More Than Property: Recognizing the Lives Behind the Labels
- Binzhu(Judy) He
- Oct 4
- 8 min read
Binzhu(Judy) He
2025
According to World Population Review,1 only thirteen countries have laws that recognize and support animal rights and interests, while some of those protections are partially or barely enforced. This means that the vast majority of animals around the world still live without serious legal protections, resulting in the likelihood of their facing significant. Additionally, animals used for food, clothing, research, and entertainment are treated as mere resources rather than beings with inherent value, even as. While humans share basic commonalities with animals, like the need for eating and sleeping. According to What Self-Awareness Really Is (and How to Cultivate It),2 self-awareness is what helps us see ourselves clearly, to make sounder decisions, build stronger relationships, and communicate more effectively. While experts debate if animals have self-awareness, the questionit has led to caution of how we should treat animals. Non-human animals deserve a similar level of care and protection, not because they are just like us, but precisely because they are not. Their vulnerability to human actions—through our legal systems, industries, and choices—means it is our responsibility, as the more powerful species, to act from empathy and a commitment to respect the lives we so deeply affect.
Research corroborates that non-human animals are not mindless, but instead possess interests, senses, and feelings—character traits long-assumed to be unique to humans. Animal ethics clarifies that “All beings who can have positive and negative experiences have an interest in being positively affected and in not being negatively affected. In other words, they have an interest in having their wellbeing maximized and their suffering minimized.”3 Research on animals has also found that animals have the capacity to feel emotions not traditionally attributed to them, including suffering and joy. Their lives can go well or ill for them. Further, animals experience pain, comfort, happiness, and sadness-- just like their human counterparts. Thus, if animals experience the spectrum of feelings and emotions that humans do, why would their response to negative stimuli—fear, pain, etc—be any different than that from humans? And if humans naturally seek to avoid pain, harm, or fear, why would it be any different for animals? Their interest in avoiding suffering is just as real and meaningful. For example, a pig kept on overcrowded farms often lives without sunlight, fresh air, or space to move, and may scream or struggle when handled roughly or restrained. The pig reacts to stress, harm, and fear just like a home-raised dog would. The distinction between the two lies far less in differences between the animals’ perceptions of their lives and lived experiences and far more in the human interpretation of their role. Thus, while the dog in a loving home is given care, warmth, and attention, the pig is left to squalid conditions. The difference here does not lie in varying sensory perceptions, but instead in how humans have decided to treat them based on their assigned purposes.
Recognizing that animals need rights is only the beginning; the real challenge is making those rights matter in everyday life. To make animal rights meaningful, we must push for legal systems that respect animal interests in practice, not just in theory. Animal rights are predicated on the idea that non-human animals, as conscious beings capable of suffering and joy, deserve fundamental protections from harm, and to be treated like important individuals. According to Animal Charity Evaluators, the good treatment of animals benefits humans, too. For example, “improving the living conditions of animals on farms decreases the likelihood of disease transmission to humans. Similarly, reducing meat consumption can help curb the impact of climate change and preserve ecosystems,”4 thereby providing large-scale benefits not only to humans, but to human and animalkind. When we treat animals with more compassion and care, we’re also protecting ourselves.
This connection between animal rights and human well-being strengthens the case for real legal reform. Disease outbreaks in humans and animals alike like bird flu and swine flu have been linked to the poor conditions of factory farms, where animals live in crowded, unsanitary spaces. An article called, “We’re Running Out of Chances to Stop Bird Flu” from the New York Times illustrates a real story of this where bird flu is rapidly spreading between farm cows.5 By improving those conditions or reducing our reliance on animal products, we can create a safer and healthier environment for everyone. Furthermore, fewer animals raised for meat means less deforestation, cleaner air and water, and a more sustainable future. When rights are enforcedbuilt by the law, real change can happen—not just in individual cases of abuse, but across all the systems that have long ignored animal pain.
One line of argumentation against animal rights, pushed by J.H. McCloskey, an Australian moral philosopher, is that non-human animals cannot possess rights because they lack moral agency or rational understanding. But this standard is inconsistently applied. Human infants, people with cognitive disabilities, or those in comas may also lack rationality or moral reasoning—yet we still consider them deserving of rights. Why? Because they have the capacity to suffer, to feel joy, and to be harmed. The same is true for many animals. If rights are meant to protect beings from unjust harm, then the capacity to suffer—not the ability to reason—should be the moral requirement. J.H.McCloskey , an Australian moral philosopher, his argument fails to justify why intelligence should be the dividing line between protection and exploitation. Giving animals rights wouldn’t suddenly stop all problems, but it would be a step forward.
In order to offer animals actual legal protection, some baseline of universally recognized rights are needed. It’s important to turn moral concerns into real actions. While many people agree that acting cruelly to animals is wrong, that belief alone does little unless it is supported by laws that require people to respect animal lives. Countries like Russia, Mexico, and Iran, amongst others, have a longstanding history of animal rights abuses that reflect a serious lack of animal protection . The result is the suffering of innumerable animals for human convenience. An example of this is the use of animals in cosmetic testing. Animals like rabbits and mice are routinely exposed to harsh chemicals that are dripped into their eyes or rubbed into their shaved skin—all to test products like shampoos or perfumes. TFor those that survive the effects of such testing, death usually awaits these animals still, as they are often killed afterward, despite cruelty-free alternatives that are available. There are a number of animals that also suffer to please people. Trained under tough routines, forced to perform unnatural tricks for the amusement of the humans exploiting them, animals have been long forced into the unpaid entertainment labor market. Whether this involves an elephant painting mountains and rivers or a monkey doing double backflips, these animals are used for the benefit of human interest, at the expense of the animal’s.
This raises the difficult question of whether all non-human animals deserve the same rights—or if some deserve more protection than others. While ants, flies, and amoebas may not show the same emotional depth as dogs or cows, this doesn’t mean their lives are entirely without value. Many ethicists argue that the capacity to feel—even minimally—should warrant moral consideration. According to the RSPCA,6 animals with more developed nervous systems, such as mammals and birds, are more likely to experience complex pain and suffering, which makes their protection more urgent and ethically necessary. However, even smaller animals like ants play essential roles in ecosystems—such as soil aeration and decomposition—and should be respected for the part they play in sustaining life on Earth. Disregarding their existence simply because they are less relatable or less intelligent reinforces a harmful hierarchy of worth. Rather than granting identical rights, a more ethical approach may be to tailor protections to each species’ needs and experiences, ensuring none are neglected simply because they are small, different, or misunderstood.
Alongside legal reform, more and more people around the world are simply starting to care about how animals are treated. A survey in Gallup highlights this shift clearly: when comparing American support for animal rights between 2008 and 2015, the percentage grew significantly, with 62% of Americans supporting basic protections for animals.7 This dramatic increase in just seven years demonstrates how rapidly public opinion is evolving on this issue. Similarly, Germany’s Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture conducted research showing overwhelming public support for providing better living conditions for farm animals– offering a number of financial assistance for them.8 Their willingness to spend more on higher-welfare products reflects how strongly animal welfare has become a core value in German society.
Germany's action in animal welfare has inspired neighboring countries. Austria, for example, was inspired by Germany’s Animal Welfare Act of 2002, but moved even faster in some areas—Austria became the first European country to enshrine animal rights in its federal constitution in 2004, ahead of Germany. It then followed with progressive bans, prohibiting fur farming in 2005 and banning wild animal performances in circuses by 2010. Similar animal welfare protections have also arisen in Asia, particularly among China's large youth population—a demographic increasingly advocating for animal rights and anti-cruelty laws. On Weibo, one of China's most popular social media platforms, a viral post captured this sentiment perfectly: "Animal protection laws aren't 'woke' - they're the bare minimum for a civilized society."9 This post sparked widespread discussion, accumulating over 5 billion views on the platform. The overwhelming engagement reflected that the majority of participants agreed that animals deserve protection and respect, suggesting strong potential for future policy changes in the region. This growing support reflects a shifting consumer sentiment that businesses may be wise to heed: namely, that consumers are paying attention.
In light of the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the fact that animals have far greater capacity for human-like experience and emotion, it makes sense that public opinion, combined with policy and laws, would need to evolve to provide the kinds of safety and support needed. To accomplish this, we all have a role to play. First, we, as the dominant species , must act responsibly and use our greater power for the benefit of those in need of protection. Second, we should demand better laws that treat animals as living beings, not objects. Third, we must rethink how we’ve long taught generations of humans to think about animals and our relationship to them and instead reimagine what a relationship to animals predicated on respect would look like. The choice is ours: we can choose to ignore the suffering of the creatures that share the planet with us, or we can act and help protect them. Every small step—signing a petition, buying cruelty-free products, or speaking up for animals—makes a difference. Animals cannot fight for themselves. They need us to be their voice. Let’s build a world where all creatures, human and non-human, are treated with respect. The time to act is now. A future in which humans and animals coexist in harmony depends on how seriously we act to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Endnotes
1. “Animal Rights by Country 2025,” World Population Review, accessed June 29, 2025, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/animal-rights-by-country.
2. Tasha Eurich, "What Self-Awareness Really Is (and How to Cultivate It)," Harvard Business Review, Jan 4, 2018, 29: 2, accessed June 29, 2025.
3. “The weight of animal interests,” Animal Ethics, accessed June 29, 2025,
4. Selena Dralim, “Animal Rights Movement: Understanding when and why it started,” Animal Charity Evaluators, 2024, January 16, accessed June 30, 2025, https://animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/animal-rights-movement/.
5. Maryn McKenna, "We’re Running Out of Chances to Stop Bird Flu," New York Times , Feb 20, 2025, accessed June 29, 2025,
6. “Animal Sentience,” RSPCA, accessed June 29, 2025,
7. Rebecca Riffkin, "In U.S., More Say Animals Should Have Same Rights as People," Gallup , Oct 16, 2024, accessed June 29, 2025,
8. “Farm animals,” BMLEH, accessed June 29, 2025,
9. Feng Zhimo(@Fengzhimo), "Animal protection laws aren't 'woke' - they're the bare minimum for a civilized society," Weibo, May 16, 2023.
Bibliography
“Animal Rights by Country 2025.” World Population Review. Accessed June 29, 2025.
“Animal Sentience.” RSPCA. Accessed June 29, 2025.
Dralim, Selena. “Animal Rights Movement: Understanding when and why it started.”
Animal Charity Evaluators, 2024, January 16. Accessed June 30, 2025.
Eurich, Tasha. "What Self-Awareness Really Is (and How to Cultivate It)." Harvard
Business Review, Jan 4, 2018, 29: 2. Accessed June 29, 2025.
“Farm animals.” BMLEH. Accessed June 29, 2025.
Feng Zhimo (@Fengzhimo). "Animal protection laws aren't 'woke' - they're the bare
minimum for a civilized society." Weibo, May 16, 2023. [add link here to post]
McKenna, Maryn. "We’re Running Out of Chances to Stop Bird Flu." New York Times online,
Feb 20, 2025. Accessed June 29, 2025.
Riffkin, Rebecca. "In U.S., More Say Animals Should Have Same Rights as People."
Gallup, Oct 16, 2024. Accessed June 29, 2025.
“The weight of animal interests.” Animal Ethics. Accessed June 29, 2025.
Comments