| To the left (below) the non-valid argument |
|
To the right the contra argument |
| |
|
|
Non-valid reasons
for not taking animal rights seriously |
 |
Reaction |
| the animal doesn't
know better |
|
through ignorance or impossibility not to know what animals exactly want, is no ground to deny rights to animals |
| to fight injustice towards
people is more important |
|
this doesn't make
animal rights unimportant |
| rights accrue only to creatures with the innate ability to be responsible for themselves |
|
this does not apply to fundamental rights. Animal rights are in fact human rights to limit other people's unjust behavior towards animals. |
| animals do not have
feelings like humans |
|
not being able to
express feelings like humans do is irrelevant
to having rights |
| granting rights
to animals is treating animals equal to humans |
|
there is no principal
difference between humans and animals. Animals
have equal basic rights but would not want to
be treated as humans. They have different needs.
|
| animals are inferior
to humans |
|
value and basic
rights have nothing to do with each other |
| animals are there to
serve man |
|
servants have equal
rights to masters |
| why should you grant
rights to animals? |
|
this question could
also be aimed at people. Whoever denies another
being (human or animal) rights, denies those rights
to oneself as well. |
| animals
are different from humans |
|
if you grant animals
their freedom, there is no need to look for (dis)similarities
between humans and animals to base (a difference
in) their rights upon. |
| animals in captivity
are freer than in nature because there are no
predators to kill them. |
|
to fall prey to an natural enemy by a natural enemy is part of the
course of nature. It is the other side of the right
to be free and is undeniably linked to it. |
to go directly to the section). 
