciesism as the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of nonhuman animals. Out of this assumption, humans have developed an incorrect belief that they are the only species among all species that deserve to be treated morally. Speciesism is wrong because when animals such as chickens, pigs, and cows are slaughtered, tortured, or confined for their meat, they suffer. Such sufferance is unjustified because morally, there is no reason that creates a distinction between nonhuman animals and humans. The reason for which people have rights, which is to prevent unjust suffering, is the same reason why animals should have rights.

Animal rights opponents may argue that animals do not deserve rights because rights should be accompanied by responsibilities. They may say that humans are granted rights and are at the same time expected to be responsible by for instance abiding by universal laws. Since animals may not be in a position to exercise such responsibility, the opponents feel they should not be entitled to any rights (Cavalieri, 2004). People promoting such an argument are however forgetting that animal rights are essentially about allowing animals to live freely, free from human exploitation and use. This is a fundamental right that any creature should naturally enjoy by virtue of being a living being. It is not like animal rights involve animals coming to scramble for economic, social or political opportunities with humans or compete with them in any manner.

Opponents may also contend that animals do not have the capacity to make free moral judgment and thus deserve no moral treatment. It is for example often argued that animals are selfish in their behavior and are only interested in their own wellbeing and not of other beings. The argument goes on that on the other hand; humans will always offer a helping hand to others even if it means getting disadvantaged in the process. This argument fails to recognize that some animals such as chimpanzees at times show behaviors that are truly altruistic (Isacat, 2014). Moreover, it is not true that humans will always help fellow humans since there are situations in which a person would actually rejoice when another person is experiencing difficulties.

Animals should have rights because they are living beings with the right to live freely as long as they have the will to. Humans are not in a position to determine when an animal should die or what its life should be like. Animals have an inherent value that cannot be separated from them just like humans. They value their lives very much and are sentient and this is why they try to avoid any harm that may come their way. There is no moral ground upon which humans should deny them their rights. Moreover, granting them their rights will take nothing away from humans.

Cavalieri, P. (2004). The animal question: why nonhuman animals deserve human rights . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cochrane, A. (2012). Animal rights without liberation: applied ethics and human obligations . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Isacat, B. (2014). How to do animal rights . Raleigh, NC: Lulu.

Smith, W. J. (2012). A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy: the human cost of the animal rights movement . New York, NY: Encounter Books.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

Arguments for Animal Rights Research Paper

Introduction.

For a long time, many human societies have viewed animals as sources of food, labor, and clothing. This view (partly) stems from religious influences, which define people’s perceptions of animal rights. For example, Christian teachings show that God gave man the power to control all animals (on land and in the sea). Therefore, many Christian societies know that human beings are superior to animals.

Philosophers, such as Aristotle, also supported the above-mentioned religious arguments by ranking animals in the lowest cadre of living things (Taylor 36). Although the Greek philosopher explored the differences and similarities between both species, he said animals were a “lower-stature” species (compared to human beings) because they could not reason, think, or have beliefs, as people do (Taylor 36). These ancient perceptions of animals largely explain the background of animal rights debates. They also explain how different societies treat animals today.

Relative to how people treat animals, Singera (13) says, in 2001, North American farmers raised and killed about 17 billion land animals for human consumption. Scientists in America and Europe killed another 100 million animals for experimental purposes (Singera 13). People killed about 30 million more land animals for their fur (Singera 13).

Most of these animals lived and died in morally repugnant circumstances. Such “inhuman” treatments continue unabated because many societies believe animals do not have any rights. This paper seeks to change this narrative by focusing on pets and arguing for their rights. Although it explores critics’ arguments too, it shows that, like human beings, pets are emotional creatures and not property items, as many people would like to believe. Therefore, it is immoral to mistreat them.

Arguments for Animal Rights

Pets can feel emotion and pain as people do.

Singera (1) is widely considered as the greatest pioneer of animal rights. He said human beings do not have a special status above other animals. For him, the degree that both species experience when feeling pleasure or pain is the only difference between animals and human beings. Since both groups have a threshold of pain, Singera (1) does not understand why people do not protect animals the same way they protect their offspring. Here, Singera (1) strives to eliminate the differences between animals and human beings to advance animal rights.

Linker (9) supports this view by saying, “Once the dividing line between humans and animals disappears, it is hard to uphold any fundamental ethical distinction between them.” Steve Wise, an American Law Professor (cited in Linker 9), similarly advances the above argument by using a different justification for supporting animal rights. Instead of using shared pain and pleasure to show the similarities between people and animals, he strives to elevate animals to human status. For example, he criticizes people who view animals as property because he believes animals could reason as human beings do.

For example, he says Chimpanzees have this ability (Linker 9). He uses this argument to say their reasoning ability makes them more valuable than other types of property. Therefore, he believes animals share the same dignity as people do. Referring to Wise’s argument, Linker (12) says, “if he can demonstrate that certain higher animals possess the same intrinsic dignity that human beings do, the law within liberal democracies will be obliged to recognize that such animals are persons possessing at least some fundamental, inviolable rights.”

The above arguments show no significant differences between people and animals. In terms of shared emotion and pain, Singerb (11) says scientists infer almost all human physiological pain manifestations on other species. He particularly draws our attention to animals that are close to us – mammals and birds. He says, “Their behavioral signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping, or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on” (Singerb 11).

Indeed, like how human beings behave (when they feel pain) animals show the same physiological symptoms of pain, such as dilated pupils, increased pulse rates, and increased blood pressure. To explain this commonality, Grandin (141) says both species have similar nervous systems. In line with this argument, Singerb (11) emphasizes that the nervous systems of animals evolved the same way the nervous systems of human beings did. Their ability to feel pain is part of their survival tactics because they use it to avoid injury and death.

Grandin (141) says animals also experience fear, the same way human beings do. Certainly, although fear is subjective, it causes significant stress to animals. This is why advocates of animal rights say they need environmental enrichments to prevent them from developing irregular developmental patterns, such as EEG patterns (Grandin 141). Relative to this argument, Grandin (141) says people’s nervous systems do not differ with that of higher animals. For example, scientific evidence shows that the nervous systems of chimpanzees, dogs, and cows are like that of human beings (Grandin 141).

The genome project also supports the same finding by showing that people’s gene make-up is like a mouse’s gene makeup (Grandin 141). Relative to this fact, Grandin (141) says mammals have more than 30% of their genes designed to serve nervous system functions. These similarities explain why some animals adopt human-like behaviors, such as self-medication. For example, studies have shown that rats self-medicate when they suffer from arthritis (Grandin 141). Besides these behavioral similarities, animals are as social as human beings are (Grandin 142).

Although some people may not support these facts, scientific evidence suggests that most animals perceive pain the same way human beings do. Governments have used this evidence to protect animal rights in many parts of the world. For example, three separate government committees (on animal welfare), in the UK, affirm that most animals feel pain (Singerb 13). However, Grandin (140) says we need more research to explain the extent that these animals experience the pain.

Animals are not Property

Taylor (36) says until the early 1900s, many people saw animals as worthless creatures. In fact, many societies could not accord a “property status” to them because of spite (Taylor 36). Therefore, the law permitted people to steal and kill animals without any consequences. The abolition approach has strived to change people’s perception of animals (as property).

It says that focusing on animal welfare distracts people from eliminating property rights on animal ownership (Grandin 140). Instead, the theory proposes a moral and legal paradigm shift, which strives to differentiate animals from other types of property (Grandin 140). To do so, the abolitionist approach encourages people to perceive animals as sentient creatures (having subjective awareness).

Proponents of this view say they do not need human-like rationalities to receive better treatment from people (Grandin 140). Therefore, since they are creatures that experience pain, they should belong to the moral community. This view differs with the animal rights view, which (only) supports the better treatment of human-like animals, such as apes, because their DNA make-up is more like human beings than other animals. As such, they say all animals are the same (Grandin 140). They also oppose treating animals as human property (merely) because they do not fit our conventional perceptions of property (Taylor 36).

Grandin (140) takes a more practical approach in elaborating the above point by comparing an animal and a screwdriver. He says that although many societies perceive them as property, they are different. To elaborate this point, he uses the US legal system and culture by highlighting how the law allows American citizens to sell, profit, and “eat” their property (among other utilities) (Grandin 140). Although property holders could do the above things, the law restricts them from committing the same acts on animals (the same restrictions do not apply to other properties).

For example, law enforcement officials could arrest a person for using a screwdriver to puncture a cow’s eye. However, they would not penalize the offender for using a hammer to deform a screwdriver. Based on this understanding, the status of animals has slowly changed, in America, because the law now recognizes animal rights. For example, all 50 states have introduced anti-cruelty laws that protect animals from mistreatment (Grimm 3). These laws allow judges to impose fines of up to $125,000, or a jail term of ten years on offenders (Grimm 4).

Similarly, many existing legislations support animal rights (such as the Federal Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act, which requires rescue services to save animals, as they would rescue a human being) (Grimm 3). This trend has equally seen many judges treat dogs as people (some judges even allow dogs to have lawyers).

Consequently, some animals have received damages from the judges (Grimm 3). Other types of “property” do not receive the same status. Using the above examples, Grandin (140) supports the views of animal rights advocates who say animals need rights because they feel pain (a goat can feel pain, but a screwdriver cannot).

It is Immoral to Mistreat Animals

Although many researchers have used different criteria to explain the differences between man and animals, few have bothered to explain man’s higher reasoning that allows them to act ethically. Indeed, unlike many animals, human beings can understand the differences between right and wrong. Based on this higher level of reasoning, people can understand that it is wrong to mistreat animals because they do not have rights.

This argument stems from the immoral and heinous acts that some people do to animals and people alike. Here, it is irrelevant to distinguish between animals and human beings because inflicting pain on another animal is wrong (human beings are animals too). People who do so diminish the moral authority that human beings have on other species.

The utilitarian view condemns how people treat and use animals. This theory says people should evaluate the net use of animals (to human beings) and adopt strategies that lead to the overall net satisfaction of animal and human interests (Singerb 14). Relative to this view, the utilitarian view urges people to “act in such a way as to maximize the expected satisfaction of interests in the world, equally considered” (Singerb 14).

When we apply this theory to animal treatment, it encourages people to imagine themselves in conditions that the animals live and, afterwards, take the best course of action. Using a welfare approach, the theory argues that all people should treat animals in a “humane” way and avoid inflicting unnecessary pain on them. In line with this argument, Singera (1) says it is important for people to take animal rights seriously because species-bias (the justification that most people use to mistreat animals) is like racism and other social practices that many societies dislike.

He also believes that most people who oppose animal rights do so because they rely on invariable animal defects, like their lack of language skills, or advanced cognitive skills, to mistreat animals (Singerb 14). On the other side, the same people do not perceive mentally incapacitated human beings (who cannot talk or profess the same advanced cognitive skills as other people do) as animals. Based on this analysis, Francione (3) says species-bias is the only justification that most people use to exploit animals. However, this reasoning is unjust.

Arguments Against

Many people have used the utilitarian view to support animal rights. However, this view has significant weaknesses that undermine its applicability to animal rights. For example, proponents of these rights say animals have feelings, the way human beings do (Singerb 14). However, Nordin (2) questions the criterion that such people use to measure these feelings (no one has ever been a dog or a cat).

Stated differently, people have used physiological variations in a dog’s behavior to advance the view that they experience pain or emotion, but how do people know how much pain it is feeling? For example, is it correct to assume that a whimpering dog experiences the same pain as a human baby crying? Similarly, it is difficult to draw the same inferences about a dog’s pain to a whale, frog, or another animal. Therefore, many critics question whether animals could express the same emotions as grief, melancholy, and a deep interest in life, as human beings do.

Machan (1) is among groups of researchers who do not understand why animals should have the same rights as people do. Particularly, they say it is a mistake for the government to entrench animal rights in law. For example, they believe that those people who support animal rights should persuade other people to join their cause, as opposed to forcing them to do so, legally (Machan 1).

Stated differently, Machan (2) says if advocates of animal rights do not support killing animals for their fur, they should persuade people to stop buying coats, or other animal products, and not ban the use of the animal product. Again, this argument stems from the belief that no animal enjoys the same basic rights as people do. As shown above, Machan (3) believes that all people should start perceiving this matter as an ethical issue, as opposed to a legal issue. He says people can empathize with the pain that other people feel, but animals cannot.

Therefore, he opposes the views of animal rights advocates, such as Singerb (14). He argues that if animals could empathize with the pain of other animals, people should hold them to the same accountability standards as human beings do (Machan 3). For example, animals should punish other animals for killing and maiming their kind.

Since this suggestion is impractical, Machan (3) says animal advocates have misguided views. However, he defines this issue as a philosophical one (category mistake) because advocates of animal rights strive to impose their hopes and dreams on animals, using human perceptions about life. Overall, although these arguments largely describe the views of many animal right critics, they do not legitimize the inhumane treatment of animals.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The abolitionist and utilitarian views are sympathetic to animal causes. They differ from classical animal welfare views, which do not have a high regard for the creatures, or their rights. Nonetheless, this paper shows that all animals should have the same rights as human beings do because they experience, pain, fear, and emotions. Similarly, animals are not like other types of property because they are human-like. Based on these arguments alone, it is immoral to mistreat animals and cause unnecessary pain to them.

Proponents of animal rights advance the above views. However, their thoughts are not theories of animal rights; instead, they are moral judgments of human actions on animals. Such ideas come from the consequences of what we perceive as right or wrong. For example, if a person violated the right of a person, or an animal, because it produced more good than bad, the law should not punish him. Based on the findings of this research, the “good” includes giving animals the same rights as people do.

Works Cited

Francione, Gary. Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance. September. 2003. PDF file.

Grandin, Temple. Animals Are Not Things: A View on Animal Welfare Based on Neurological, Complexity . 2014. PDF file.

Grimm, David. Should Pets Have the Same Legal Rights as People? 2014.

Linker, Damon. No, Animals Don’t Have Rights . 2014.

Machan, Tibor. Animals Do Not Have Rights . 2014.

Nordin, Ingemar. Animals Don’t Have Rights: A Philosophical Study . 2001. PDF file.

Singera, Peter. In Defense of Animals , Malded, Ma: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Print.

Singerb, Peter. Animal Liberation , New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002. Print.

Taylor, Angus. Animals and Ethics , New York, NY: Broadview Press, 2009. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, May 3). Arguments for Animal Rights. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-rights-arguments/

"Arguments for Animal Rights." IvyPanda , 3 May 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-rights-arguments/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Arguments for Animal Rights'. 3 May.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Arguments for Animal Rights." May 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-rights-arguments/.

1. IvyPanda . "Arguments for Animal Rights." May 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-rights-arguments/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Arguments for Animal Rights." May 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-rights-arguments/.

• Film Studies: "Temple Grandin"
• "Emergence: Labeled Autistic" by Temple Grandin
• Dr. Temple Grandin’s Argument on Visual Thinking and Autism
• Thinking in Pictures: Autism and Sensory Problems
• Infection of Pigs With Human-Like H1N1 Influenza Viruses In China
• Autism. Sensory Integration. Tactile Desensitization
• History of Renaissance Period
• Adopting a Pet for a Balanced Life
• The Psychological Aspect of Logical Fallacies of Technology
• The Scam of Flying Pets
• The Socioeconomic Profile of Germany
• Family Conflicts Assessment
• Summary of the Book "Sociology" by Richard Schaefer
• Alone Together by Sherry Turkle
• Home, Work and Relations in Middle-Class America

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• April 12, 2024   •   34:23 How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam
• April 11, 2024   •   28:39 The Staggering Success of Trump’s Trial Delay Tactics
• April 10, 2024   •   22:49 Trump’s Abortion Dilemma
• April 9, 2024   •   30:48 How Tesla Planted the Seeds for Its Own Potential Downfall
• April 8, 2024   •   30:28 The Eclipse Chaser
• April 7, 2024 The Sunday Read: ‘What Deathbed Visions Teach Us About Living’
• April 5, 2024   •   29:11 An Engineering Experiment to Cool the Earth
• April 4, 2024   •   32:37 Israel’s Deadly Airstrike on the World Central Kitchen
• April 3, 2024   •   27:42 The Accidental Tax Cutter in Chief
• April 2, 2024   •   29:32 Kids Are Missing School at an Alarming Rate
• April 1, 2024   •   36:14 Ronna McDaniel, TV News and the Trump Problem
• March 29, 2024   •   48:42 Hamas Took Her, and Still Has Her Husband

How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam

A mexican drug cartel is targeting seniors and their timeshares..

Hosted by Katrin Bennhold

Produced by Asthaa Chaturvedi and Will Reid

With Clare Toeniskoetter and Lynsea Garrison

Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Michael Benoist

Original music by Marion Lozano ,  Rowan Niemisto ,  Dan Powell ,  Pat McCusker and Will Reid

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

Warning: this episode contains descriptions of violence.

A massive scam targeting older Americans who own timeshare properties has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars sent to Mexico.

Maria Abi-Habib, an investigative correspondent for The Times, tells the story of a victim who lost everything, and of the criminal group making the scam calls — Jalisco New Generation, one of Mexico’s most violent cartels.

On today’s episode

Maria Abi-Habib , an investigative correspondent for The New York Times based in Mexico City.

Background reading

How a brutal Mexican drug cartel came to target seniors and their timeshares .

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Katrin Bennhold is the Berlin bureau chief. A former Nieman fellow at Harvard University, she previously reported from London and Paris, covering a range of topics from the rise of populism to gender. More about Katrin Bennhold

Advertisement