Regan’s 1983 book, The Case for Animal Rights , argues that animals are "subjects of a life." They have beliefs, desires, memory, and a sense of the future. If you accept that a human has a "right" not to be killed for a hamburger, you cannot logically deny that right to a pig, whose cognitive capacity exceeds that of a three-year-old child.
In the end, the debate over animal welfare and rights is a debate about what kind of species we want to be. Are we the species that merely reduces pain, or the species that refuses to inflict it in the first place? The answer will define the landscape of our planet for the next century. Regan’s 1983 book, The Case for Animal Rights
The core belief is deontological : Animals have a right to life and liberty, just as humans do. Consequently, they should not be treated as property or resources to be consumed, regardless of how "humanely" they are raised. The most famous articulation comes from Australian philosopher Peter Singer (though he is technically a preference utilitarian, not a rights theorist) and, more rigorously, from Tom Regan. Are we the species that merely reduces pain,
In the summer of 2022, a video went viral showing a farmer gently wiping mud from a pig’s face before letting it trot back to a pasture. Comments were divided. Some praised the farmer for treating the animal with "dignity." Others argued, angrily, that no matter how gently you wipe a pig’s face, you are still raising it to be slaughtered. Consequently, they should not be treated as property
Furthermore, EAA supports "corporate campaigning"—pressuring McDonald's or Walmart to switch to cage-free eggs. This infuriates purist rights activists, who call it "paving a nicer road to hell."
