Introduction
The Animal Rights Movement exerts significant influence within the United States and globally. The advocacy for animal rights continues to persist in the United States, even six decades later. Men and women across the nation are actively engaged in this cause, recognizing the need to champion the rights of animals who lack the ability to vocalize their own concerns (Jarvie et al., 2021). Given the inability of animals to advocate for themselves, it is incumbent upon us as individuals to provide them with the same level of security and safety humans enjoy. At first, opponents may contend that the Animal Rights Movement had an adverse impact on American culture because animals lack the ability to communicate, making it difficult to ascertain their desires or entitlement to rights (Jarvie et al., 2021). The Animal Rights Movement had a beneficial impact on American society and its citizens through the implementation of laws and acts aimed at safeguarding animals and by promoting changes in societal attitudes towards animal treatment and consequences for those who harm animals. Some activists think it should not be difficult to accept that animals should have some basic rights (Jarvie et al., 2021). The fundamental tenet of animal rights is that animals shouldn’t endure needless pain, which is a prevalent practice in society. The idea that animals have real rights that could collide with human interests is novel and contentious. People who are against animal rights do not condone the mistreatment or torture of animals; rather, they are afraid of what would happen to humans if other species were granted the same privileges and legal rights as humans. On the other hand, animal rights proponents see them as the new legal safeguards for animals that will lead to appropriate changes like those that have historically altered civilization (Jarvie et al., 2021). Animal rights activists are also concentrating their efforts on strengthening the existing conditions that have restricted the application of protectionist legislation both now and in the future. Therefore, this paper will analyze the purpose or goals of the animal rights movement, the major actors in the movement, major activities or organized social protests, how the movement rhetorically communicated its message to the public, and how the movement has effected social change.
The Purpose or Goals of the Movement
The animal rights movement’s primary purpose is to abolish the use of animals in science, dissolve commercial animal agriculture, and eliminate commercial and sport hunting and trapping, according to Regan (1983). The animal rights movement is based on the idea of “Equal Inherent Value”. No inherent value depends on intelligence, species, or any other kind of discrimination. Instead, every living thing has intrinsic worth that is equal to every other living thing. In this sense, the rights approach is unambiguous, asserting that “Inherent value, then, belongs equally to those who are the experiencing subjects of a life,” regardless of whether those subjects are non-human animals or humans (Regan, 1983). Arguments based on intelligence, autonomy, or species membership are examples of possible counterarguments to the theory of equal intrinsic value. However, these standards are insufficient justification for proving underlying differences in worth. “Should we claim that only humans possess the necessary autonomy, intelligence, or reason? However, a vast number of people fall short of these expectations and are still legitimately considered valuable individuals apart from their ability to benefit others” (Regan, 1983). This argument emphasizes the equality of inherent value among persons, which aligns with the rejection of speciesism. The rights view, a particular ethical theory, has greatly influenced the idea of equal intrinsic value. It emphasizes the intrinsic value of all beings capable of having a conscious life. It vehemently rejects the idea that a person’s worth is determined by their usefulness to others. The statement “All who have inherent value have it equally, whether they are human animals or not” is philosophically supported by this idea (Regan, 1983). Thus, the idea of equal inherent value is central to the rights perspective, highlighting the equality of intrinsic value among all people, including non-human animals, and opposing discriminating standards. The commitment to a comprehensive and egalitarian ethical framework is reinforced by the rejection of speciesism and the explicit denial of worth derived from intelligence or autonomy.
Abolishing the use of animals in research
The movement claims that the rights perspective requires nothing less than the total replacement of animals in research, pushing for the outlawing of the use of animals in scientific investigations. The philosophical position known as the rights perspective vehemently disagrees with the notion that animals should be viewed as nothing more than resources, asserting that “lab animals are not our tasters; we are not their kings” (Regan, 2017). These creatures are frequently and consistently treated with disrespect. As a result, their rights are routinely and consistently infringed, as if their worth were only derived from their utility to others” (Regan, 2017). The movement opposes attempts to defend the use of animals in research by pointing out that bigger cages or stronger anesthesia do not address the underlying issue. Rather, Regan (1983) asserts, “It is a total replacement. When it comes to utilizing animals in science, the best we can do is refrain from doing so. The rights perspective states that is where we have a responsibility.” This assertion supports the abolitionist stance by highlighting the fact that incremental advancements are insufficient and that the only ethically acceptable course of action is to stop using animals in research completely. The movement also rejects the utilitarian viewpoint, which weighs the advantages of scientific study against the suffering of animals (Regan, 2017). “Utilitarianism fails in this respect and so cannot be the theory we seek,” the argument claims that it cannot offer a sufficient ethical foundation. The movement’s insistence on the concept of rights as the moral basis for its stance against the use of animals in research is highlighted by this rejection (Regan, 2017). Thus, the rights view—which expressly opposes the use of animals as simple resources and calls for their total replacement in research—is the foundation of the movement’s case for outlawing the use of animals in science.
Totally dissolution of commercial animal agriculture
The movement fervently promotes the outlawing of commercial animal agriculture, claiming that treating animals as resources for human consumption and perceiving them as devoid of inherent worth constitutes a fundamental moral transgression (Groves & Guither, 1999). Regan (1983) says, “Giving farm animals more space, more natural environments, more companions does not right the fundamental wrong.” This comment highlights that improving living circumstances for farm animals is only one solution to the problem; the fundamental problem is the systemic devaluing of animals as unique beings (Groves & Guither, 1999). The objectives of the movement are consistent with the rights view, an expressly accepted philosophical position that opposes the idea that animals are nothing more than commodities. Regan (1983) states, “For either of us to treat the other in ways that fail to show respect for the other’s independent value is to act immorally, to violate the individual’s rights.” The movement’s stance on the outlawing of commercial animal agriculture is based on this rights-based justification, which claims that treating animals with respect as sentient entities with intrinsic worth calls for the dismantling of institutions that use them for financial benefit. The movement also opposes utilitarianism, which aims to strike a balance between the gratification and annoyance of interests (Groves & Guither, 1999). According to this argument, utilitarianism does not acknowledge equal intrinsic value. It says, “The equality we find in utilitarianism, however, is not the sort an advocate of animal or human rights should have in mind.” The movement’s position that, to morally address the exploitation of animals in commercial agriculture, a rights-based approach that acknowledges the equal inherent value of every individual is necessary is reinforced by this denial (Groves & Guither, 1999). Thus, the rights concept underpins the movement’s demand for the outlawing of commercial animal husbandry, which expressly rejects the devaluation of animals as resources and highlights the immorality of treating living things with intrinsic value as commodities.
Totally elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping
The movement targets the total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping. The movement fervently supports merging with the larger human rights movement to advance animal rights. Regan (1983) argues, “The same theory that rationally supports animal rights also supports human rights.” Therefore, individuals who support animal rights are allies in the fight for the upholding of human rights.” The integration is based on the rights view. According to Regan (1983), “Everyone has inherent value, all possess it equally, and all have an equal right to be treated with respect.” The statement highlights the inherent worth of every individual, regardless of their species. This viewpoint, which supports the goals of equality and nondiscrimination in human rights, opposes any form of discrimination based on traits like race, sex, or species (Guither, 1998).
Furthermore, rejecting utilitarianism encourages the human rights and animal rights movements to come together. Regan (1983) put it, “The equality we find in utilitarianism, however, is not the sort an advocate of animal or human rights should have in mind.” Thus, movement supporters contend that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge equal fundamental value. This rejection emphasizes how important it is to take a rights-based strategy that respects every person equally and is consistent with the goals of the human rights movement. Finally, proponents of the human rights movement stress the moral basis that the rights perspective offers for the merger of the animal rights movement with the human rights movement (Guither, 1998). Human rights concepts are in line with the rejection of discriminatory actions and the demand for equal intrinsic value, which strengthens the connection between the two movements in the fight for justice and respect for all people.
The Major Actors in the Movement
Someone who acts, in whatever way, to alleviate the suffering of non-human animals is an animal rights activist. This could be achieved by using extreme measures, such as planning sit-ins or rallies, or by collaborating with local authorities and the federal government to enact legislation protecting animals (Garner, 2019). These strategies are all significant because they propel vital advancements for the movement as a whole. There isn’t just one leader for animal rights; there are supporters from many fields, including environmentalism, philosophy, and religion (Garner, 2019). There is a long and illustrious history of animal advocacy throughout many different cultures, historical periods, and geographical locations.
Peter Singer and Tom Regan’s contributions
Peter Singer’s name is frequently brought up in discussions regarding the contemporary animal rights movement in the West. This is due to the fact that Singer is recognized for having popularized the animal rights movement as we know it today and was among the first philosophers to present a moral case against speciesism, or discrimination based on species. In 1975, Singer released Animal Liberation, a book that is now frequently cited in writings concerning veganism and animal rights. The book is regarded as required reading for anyone who advocates animal rights. Singer uses a variety of movements, such as feminism and civil rights, to strengthen her case for animal emancipation (Lengauer, 2020). Not only do American philosopher Tom Regan and Australian philosopher Peter Singer both represent significant currents in the philosophical debate over the moral rights of animals, but their contributions have also had a significant impact on society according to Kotzmann and Pendergrast (2019). Singer contends that human and animal interests should be taken into equal account in his 1975 book Animal Liberation, which is regarded as one of the movement’s founding texts. Singer is a utilitarian, meaning that deeds are ethically justified if they promote happiness or decrease suffering; the crucial question is whether an animal is sentient and may, therefore, feel pleasure or suffering according to Kotzmann and Pendergrast (2019). The father of contemporary utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, highlighted this point when he said of animals, writing, “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor, Can they talk? however, are they capable of suffering? Singer contends that since animals are moral beings, people have a moral duty to lessen or refrain from causing them pain, just as they have a duty to lessen or refrain from bringing pain to other people. Regan, who does not subscribe to utilitarianism, contends that because certain animals share the same sophisticated cognitive capacities as humans, they should be granted basic moral rights. These skills provide these creatures intrinsic value in addition to their usefulness. They are, in Regan’s words, “the subject of a life” (Lengauer, 2020)
Jane Goodall’s advocacy work
The unique Jane Goodall is a highly renowned and esteemed animal activist. Being the first to contend that chimpanzees had emotions and personalities, she shocked the scientific community and is now regarded as the world’s top authority on the species (Erdös, 2023). She chose to name chimpanzees instead of adopting the commonly used numbering system, challenging conventional wisdom and applying an ethical lens to her research while observing wild chimpanzees in Tanzania’s Gombe Stream National Park (Erdös, 2023). Goodall has dedicated her life to promoting wildlife conservation and changing people’s perceptions of all animals on the earth, not just chimpanzees.
Joaquin Phoenix’s contributions to animals’ rights
Oscar-winning actor Joaquin Phoenix is a vegan who advocates for animals in our food system when he’s not creating films. He delivered a passionate speech to accept his Best Actor Oscar for The Joker at the 2020 Oscars. “I have the most extraordinary life thanks to this form of expression,” he remarked (Parkinson & Herring, 2022). Without it, I don’t know where I would be. However, I believe the most valuable gift it has given me—and many others in this room—is the chance to speak up for the voiceless. In addition to advocating for animal rights organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Phoenix has voiced two powerful movies, the 2019 release Dominion and the 2005 picture Earthlings, and created other documentaries about animal rights (Parkinson & Herring, 2022). Phoenix is among the most significant animal champions in Hollywood thanks to his well-publicized activism.
Henry Bergh’s animal activism
Henry Bergh intervened in 1863 to stop a carriage driver from thrashing a downed horse. Bergh founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 1866, just three years later (Ingram, 2020). At the time of its founding in New York, the ASPCA was the sole humane organization in the Western Hemisphere (Ingram, 2020). With accomplishments including the establishment of an ambulance for injured horses and the enactment of the nation’s first successful anti-cruelty statutes by the New York State Legislature, the group played a leading role in the animal protection movement.
Philosophers were the ones who first sparked the contemporary animal rights movement, but other professionals who sought to advance animal rights in their own fields quickly joined them, including doctors, writers, scientists, academics, lawyers, theologians, psychologists, nurses, and veterinarians. Numerous associations for professionals were founded in order to inform peers and the public about animal exploitation.
Major Activities or Organized Social Protests of the Movement
Surveillance
Animal rights groups revealed the purportedly unhygienic and inhumane treatment of monkeys in a Silver Spring, Maryland, research facility in 1981. The research center was raided by police, and as the activists had (illegally) alerted the media to the raid, it was broadcast on television, drawing attention to the activists’ cause (Vuole, 2021). Mike Huskisson and Melody McDonald captured Wilhelm Feldberg doing illicit research on camera in the UK in 1990; after the footage was made public, Feldberg’s facility was immediately shut down (Vuole, 2021). Following her undercover investigation into vivisectionists, Zoe Broughton found evidence of non-human animal abuse, which led to the founding of SHAC. Images and videos captured during covert surveillance operations are frequently shared online and offline with the intention of shocking viewers into joining the cause as per Vuole (2021). Abolitionists, particularly those in Francione’s group, contend that the graphic details of suffering uncovered during undercover investigations lead to a focus on treatment rather than use, and that this approach, while helpful in securing welfare reform, is detrimental to ending animal exploitation.
Boycotting
Animal activists typically oppose businesses that employ animals. The most common of them is factory farming, which supplies most of the meat, dairy, and eggs consumed in developed countries. Animal rights organizations have made the transportation of farm animals for slaughter—which frequently entails their live export—a major concern in recent years, especially in the UK and Scandinavia as per Woods (2019). Most people who support animal rights become vegetarians or vegans. They might also stay away from using goods that are known to include animal byproducts and steer clear of clothing made of animal skins, such as leather shoes. Products that have undergone animal testing should also be avoided wherever feasible. Corporate boycotts are not uncommon (Woods, 2019). For instance, the Procter & Gamble firm tests a lot of its products on animals, which has led many animal rights activists to completely boycott the company’s products, whether or not they are tested on animals.
The American movement is moving more and more toward allocating all available resources to vegetarian outreach. The annual amount of animals killed there for food, 9.8 billion, greatly outweighs the number of animals utilized for other purposes. Organizations like Compassion Over Killing and Vegan Outreach dedicate their efforts to distributing consumer information and planning undercover investigations in order to expose factory-farming methods as per Vuole (2021).
Moral shocking
Drawing attention to a specific portrayal of a situation with the intention of inciting anger and motivating targets to support a movement or issue is known as moral shock tactics. Moral shocks are frequently employed in the Animal Rights Movement as vivid illustrations of the abuse of non-human creatures (Fernández, 2020). Popular animal rights group employ moral shocks in a pay-per-view campaign where viewers watch a disturbing movie depicting the suffering of non-human animals (Fernández, 2020). Non-human creatures that are portrayed in moral shocks frequently have traits in common with human babies, such as big heads and eyes, wailing or whimpering, small size, and mammalian appearance. Within the Movement, there is a continuing discussion on the efficacy of moral shocks. Research has indicated that a significant number of animal rights activists become involved after experiencing moral shocks, and that prospective participants are more inclined to become involved in moral shocks delivered by strangers than through existing social networks; conversely, other studies have found the opposite (Fernández, 2020). On the other hand, moral shocks with objectives closer to the public and less obvious to them (like vivisectors) are more probable to be successful than those that aim at the general public (like those used in vegan outreach).
Peaceful direct actions
The movement supports a variety of strategies and is sharply split on the subject of violence and direct action; in fact, very few writers or activists openly support the use of violence as a legitimate strategy. The majority of organizations, like Animal Aid and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), oppose violence against people, intimidation, threats, and property destruction as per Kelly (2023). These organizations focus on research and teaching, and they also conduct covert inspections of facilities that use animals for experimentation. There is some proof that the BUAV and the ALF worked together. For instance, in the early 1980s, the BUAV donated office space to the ALF in London (Kelly, 2023). Other groups focus on media campaigns, research, teaching, and covert operations.[Reference required] Take People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as an example.
A third class of activists employs the leaderless resistance paradigm, functioning in underground cells made up of a single person acting alone or a small group of dependable pals. Using names like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), these cells carry out direct actions such as raids to free animals from farms and laboratories or boycotts and targeted businesses connected to the controversial animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) (Weisskircher, 2019). Several animal rights organizations have been connected to incidents of vandalism, arson, and property destruction.
Some activists participated in blackmail and other illicit activities, including the effort of coercion against the Darley Oaks farm, which culminated in the taking of the owners’ mother-in-law, Gladys Hammond’s corpse from a Staffordshire tomb (Monaghan & Da Silva, 2023). The effort engaged hate mail, malicious phone calls, bomb threats, arson assaults, and damage to property. More than a thousand ALF attacks in the UK in only one year resulted in £2.6 million worth of property damage, leading some experts to declare that animal rights are now the main cause of violence in the country (Monaghan & Da Silva, 2023). Additionally, “open rescues,” in which activists enter establishments to take animals without attempting to conceal their identity, are becoming more and more common. Usually, dedicated individuals who are prepared to face legal consequences for their actions carry out open rescues; however, thus far, no farmer has expressed interest in filing charges.
Intermovement campaigns
A number of groups are the targets of injustices addressed by animal rights factions, who highlight the link between prejudice against humans and prejudice against non-human animals. One can observe a transversal focus in offline activities as well as on websites and social media (Monaghan & Da Silva, 2023). Animal rights organizations frequently affiliate themselves with offline and online initiatives in Turkey to support various social movements. Several social movement parties took part in the Gezi Park protests in Istanbul in 2013, which started as an environmental movement against efforts to expand urban areas (Gümüş Mantu, 2023). Activists for animal rights were among them, using the demonstrations as a platform to voice their concerns on speciesism. Outsiders in the animal rights movement who had previously thought vegan activists were snobbish had their views about them altered as a result of the activists’ participation in the rallies. The animal rights movement in Istanbul is made up of multi-movement actors from the feminist, LGBT+, and antimilitarist movements; as a result of these inter-movement interactions, veganism and animal rights have received greater publicity from leftist media outlets in Turkey, lending the movement a greater credibility and network growth.
Establishment and utilization of legal frameworks
Lawsuits in support of non-human animals, sometimes with non-human creatures identified as plaintiffs, have become more frequent at the start of the twenty-first century. It was noteworthy that attorneys were becoming more interested in animal rights and animal protection concerns because of their important roles in establishing public policy and defending individual rights (Manfredo et al., 2021). Animal law and animal rights were taught in dozens of law schools across Europe, the US, and other countries; the Animal Legal Defense Fund had established an even larger number of law-student chapters in the US; and at least three legal journals had been founded, namely Animal Law, Journal of Animal Law, and Journal of Animal Law and Ethics (Manfredo et al., 2021). Legal experts were formulating and assessing hypotheses according to which non-human animals would be endowed with fundamental legal rights, frequently for the same purposes as humans and based on the same moral and legal precepts (Manfredo et al., 2021). Scientific research into the cognitive, affective, and social abilities of animals as well as advancements in genetics, neuroscience, physiology, linguistics, psychology, evolution, and ethology, many of which have shown that humans and animals share a wide range of behaviors, capacities, and genetic material, have all greatly bolstered these arguments.
Thousands of animal rights organizations were created in response to the widespread and heinous mistreatment of animals in modern civilization, which includes billions of animals kept in industrial farms and tens of millions of animals kept in biomedical research facilities (Vitale & Bennett, 2021). A small group of individuals were involved in some, who were focused on conventional local animal protection issues including caring for stray dogs and cats in animal shelters. Some grew to be significant national and worldwide organizations, such as the Humane Society of the United States and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), which by the beginning of the twenty-first century had millions of members and an annual budget in the multimillions (Vitale & Bennett, 2021). Animal rights organizations started bombarding lawmakers with requests for regulation and reform in all of their forms.
How the Movement Rhetorically Communicated Its Message to the Public
Use of media and the Internet
Actors in the Animal Rights Movement and countermovement have utilized new media, like email and the Internet, in a number of ways. In order to engage in vegan outreach and other mobilization activities and forge coalitions, radical factions in the movement rely on websites, blogs, podcasts, videos, and online forums. This allows them to overcome exclusion by dominant factions. The animal rights movement has been able to expand internationally thanks to the Internet. The idea and practices of the Istanbul Animal Rights Movement, for instance, are based on those of other nations that have disseminated via the Internet (Hart, 2019).
Additionally, activists use the Internet to foster a sense of community and eschew stigmatization. For underprivileged members of society, such as people who are overweight, this is maybe their favorite method of activism. The identities of targets connected to Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) were made public on the website of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), an animal rights organization established in the UK in 2001 with the goal of putting a stop to HLS’s vivisection activities (Fernández & Almiron, 2023). In addition to listing targets for “naming and shaming,” SHAC.net stressed and distributed email action alerts and enabled digital and paper contact between activists and targets. An activist founded the Bite Back website, which was registered in the US and so permitted the ALF to publish reports without fear of retaliation, when the UK government later forbade SHAC from posting reports from the ALF on their website (Fernández & Almiron, 2023). ICTs have also been employed by countermovement players; police have tracked down members of the Shac Caucus and have admitted electronic communications as evidence in criminal cases.
Use of polarizing rhetorics
Animal activists use polarising rhetoric to emphasize the moral distance between their position and that of their opponents. They do not seek compromise or agreement, but instead demonize unacceptable practices (Parry, 2018). Polarising rhetoric is used primarily for the shock factor, such as comparisons between the Holocaust and factory farming. This rhetoric is similar to cost-levying, which imply audience complicity. The exaggeration of moral disagreement is more persuasive than some cost-levying activities but falls short of deliberative ideals (Parry, 2018). The use of controversial comparisons does not constitute a reason-based argument but a stark moral position presented for an audience to identify with or otherwise. Humphrey and Stears argue that the exaggeration of moral disagreement is carried out with the intention of ‘jolting’ people out of their ‘cognitive stickiness’, the frames of reference within which the status quo sits. Some animal activists participate in non-deliberative actions directly to save animals. (Parry, 2018) The exaggeration of moral disagreement, such as video activism, may not have the reflexive clout claimed by Humphrey and Stears but can have finite deliberative potential in the deliberative system.
In recent years, social media and digital activism have led to a proliferation of photos and video activism, often categorized into graphic imagery of animal abuse and suffering or moral shock videos. These videos often draw analogies between animal and human suffering and rely on emotional work to induce behavioral change (Parry, 2018). However, from a deliberative and animal protection perspective, it is crucial to determine whether moral shock or graphic videos have the desired effect. Parry (2018) question the potential benefits of graphic footage, arguing that it might distance the public from debates on animal welfare rather than inspire support and action. Parry (2018) argue that demonizing people who do bad things to animals excludes important stakeholders from meaningful dialogue and risks alienating those who animal advocates ultimately want to persuade. Parry (2018) suggest that audiences involved in animal farming and allied industries may be persuaded through more prominent use of rational message appeals.
Parry (2018) cautions against the overuse of graphic imagery in animal activism, as it can alienate the public. They argue that a proliferation of’moral shock’ footage can desensitize broader publics to images of suffering and lessen the impact of emotive intent. However, a study of the animal rights movement in Sweden suggests that activists try to mitigate the negative effects of using moral shocks by providing positive information about concrete change (Parry, 2018). The positive action of reaching out to the audience could have some deliberative potential, but it may also have finite deliberative potential. The exaggeration of moral disagreement may contribute to inclusivity by bringing animal suffering into public consciousness, but it may also place responsibility for animal protection on the individual, allowing policy-makers and animal industries to get away scot-free (Parry, 2018). Enclave deliberation, where activists interact in free spaces, can enhance creativity and refine arguments before being exposed to the wider world.
Finally, Parry (2018) warns against enclave deliberation, which can lead to extreme, polarizing positions that are far from the deliberative ideal of accommodating opposing views in argument. This is particularly evident in online spaces, where individuals gravitate to enclaves where their views can be reinforced and driven to extremes. This danger is particularly relevant for animal activists, as animal rights activism is securitized and considered a terrorist-like activity. The benefits of enclave deliberation are most potent in helping to strengthen marginal discourse like animal rights philosophy (Parry, 2018). However, over-reliance on polarising rhetoric may result in alienation, outweighing any reflective benefits. Cost-levying must be approached with caution, as graphic images of animal suffering may impose too great a psychological cost for the viewer. Activists should consider using more deliberative approaches when transmitting messages with the intent of persuading broader publics and decision-makers.
Ways in which the Movement has Effected Social Change
Establishment of legal frameworks
The greatest achievement of the animal rights movement is the enactment of the Animal Welfare Act in 1966. The Act has been solely responsible for multiple social changes in the United States in terms of humane animal treatment in research, science, medicine, recreation, domestication, and commercial purposes (“Animal Welfare Act,” 2022).
Equally, there has been development of laws and regulations that protect animals, thanks to the animal rights movement. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is a severe law passed to protect animals. It can lead to severe consequences for individuals, including imprisonment, fines, and being labeled as a “terrorist” (Pannekoek, 2023). The AETA also imposes strict federal prison sentences and restricts animal rights advocacy. The Animal Rights Movement has been pushing for animal rights for years, passing various laws and acts to save animals (Pannekoek, 2023). However, the AETA also criminalizes any harm to animals, including commercial enterprises that profit from animal merchandise. If something is found broken, it can lead to loss of profits and economic damage (Pannekoek, 2023). The act criminalizes interference with an animal enterprise, including property loss or damage. Despite these efforts, individuals who wish to cause harm against animals will face harsh consequences. Despite these challenges, the Animal Rights Movement has made significant progress in fighting for animal rights.
Elimination of animal tests in research
The EPA has announced plans to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of mammals for testing chemical toxicity. These efforts aim to conserve individual wellbeing and create environmental-friendly safeties while reducing animal testing (Pannekoek, 2023). The EPA has made significant progress in reducing animal testing requirements, saving animals and resources while maintaining environmental and human health protections. They have funded universities to develop alternative test methods, added new guidelines, and saved 960 unnecessary test animals annually (Pannekoek, 2023). In 2019, the EPA announced $4.25 million in funding for five universities to research and develop alternative test methods for evaluating chemical safety as per Hegstad (2019). The EPA has also updated its list of National Ambient Methods (NAMs) to reduce the use of animal testing. As more transitions are made on animal’s behalf, the safer the world will be for them. The government is listening and helping to make these changes.
Criminalization of animal harm
Animal harm in the U.S. has become a federal offense, with fines and imprisonment for economic damage per Hegstad (2019). The Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) was enacted in 1992 to prevent such disruptions, which can occur in various settings, from science labs to zoos. The Act defines “animal enterprise” as any commercial or academic enterprise using animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, or testing. Animal rights extremists have been documented to have victimized 28 different types of enterprises or entities involved in animal-derived products (Hegstad, 2019). The AEPA aims to prevent harm to animals and ensure that any act causing destruction is punishable by fines and imprisonment. This has led to life-long problems for those involved in animal disruption.
Conclusion
The Animal Rights Movement is a campaign advocating for the abolition of animal use in science, dismantling commercial animal agriculture, and eliminating hunting and trapping. It is based on the idea of “Equal Inherent Value,” which asserts that every living thing has intrinsic worth equal to every other living thing. The movement opposes utilitarianism, which argues that animals are not commodities but are treated as sentient entities with intrinsic worth. It calls for the dismantling of institutions that use animals for financial benefit and treats animals with respect as sentient entities with intrinsic worth. The movement supports the merging of the animal rights movement with the larger human rights movement to advance animal rights.
Major activists include Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and Jane Goodall. The movement has gained significant support from actors like Joaquin Phoenix, who has voiced two powerful films and created documentaries about animal rights. Lawsuits in support of non-human animals have become more frequent in the twenty-first century, with legal experts formulating and assessing hypotheses for fundamental legal rights.
The Animal Rights Movement uses various tactics, including moral shock tactics, peaceful direct actions, leaderless resistance, and inter-movement campaigns. New media, such as email and the Internet, has been used by activists to communicate their message to the public. Polarizing rhetoric emphasizes the moral distance between their position and opponents, demonizing unacceptable practices. The movement has made significant progress, such as funding universities to develop alternative test methods and updating its list of National Ambient Methods to reduce animal testing.
References
Animal Welfare Act. (2022, January 12). USDA APHIS Landing Page. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/sa_awa
Erdös, L. (2023). Jane Goodall’s work for animals, nature, and the human environment. The Palgrave Handbook of Global Sustainability, 2429-2439. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01949-4_176
Fernández, L. (2020). Images that liberate: Moral shock and strategic visual communication in animal liberation activism. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 45(2), 138-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859920932881
Fernández, L., & Almiron, N. (2023). Huntingdon Life Sciences and the SHAC campaign. Animal Suffering and Public Relations, 106-110. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003324065-12
Garner, R. (2019). Animal rights and the deliberative turn in democratic theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 18(3), 309-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885116630937
Groves, J. M., & Guither, H. (1999). Animal rights: History and scope of a radical social movement. Contemporary Sociology, 28(3), 347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2654195
Guither, H. D. (1998). Animal rights: History and scope of a radical social movement. SIU Press.
Gümüş Mantu, P. (2023). What is the political? The components of the new post-gezi politics. Redefining the Political. Youth Experiences of Collective Action in Turkey, 181-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40565-6_8
Hart, K. (2019). Istanbul’s intangible cultural heritage as embodied by street animals. History and Anthropology, 30(4), 448-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2019.1610404
Hegstad, M. (2019). Facing Doubts, EPA Eyes Budget To Boost Alternative Testing’Moonshot’. Inside EPA’s Risk Policy Report, 26(50), 1-7.
Ingram, D. (2020). The strange case of Henry Bergh’s “Declaration of the rights of animals”. Society & Animals, 30(4), 479-491. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-00001737
Jarvie, K., Evans, J., & McKemmish, S. (2021). Radical appraisal in support of archival autonomy for animal rights activism. Archival Science, 21(4), 353-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-021-09362-3
Kelly, T. (2023). What’s Wrong with Veganism?: An Exploration of the Differing Ethical Projects of Mainstream Vegan and Radical Animal Rights Activists in Bristol, UK (Doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester).
Kotzmann, J., & Pendergrast, N. (2019). Animal rights: time to start unpacking what rights and for whom. Mitchell Hamline L. Rev., 46, 157.
Lengauer, E. (2020). Tom Regan’s philosophy of animal rights: Subjects-of-a-Life in the context of discussions of intrinsic and inherent worth. Problemos, 97, 87-98. https://doi.org/10.15388/problemos.97.7
Manfredo, M. J., Berl, R. E., Teel, T. L., & Bruskotter, J. T. (2021). Bringing social values to wildlife conservation decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 19(6), 355-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2356
Monaghan, R., & Da Silva, J. R. (2023). Militant animal rights activity: Terrorism, extremism or something else? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610x.2023.2195066
Pannekoek, J. (2023). Animal activism and the ethics of terrorism. International Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities, 5(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.7710/2155-4838.1115
Parkinson, C., & Herring, L. (2022). Vegan celebrity activism: An analysis of the critical reception of Joaquin Phoenix’s awards speech activism. Celebrity Studies, 14(4), 584-601. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2022.2154684
Parry, L. J. (2018). Don’t put all your speech-acts in one basket: Situating animal activism in the deliberative system. Environmental Values, 26(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327117×14976900137340
Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1986/87, 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3331-6_15
Regan, T. (2017). The rights of humans and other animals. Research Ethics, 449-457. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315244426-49
Vitale, H., & Bennett, S. (2021). THE MODERN ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES (1970-2000).
Vuole, C. E. (2021). From Angry Militants to Happy Vegans: Animal Rights Activists’ Recasting for Vegan Recruitment (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton).
Weisskircher, M. (2019). Animal liberation?: the history, contemporary network, and impact of animal rights activism in Europe (Doctoral dissertation, European University Institute).
Woods, C. (2019). “We really have to hit them where it hurts”: Analyzing activists’ corporate campaigns. The Journal of Public Interest Communications, 3(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.32473/jpic.v3.i1.p117
write