Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of nonhuman animals

should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, ranging from the protectionist side of the movement, presented by philosopher Peter Singerwith a utilitarian focus on suffering and consequences, rather than on the concept of rightsto the abolitionist side, represented by law professor Gary Francione, who argues that animals need only one right: the right not to be property. Despite the different approaches, advocates broadly agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment.[3] The idea of awarding rights to animals has the support of legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School. Animal rights is routinely covered in universities in philosophy or applied ethics courses, and as of 2011 animal law was taught in 135 law schools in the United States and Canada. Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby argued in 2008 that the movement had reached the stage the gay rights movement was at 25 years earlier.[4] Critics of the idea argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who wrote in 2000 that only humans have duties and therefore only humans have rights. There has also been criticism, including from within the animal rights movement itself, of certain forms of animal rights activism, in particular the destruction of fur farms and animal laboratories by the Animal Liberation Front. A parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long there is no unnecessary suffering, a view known as the animal welfare position.[5]

Moral status of animals in the ancient world

Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam. The Book of Genesis said God gave humankind "dominion" over non-humans.[6] The 21st-century debates about how humans should treat animals can be traced to the ancient world. The idea that the use of animals by humansfor food, clothing, entertainment, and as research subjectsis morally acceptable, springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the theological concept of "dominion," from Genesis (1:20 28), where Adam is given "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Although the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has been interpreted over the centuries to imply ownership. There is also the idea that animals are inferior because they lack rationality and language, and as such are worthy of less consideration than humans, or even none.[6] Springing from this is the idea that individual animals have no separate moral identity: a pig is simply an example of the class of pigs, and it is to the class, not to the

individual, that human stewardship should be applied. This leads to the argument that the use of individual animals is acceptable so long as the species is not threatened with extinction.[7 For those who would like to take action but do not know where they stand from a legal point, herewith the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act. It makes interesting reading! It is a very old act (1960!) but has been many times amended. As you can read, there is actually quite good legal protection against animal cruelty but it does need to get enforced which it often is not. Nonetheless, it is good that these laws are there as it gives those who try to fight/prevent animal cruelty at least legally the right to take steps. I have found that just by showing people this leaflet it makes them think twice before doing/continuing anything nasty to animals. Attached Images