Nonhuman animals should have the same rights as human beings

IntroFirstly, to avoid confusion, I would like to detail the definition of the word rights, in this context. I believe this is warranted and reasonable, as the original definitions made in Rd. 1 are merely clinical dictionary definitions meant to prevent getting caught on pure semantics.When we talk about two distinct individuals or groups having “equal rights” or the “same rights”, we do not mean that they should have literally the exact same rights. Having equal rights means receiving equal consideration for one’s interests. For example, many of those who demand equal rights for both sexes also insist on women’s right to abortion. It would be absurd to claim that, as proponents of equal rights between sexes, they must also insist on the right for men to have an abortion. Similarly, demanding equal rights for animals does not equate to demanding for them the right to vote, for example. Men cannot have abortions, and animals cannot vote, so these kinds of demands are meaningless. [1]I There is no reason to exclude animals from the concept of equalityThe underlying issue behind the question of equal rights for different groups is a demarcation problem. Where should we draw the line between beings that are entitled to certain basic rights and beings that are not entitled to those rights? During the last few centuries, especially in the Western world, the line has been moved further and further, to incorporate groups that used to fall on the wrong side. There have been huge improvements to the rights of women, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and so on.All the aforementioned groups are unified by one attribute: they all belong to the same species. The obvious question now is, why should the line be drawn at the point where our species ends? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to claim that there is no rational or, arguably more importantly, no ethical basis for this demarcation?As we, the human species, learn more about nonhuman animals, it becomes clearer and clearer how much their cognitive capabilities have been underestimated. It is unequivocally obvious that nonhuman animals can feel pain.* Apart from that, we are realising that a multitude of attributes that have been thought to be unique to humans, are actually inherent in other species as well. These attributes include complex social behaviour, the use of reason (as opposed to mere instinct) and animal language. [2]However, even if nonhumans did not display these “advanced” attributes, why should they be left outside the realm of equality? On what basis do we only include humans in it?II Using animals as commodities is not only unethical, but unnecessaryEven if we were to accept the distinction between Homo sapiens and other species in terms of equality, it is quite clear that causing unnecessary suffering to any living being is inherently wrong. The animal industry causes unthinkable amounts of suffering everyday. [3] As has been demonstrated by countless vegans, a diet consisting of only plant-based foods can be just as healthy or healthier than one incorporating animal-based foods.Animal testing is another case that causes vast amounts of pain. Some (or even most) people think that animal tests are absolutely necessary to ensure that certain ingredients and products are safe for humans. (Again, this argument is under the hypothesis that there is a valid reason to regard human safety as more important than the safety of nonhuman animals, to begin with.) However, there are plenty of alternatives to animal testing, including– in vitro tests methods based on human cell and tissue cultures– computerized patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials– computer models and simulations– microdosing. [4]These kinds of alternative methods can be even more reliable than animal testing methods. [4] Even if they weren’t (yet), if animal testing would stop, these methods would obviously gain a lot more attention and would consequently be developed faster and more efficiently.These are just a few of the ways in which humans unnecessarily abuse other animals. I mentioned these particular ones because they are the most prominent causes of animal cruelty and the abuse of animal rights. The same conclusion applies to plenty of other ways we use animals as well.Citations/notes* I do not feel the need to add a citation for this statement, as this is quite a universally accepted fact and there are endless sources for it. If you would like a citation for this statement, please ask (or google).[1] This example and definition are more or less directly lifted from Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation, p. 2: http://www.xiquinho.com...[2] http://www.humanesociety.org... (This is merely an example of a nonhuman animal species displaying “advanced” attributes. Countless of other examples exist.)[3] http://veganoutreach.org... (Again, merely examples.)[4] http://www.neavs.org...