Separate

In recent years, there’s been an increasing trend to draw parallels between animal rights and human rights. Animal rights activists sometimes present arguments that link the two, suggesting that just as society has progressed in its treatment of human rights—by banning smoking in public spaces, granting women the vote, and abolishing slavery—our treatment of animals will eventually evolve in a similar way. While this message may seem compelling at first glance, it oversimplifies the complexities of both human and animal rights and risks confusing the two distinct issues.

At the heart of the matter is the difference between human rights and animal rights. Human rights issues revolve around the treatment of human beings, emphasising equality, autonomy, and justice within society. These rights are typically grounded in the belief that all people—regardless of race, gender, or background—should have equal opportunities, freedoms, and protections.

Animal rights, on the other hand, concern the ethical treatment of non-human beings. While there are shared values between human and animal rights, like fairness and justice, the ethical framework for animals is fundamentally different. Animals do not hold the same social, political, or legal status as humans, and they are not participants in the societal structures that shape human rights. Therefore, when we advocate for animal rights, we are not arguing for equality or freedom in the same way that human rights campaigns do. Instead, we’re challenging the moral justification for using animals for food, entertainment, testing, and other human-driven purposes.

Animal rights activists often tie their cause to human rights concerns in an attempt to broaden their appeal or make the case for ethical treatment of animals more relatable. Issues such as the working conditions of slaughterhouse employees or the health risks associated with consuming animal products are commonly cited. However, these are human-centered issues—employment conditions and public health—and not directly related to the moral question of animal exploitation.

The problem with conflating these two distinct issues is that it dilutes the core message of animal rights. Even if slaughterhouse workers were treated ethically, or if there were no health risks tied to eating animal products, the ethical question of whether it’s right to harm animals for human use remains. If we want to have a meaningful conversation about animal rights, we must separate it from human concerns and focus solely on the intrinsic value of animals and the moral implications of using them.

By keeping human and animal rights distinct, we clarify the ethical arguments on both sides. The question isn’t about whether humans can exploit animals for their own benefit, but rather whether animals—sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering—deserve moral consideration and protection from harm.

This distinction helps us center the conversation on animal welfare without being sidetracked by issues that are primarily human-focused. When we separate the two, we avoid the trap of using human benefits (such as better working conditions or health arguments) as justifications for animal exploitation. Instead, we can focus on the fundamental idea that, regardless of human circumstances, it is morally wrong to harm animals for food, entertainment, or other purposes when alternatives exist.

In advocating for animal rights, it’s crucial that we present the issue as one of ethical responsibility, separate from the human-centric conversations that often dominate discussions. We need to ask ourselves: if animals are sentient beings capable of suffering, should we continue to treat them as commodities, or should we work toward a society that respects their inherent rights?

By keeping animal rights distinct from human rights, we create a stronger, more focused case for ethical treatment of animals—one that doesn’t rely on human benefits or side issues, but instead places animals at the center of the conversation. This is not just about human progress, but about recognising the moral imperative to protect and respect animals as sentient beings with intrinsic value.