Animals have the right to be treated humanely by everyone.
Animals have played a role in human society since civilization began. At first, animals were hunted for food, and their skins and bones were used for clothing, shelter and tools. Later, animals were domesticated and used as beasts of burden, for food and clothing, and eventually for many other purposes. Today most of us accept the idea that people — farmers, pet owners, animal breeders, zoo keepers and research scientists — may use animals but are obliged to treat them decently. The US even has anti-cruelty laws to ensure the humane treatment of animals.
However, some people think that we should change the relationship between humans and animals. They do not accept the notion that it is appropriate for humans to interfere with the lives of animals. This is the guiding philosophy behind what is called the "animal rights movement." Those who accept this view in its entirety reject all human use of animals, whether for food or clothing, as pets or companions, to race or ride for sport, or in medical research and product safety testing.
In 1975, Australian philosopher Peter Singer wrote a book called Animal Liberation in which he argued that humans should not use animals. Singer’s ideas are based on utilitarianism, one of many philosophies developed in the 17th and 18th centuries to help people decide what is right and wrong without invoking the Bible or other moral authorities. Utilitarians say we should judge actions strictly upon their consequences. That is, an action is good if it will provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of individuals. Singer took this notion further and said that when we calculate consequences, we must take into account the interests not only of human beings but also of animals that can experience pain and pleasure. If we fail to consider these animals’ interests, or if we give human beings special consideration, we are guilty of "speciesism." To Singer, animal research is morally acceptable if the benefits to humans or animals used clearly outweigh the harm to the animals used in the research. He usually concludes that the cost to the animals outweighs the benefit to others.
Another animal rights view was put forth by American philosopher Tom Regan in a 1983 book, The Case for Animal Rights. Regan holds that people as well as many animals are entitled to certain rights simply because they have a basic understanding of the world and some sense of what they want from life. Regan’s version of this rights-based philosophy says that most mammals older than one year qualify for basic rights, e.g., the right to live without human interference. Regan argues that it is wrong to deprive animals of their rights or for humans to use animals to serve their own needs and interests.
Singer, Regan, and others have used explanations of animal rights to win agreement with their belief that human beings should not use animals. However, this is a radical notion, given all the ways that human beings are dependent upon animals for life and livelihood. A more common-sense approach is to recognize that there are compelling reasons to use animals for medical research and other purposes, and at the same time to affirm our obligation to treat animals with compassion.