False arguments for ignoring animal rights refuted |
| 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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. |
| Animals do not have feelings like humans. |
| Not being able to express feelings like humans do is irrelevant to having rights. |
| 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. |