“A moral crime on a monumental scale”: How far do human affairs take precedence over animal rights?🦊

Is there any scope for animal rights to take precedence over human freedom?

• There is significant scope
• A small extent for legitimacy
• There is no scope for animal rights to usurp human freedom

Our world once embodied Eden. Inarguably, trivial human interests have infringed on this nirvana through entertainment, hunting and luxurious products being some to name. However, these activities have detrimental impacts on animals: not only directly, like a ‘lamb to slaughter,’ but also indirectly through ozone depletion. Exploiting animals becomes a self-inflicted misery. It is unsustainable, unethical and counterproductive (1). The question which therefore persists: how far should our interest be curbed for both animals and humans to flourish? A simple conclusion is inevitably infeasible (2).

Our first stop in this turbulent journey explores the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’ The court of Canton of Basel-Stadt utilises this to suggest, “our fundamental human rights would be watered down and relativised” by granting rights to non-human primates (3). This stance was taken because necessities would otherwise be drastically depleted. Hence, this perspective would compromise Article 25 of the UDHR, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living.” Ironically, this still has not been achieved globally and would only worsen if animals were allowed to prosper as independent creatures. Alternatively, animal use in fact depletes natural resources at a faster rate through intensive farming, showcasing an unsustainable dependence. The benefit of the present becomes the cost to the future.

A similar perspective can also be taken by pioneering industries such as modern medicine. Animal testing in this field allows for the comprehension and solution of life-threatening diseases. Scientists rely on animals here because of the potential side effects that could ensue when tested on humans. Human interest, more often than not, tends to be frivolous, but this medical application is vital. Judicial processes reiterate this, suggesting that medical advancement trumps animal welfare (4). Human longevity is prioritised. What is contrarily argued is that animals are subject to torture in this industry, not having the ability to provide consent. This produces the ethical dilemma. 

Taking an alternative route, plethoric justifications can be provided to advocate for animals’ interests. Nussbaum’s perspective proclaims that vertebrates feel pain subjectively and experience emotions (1). Consequently, there is little divergence between living species. Impacting one irrevocably has ramifications on the other. Exemplified through the 1930s ‘Dust Bowl’ era, intensive farming and overcultivation led to severe economic hardship, mass migration and fatality (5). Likewise, the environment degraded through topsoil erosion and pollution. Everyone regressed because human-interest outweighed animal welfare. Shifting this view of animals as “dumb-beasts,” but rather seen as living, breathing species, could be a solution which provides a sustainable and viable path forward (1).

Over time, this was realised through the ‘Animal Welfare Act’ (6). Domesticated animals under human control have the basic right of diet, suitable environment and protection. This inapplicability to non-domesticated species has been exacerbated through the cruelty of the meat industry. Meat and dairy products produced are not paramount for human survival. What is more ironic is evidence points to the increasingly detrimental impact of meat on human health (7). Arguments contrary to this have been made to suggest that animals are nurtured and well-kept by farmers. However, this is akin to comparing a human fostering their child and neglecting subsequently. This has no feasibility.

Animal welfare has also taken the spotlight following the consequence of overexploitation. Temperatures have risen by 0.11℃ per decade since the 19th century, resulting in the ice caps melting, migration of species and animal extinction (8). The Paris Agreement of 2015 reflects this conscious but ominous problem. The fear has been aggrandised by the past ramifications on humans through famine, drought and disease. All this culminates in devastation for all. Human interest infringing on animals becomes our own undoing.

This debate has been forefronted because of humans’ conflicting attitudes towards difference. However, in one way, there is an assimilation between humans and animals: both are sentient beings. Animals have an interest in the quality and quantity of life (9). As Francione puts it, “sentience is not an end in itself; it is a means to the end of staying alive.” The desire for animals to survive and withstand harrowing pain substantiates the need for their own rudimentary legal rights. After all, is it not our responsibility as evolved and developed beings to care for animals? There is a growing awareness of this argument. The case of ‘Happy the Elephant’ attempted to provide these rights (10). Despite being rejected, the 5:2 vote illustrates this mounting concern for animals to have rights where human interests are frivolous (11). Interestingly, scientists found that this elephant could recognise herself in a mirror, highlighting their growing assimilation.

Ultimately, the question that needs addressing for the conundrum to be solved is: how do we determine moral worth? Philosophers and scientists have long discussed this, proposing the similar minds theory. Judging based on a desire to live or whether one can suffer has also become a feasible means. This is central in judging how far human interest must be limited for animals to thrive.

Yet, we suffer from this “moral schizophrenia” in which animals are regarded as having value (12). Ostensibly, they are a “means to our ends” (9), epitomised through the commodification of animals. Animals have been “degraded into the class of things (13).” This is owed to the dilemma: is human life of greater concern than that of animals?

The middle ground:

Richard Cupp argues, “Over time, both the courts and society might be tempted not only to view the most intelligent animals more like we now view humans […] but also to view the least intelligent humans more like we view animals now” (14). This highlighted the precarious nature of giving animals human rights, but also the innate moral desire to do so. Consequently, reflection must precede action. What could be concluded, however, is that animal use for trivial interests is akin to futile torture. One possible solution could be limiting animal liberty where humanity’s basic requirement of survival and fundamental human rights are interfered with.

Bibliography:

1.        Justice for Animals by Martha C Nussbaum review – how we became the tyrants of the animal kingdom | Science and nature books | The Guardian [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 12]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/31/justice-for-animals-by-martha-c-nussbaum-review-how-we-became-the-tyrants-of-the-animal-kingdom

2.        The early history of animal rights extremism [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 14]. Available from: https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/regulation/animal-rights-extremism/the-early-history-of-animal-rights-extremism

3.        Switzerland will vote on giving primates “fundamental rights” similar to humans | Daily Mail Online [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 13]. Available from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10498785/Switzerland-vote-giving-primates-fundamental-rights-similar-humans.html

4.        Swiss government rejects initiative against animal testing - SWI swissinfo.ch [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 30]. Available from: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politics/animal-experimentation-the-federal-council-rejects-a-new-abolitionist-initiative/90133441

5.        The Dust Bowl | National Drought Mitigation Center [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 12]. Available from: https://drought.unl.edu/dustbowl/

6.        Animal Welfare Act 2006.

7.        Meat in your diet - NHS [Internet]. [cited 2026 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-types/meat-nutrition/

8.        Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis [Internet]. 2023 Jul 6 [cited 2026 Jan 12];3–32. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781009157896%23pre2/type/book_part

9.        Francione GL, Francionef GL. Equal Consideration and the Interest of Nonhuman Animals in Continued Existence: A Response to Professor Sunstein Equal Consideration and the Interest of Nonhuman Animals in Continued Existence: A Response to Professor Sunsteint. Chicago Legal Forum [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2026 Feb 5];8(1). Available from: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclfhttp://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2006/iss1/8

10.      Lawyers argue Happy the elephant should have right to freedom | New York | The Guardian [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 13]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/22/lawyers-argue-happy-the-elephant-should-have-the-same-rights-as-humans

11.      ‘The court simply refused to extend to Happy the elephant the opportunity to prove, through her lawyers, that she deserves her freedom’ - Harvard Law School | Harvard Law School [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 13]. Available from: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/the-court-simply-refused-to-extend-to-happy-the-elephant-the-opportunity-to-prove-through-her-lawyers-that-she-deserves-her-freedom/

12.      Francione GL, Francione GL. Animals--Property or Persons? Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers [Internet]. 2004 Jan 15 [cited 2026 Feb 10]; Available from: https://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21

13.      Jeremy Bentham on the suffering of non-human animals [Internet]. [cited 2026 Feb 6]. Available from: https://www.utilitarianism.com/jeremybentham.html

14.      Human Responsibility, Not Legal Personhood, For Nonhuman Animals [Internet]. [cited 2026 Feb 2]. Available from: https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/human-responsibility-not-legal-personhood-for-nonhuman-animals