AR Guide

The discrimination/exploitation ideology of the opponents of animal rights is mainly dependent on a belief in human supremacy, either unapologetic in the bigotry expressed or filtered through an animal welfare/stewardship framework with either secular or spiritual beliefs as the foundation. Some may be open to persuasion, while the rest are resistant due to financial or traditional comfort and bias, or have sociopathic dispositions.

If one wants human rights as an ethical policy then one has to have nonhuman rights.

If one tries to discriminate systematically against nonhumans then it allows humans who don’t care about human rights to use the same kind of defense of their discrimination(racism, sexism, religious superiority, etc) - since any and all criteria to show human superiority is subjective (personal opinion) and non absolute (i.e. skin colour, divine favor, cognitive qualities, claims of survival of the fittest as a natural law etc.). Nature and invisible deities don't provide value judgments or evidence that humans are superior as an absolute objective truth - (through laws of physics, disasters etc) and humans are able to discriminate against each other despite this alleged objective truth of human importance. Extending rights status to nonhumans is at its most basic a consistency requirement of establishing a fair ethical system - and it is a human obligation - nonhumans do not use ethical laws nor appear to think about them. To deny them ethical status because they cannot pledge reciprocal obedience to human law is unfair since such a requirement is not made of children, the mentally impaired or criminals - and it is akin to expecting a person whom you know is without the ability to perform a task to do so and then punishing them when they cannot.

The inability to be perfectly moral (i.e. being unable to avoid the accidental killing of insects) does not cause ethical policy to fallback to a convenient human-centered level, since one could use such reasoning to argue that since child abuse or homicides cant be stopped, we should only care about one's family or friends.

A belief in human supremacy is assumed to be true without examining its validity (since it has none) and it is the foundation for all objections raised against a policy extending rights to nonhumans even when it is denied.

The rightness of an act is determined by the consequences hence placing utilitarianism as subset of consequentialism. The primary proponent of this philosophy in the animal rights field is Peter Singer (Animal Liberation):

Singer's position is that there are no moral grounds for failing to give equal consideration to the interests of human and non-humans. His principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment, but equal consideration of interests. A mouse and a man both have an interest in not being kicked, because both would suffer, and there are no moral or logical grounds, Singer argues, for failing to accord their interests in not being kicked equal weight. He quotes the English philosopher Henry Sidgwick: "The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view … of the Universe, than the good of any other." This reflects Jeremy Bentham's position: "[E]ach to count for one, and none for more than one." Unlike a man or mouse, a stone does not suffer when kicked, and therefore has no interest in avoiding it. Interests, Singer argues, are predicated on the ability to suffer, and nothing more, and once it is established that a being has interests, those interests must be given equal consideration. The extent to which animals can suffer is therefore a key issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Utilitarian_approach

Furthermore:

Singer's philosophy is essentially preference utilitarianism. Such utilitarianism combines the equal consideration of interests with the idea that the right action is the one which yields the greatest satisfaction of interests over frustration of interests for all those involved. Although this measurement might be difficult in some situations, utilitarianism generally has the positive effect of preventing a situation from becoming too lopsided as far as the interests of the involved parties are concerned. Presently, the human exploitation of animals is a very lopsided situation, where even the trivial interests of humans usually prevail over the most basic interests of animals, such as the desire to live or the avoidance of pain and suffering.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_singer.htm

This philosophy is 'duty-based' and encompasses an inherent rights-based approach primarily expressed by Tom Regan (The Case for Animal Rights):

non-human animals are what he calls "subjects-of-a-life," and as such are bearers of rights. He argues that, because the moral rights of humans are based on their possession of certain cognitive abilities, and because these abilities are also possessed by at least some non-human animals, such animals must have the same moral rights as humans. Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal-case humans, such as infants, and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients." Moral patients are unable to formulate moral principles, and as such are unable to do right or wrong, even though what they do may be beneficial or harmful. Only moral agents are able to engage in moral action. He has adopted the concept of speciesism, a term first coined by Richard D. Ryder.

Animals for Regan have "inherent value" as subjects-of-a-life, and cannot be regarded as a means to an end. This is also called the "direct duty" view. His theory does not extend to all sentient animals but only to those that can be regarded as subjects-of-a-life. He argues that all normal mammals of at least one year of age would qualify in this regard. Whereas Singer is primarily concerned with improving the treatment of animals and accepts that, in some hypothetical scenarios, individual animals might be used legitimately to further human or non-human ends, Regan believes we ought to treat non-human animals as we would humans. He applies the strict Kantian ideal (which Kant himself applied only to humans) that they ought never to be sacrificed as a means to an end, and must be treated as ends in themselves.

Furthermore:

As individuals with complex mental lives, Regan explains why animals are due just treatment. Central to his philosophy is his subject-of-a-life criterion. Any being with a complex mental life, including perception, desire, belief, memory, intention, and a sense of the future–among other attributes, and which Regan spends much time exploring–is a subject of a life. Considerable evidence leads to an understanding that most animals indeed are subjects of a life, as opposed to biological beings without such subjective worlds. Regan uses this criterion to ground his case for the basic rights of animals.

Because each subject of a life is an individual who cares about his or her life, that life has inherent value. This inherent value is equal among all subjects of a life, since one either is a subject of a life or is not. Inherent value does not come in degrees, and it is not dependent on the individual's experiences or utility to others. Regan does not deny that experience and usefulness to others do have value, but he is careful to distinguish this sort of value from the inherent value of the individual: He asserts that individuals have moral rights based on their inherent value.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_regan.htm

A more specific variation of the rights-based approach seems to be credited to Gary Francione who calls it Abolitionism:

Abolitionism falls within the framework of the rights-based approach, though it regards only one right as necessary: the right not to be owned [specifically, not to be treated as property]. Abolitionists argue that the key to reducing animal suffering is to recognize that legal ownership of sentient beings is unjust and must be abolished. The most prominent of the abolitionists is Gary Francione, professor of law and philosophy at Rutgers School of Law-Newark. He argues that focusing on animal welfare may actually worsen the position of animals, because it entrenches the view of them as property, and makes the public more comfortable about using them. Francione calls animal rights group who pursue animal welfare issues, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the "new welfarists," arguing that they have more in common with 19th-century animal protectionists than with the animal rights movement. His position is that there is no animal rights movement in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Rights-based_approach

Carol Adams (The Sexual Politics of Meat) presents the connection between the oppression of animals and women/children:

Adams introduces the concept of the structure of the "absent referent:" Behind every meal of meat is an absence, the death of the animal whose place the meat takes. The absent referent is that which separates the meat eater from the animal and the animal from the end product. The function of the absent referent is to keep our "meat" separated from any idea that she or he was once an animal, to keep something from being seen as having been someone.

The structure of the absent referent not only keeps animals oppressed, but women and other non-dominant humans as well. In parallel with the consumption of meat, the objectification of women, whether as severe in the case of rape, or as trite as a pin-up girl, keeps something from being seen as someone. And Adams offers strong evidence that women and animals are linked as absent referents in the texts of a patriarchal society: Terms relating to the parts of a woman's body and cuts of meat are often used interchangeably, and Adams points to advertising that does so in an overt manner. The link is also seen in everyday language: If animals are the absent referent in the phrase, "the butchering of women," then women are the absent referent in the phrase, "the rape of animals."
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_adams.htm

James Rachels (Created From Animals) argues that observations of evolution destroys the conveniences of stereotyped morality:

James Rachels cogently argues that scientific knowledge, in particular the evolution of species, dissolves many of the assumptions which form the foundation of traditional morality. The notion that, by virtue of being human, one is entitled to special moral treatment, is no longer tenable in light of our scientific understanding of the world around us.

Before scientific enlightenment, it was thought that Earth was the centerpiece of the Universe. Humans were supposedly created by God in his likeness. Animals, created by God as fundamentally lesser beings, were under human dominion. Given this view of the world, humans were set apart from animals and had a special God-given moral standing. In general, the moral framework of the time was consistent with our understanding (or lack of understanding) of the world.

Our knowledge of the evolution of species, and earlier of basic astronomy, has eliminated many of the assumptions from which traditional morality could follow. Science has revealed that Earth does not have a special place in the Universe, and humans and other animals are evolutionary products of the same nature. In The Origin of Species, Darwin himself stated that the boundaries we define between species are largely arbitrary and for convenience. Given this continuity of species, it cannot logically follow that only humans have categorical moral worth. Nevertheless, deeply-engrained moral views, even if no longer consistent with our own knowledge of the world, should not be expected to immediately collapse. In general, philosophers have been slow to assimilate scientific knowledge and to explore its consequences, and lay people often hold onto the comfortable moral views they have known since childhood, and which have been passed on from generation to generation. Only relatively recently have the human-to-nonhuman moral implications of Darwin's work been seriously considered.

Critics of extending morality to other sentient beings often state that the quality which really sets humans apart from other animals is the ability to reason. The notion that only humans can reason contradicts both Darwin's observations (The Descent of Man) and our current knowledge concerning many other species. It is true that only humans engage in philosophical discussions and mathematics, but this ability to reason is a difference in degree, not in kind. Furthermore, Rachels makes a strong case that the ability to reason is not usually relevant to moral consideration.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_rachels.htm

Steve Sapontzis (Morals, Reason, and Animals) employs established moralities to argue animal rights:

Steve Sapontzis utilizes traditional morality to advocate animal liberation. He argues that basic moral principles such as fairness, protecting the weak against the strong, and aiming to reduce suffering cannot logically be limited to humans because suffering, distress, enjoyment, and fulfillment are not exclusively human conditions. The basic standards to which a moral person should adhere do not simply evaporate when considering nonhumans rather than humans.

Sapontzis spends a fair amount of time debunking the notion that because humans are superior beings rationally, they are justified in exploiting nonhumans. Humans often argue that they are fundamentally different from other animals in the sense that humans are rational beings. However, like other differences, this difference is not fundamental, but is a matter of degree. In fact, given the evidence, it is irresponsible to claim outright that animals cannot reason. Sapontzis reminds us that animals do recognize some causal relations and that they can use them to solve practical problems. In The Descent of Man, Darwin himself wrote, "It is a significant fact, that the more the habits of any particular animal are studied by a naturalist, the more he ascribes to reason and the less to unlearnt instincts." The matter of abstract thinking may be a different story, but it cannot, nor can any other aspect of reason support our exploitation of animals.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_sapontzis.htm

The oppressors include those who use animals to produce products such as

• meat (cows, pigs, chicken, turkey, fish etc)
• dairy (cows, goats)
• eggs (chickens)
• foie gras (ducks, geese)

Resources:
PETA: Animals Used For Food

The oppressors involve those who use animals to produce products such as

• leather (cows, pigs, crocodiles, alligators, snakes etc)
• fur (minks, otters, racoons, kangaroos, rabbits, seals, chinchilas etc)
• wool (sheep)
• silk (silkworms)

Resources:
PETA: Animals Used for Clothing

The oppressors involve those who use animals to engage in

• product testing (rats, rabbits, guinea pigs etc)
• medical research (mice, rats, apes, monkeys, dogs, cats etc)

Resources:
PETA: Animals Used for Experimentation

The oppressors involve those who use animals for

• circuses (elephants, lions, tigers, horses, chimpanzees, bears etc)
• zoos (lions, tigers, orangutans, chimpanzees, monkeys, elephants etc)
• marine parks (orcas, dolphins, seals etc)
• bullfighting (bulls)
• rodeo (steers, horses, calves etc)
• racing (horses, dogs)
• hunting (deer, elephants, lions, tigers, kangaroos, fish etc)

Resources:
PETA: Animals Used for Entertainment

The oppressors involve those who use animals for

• sale as pets (dogs, cats, rabbits, snakes, fish etc)
• breeding (dogs, cats etc)

Resources:
PETA: Companion Animals

The oppressors involve those who exterminate animals for being

• pests (beavers, bats, geese, deer, pigeons, mice, rats, racoons etc)
• potential disease dangers (dogs, birds, cows, pigs etc)

Resources:
PETA: Wildlife

ADAPTT is an ethical vegan organization that was established in 1996. We are unequivocally opposed to the meat, dairy, egg and honey industries in every way imaginable. ADAPTT's other goals are to assist in the abolition of vivisection, dissection, circuses, rodeos and other forms of enslavement, exploitation, abuse and murder. We are uncompromisingly opposed to the bloodsport of hunting and the wearing of animal skin (fur, leather, wool, silk and down). If society can change its selfish, arrogant, egotistical and ignorant ways, we can end the unnecessary bloodshed, malicious treatment and injustices that animals endure.

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) carries out direct action against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through the damage and destruction of property.

The ALF's short-term aim is to save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse. Their long term aim is to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business.

Award-winning writer, noted speaker, public intellectual, and seasoned activist with 30 years work in diverse social movements, Steven Best engages the issues of the day such as animal rights, species extinction, ecological crisis, biotechnology, liberation politics, terrorism, mass media and culture, globalization, and capitalist domination.

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest and most effective animal protection organization—backed by 11 million Americans, or one in every 28.

Established in 1954, The HSUS seeks a humane and sustainable world for all animals—a world that will also benefit people. We are America's mainstream force against cruelty, exploitation and neglect, as well as the most trusted voice extolling the human-animal bond.

We work to reduce suffering and to create meaningful social change for animals by advocating for sensible public policies, investigating cruelty and working to enforce existing laws, educating the public about animal issues, joining with corporations on behalf of animal-friendly policies, and conducting hands-on programs that make ours a more humane world. We are a leading disaster relief agency for animals, and we provide direct care for thousands of animals at our sanctuaries and rescue facilities, wildlife rehabilitation centers, and mobile veterinary clinics. http://www.humanesociety.org/about/overview/

Our mission is to end animal exploitation, cruelty, and abuse by protecting and advocating for the rights, welfare, and habitats of animals, as well as to raise their status beyond mere property, commodities, or things. http://www.idausa.org/about.html

Founded in 1969, the International Fund for Animal Welfare saves individual animals, animal populations and habitats all over the world. With projects in more than 40 countries, IFAW provides hands-on assistance to animals in need, whether it's dogs and cats, wildlife and livestock, or rescuing animals in the wake of disasters. We also advocate saving populations from cruelty and depletion, such as our campaign to end commercial whaling and seal hunts. http://www.ifaw.org/ca/about-ifaw

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 3 million members and supporters.

PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds, and other "pests" as well as cruelty to domesticated animals.

PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns. (http://www.peta.org/about/default.aspx)

SHARK's mission is to nonviolently battle animal abuse whenever and wherever possible. We consider those who commit terrorism in the name of animal protection to be among the greatest threats to future gains for nonhumans.

SHARK stands against terrorism wherever it is to be found, no matter what cause it hides behind. This especially includes terrorism hiding behind the cause of animal protection.

Established in 1977, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is an international non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization. Our mission is to end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world's oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species.

Sea Shepherd uses innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas. By safeguarding the biodiversity of our delicately-balanced ocean ecosystems, Sea Shepherd works to ensure their survival for future generations.

A veteran philosopher with a long list of accomplishments, Dr Sztybel has made significant academic contributions and some of his peers think he has the best-going animal rights philosophy. He doesn't leave the lay people behind either! He provides topics suited to a more general audience as well as numerous teaching aids.