**TL;DR – The argument concerning human rights and animal rights has basically turned into an “us” versus “them” one. And although animals are lower down in the hierarchy in comparison to us, they still deserve to be treated with dignity and respect – the same as us. As such, animal rights are human rights.** With not many people understanding why animals need to have rights of their own (animal rights), the phrase "*human rights are animal rights*" is met with even more confusion. However, human rights are animal rights and the main way this is exhibited is through compassion. What’s more, the concept known as [whataboutism]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) – which “is a rhetorical strategy meant to paralyze, not persuade” also plays on a real fear that compassion is a zero-sum resource – and political capital is even more so. Furthermore, new research does in fact indicate that [there’s no conflict between human and animal rights]( https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/21/20812623/animal-rights-suffering-singer-compassion). In a study conducted by Harvard’s Yon Soo Park and Dartmouth’s Benjamin Valentino, they tested this directly. In one half of the study they used General Social Survey data to see if people who supported animal rights were more likely to support a variety of human rights – to test whether abstract compassion is zero-sum. While in the other half of the study, they compared how strong animal treatment laws were in individual states, to how strong laws were protecting human beings – to test whether political activism is zero-sum. The outcome (for both halves) of the study revealed that “compassion seems to beget compassion.” That is to say, that compassion leads to compassion. Also, it was found that people who strongly favored government help for the sick “were over 80 percent more likely to support animal rights than those who strongly opposed it.” Interestingly, even after introducing a factor like political ideology into the study, the outcome of the results remained the same. Additionally, the support for animal rights was also compared – though the size of the effect was smaller – with support for LGBT individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, unauthorized immigrants, and low-income people. And from here too, it was evident that concern for human suffering appeared to encourage concern for animal suffering – and vice versa. More expressly, [*this displays that for many people it’s the suffering, not the species that matters.*](https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article4902-human-rights-are-animal-rights.html). Likewise, it was found that states that did the most to protect animal rights also did the most to protect and expand upon human rights. And states with strong laws protecting LGBT residents, strong protections against hate crimes, as well as, inclusive policies for undocumented immigrants were much more likely to have strong protections for animals. These results proved true even after introducing factors such as “each state’s economic dependency on animal agriculture, state-level political ideology, state per capita wealth, the religiosity of state residents, and race.” Leading to the conclusion that “A political system that sees human suffering and takes action is more likely to be one that sees animal suffering and takes action, and vice versa." So it’s evident that while animals are not humans, they deserve rights too. They deserve to have a life free of abuse, torture, exploitation and suffering. And through "widening the circle of compassion" – a phrase used by Australian philosopher Peter Singer, we can all come to understand just a little bit more why human rights are (at least in part) animal rights.

**TL;DR: Equating human rights with animal rights ignores many philosophical nuances around power structures and responsibilities.** Humans and animals both deserve rights. In most cases, one can effectively advocate for both. In other words, human rights and animal rights do not constitute a zero-sum game. Some studies have even discovered a positive correlation between the supporters of the two. However, these similarities do not equate to them. Humans and animals can have separate rights that appeal to the same group of people, but those conditions do not make them the same. For example, American Gen Z represents the most pro-LGBTQ+ and pro-environmentalist generation. LGBTQ+ rights and environmentalism do not represent the same thing. They happen to pose no conflict with each other and appeal to similar people. The same logic can apply to human rights and animal rights. Therefore, when I argue that human rights are not animal rights, I do not intend to deny separate rights to either. Nor do I think the two conflict with each other. I am merely saying that they are categorically different. Being subject to oppression does not serve as a sufficient condition to equate human rights with animal rights. Many proponents of the concept point to the shared traits in the threats against humans and animals. Both cases tend to include oppression and cruelty from ruthless oppressors, and both require pushing back to protect those vulnerable. While true, this shared basis cannot suffice as evidence to equate the two. This philosophical basis can apply to any rights movements conceivable. Hence, using it to equate human rights to animal rights would blur the lines between different movements. Why would we distinguish between racial justice and feminism if both involve oppression against minorities? Yet these two movements differ since the structures of powers in the two cases are different. They reflect different problems and require different solutions. On many occasions in history, they even disagreed with each other. If it seems absurd to equate feminism with racial justice, one can say the same about animal rights and human rights. Animals cannot become a subject of responsibilities as humans do. In a civil society, rights and responsibilities complement one another. To have property rights, one cannot steal from another. To have the right to free speech, one cannot silence another. Protections of lawful members of society necessitate some forms of punishment against unlawful ones. While this concept applies well to most humans, one cannot say the same about animals. Animals are not rational agents. They do not serve as subjects of the law. One cannot hold a lion legally accountable for attacking humans. Therefore, while human rights rely on the balance between rights and responsibilities, animals cannot rely on that basis. Such is not to say animals should not have rights. Instead, their rights should base themselves on different philosophical grounds. These bases would necessitate a meaningful distinction between human rights and animal rights. For these reasons, human rights are not animal rights.

**TL;DR: Animals are incapable of homo sapiens's higher order cognitions which allow us to anticipate how our actions will affect the future, which is the basis for morality. Lacking foresight, animals do not have as equal agency over their actions as do humans. Animals are thus irrational, incapable of true morality, and unequal to humans** The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [outlines basic axiomatic liberties](https://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/human_rights_basics) that humans are entitled to, as follows: 1. The right to equality and freedom from discrimination 2. The right to life, liberty, and personal security 3. Freedom from torture and degrading treatment 4. The right to equality before the law 5. The right to a fair trial 6. The right to privacy 7. Freedom of belief and religion 8. Freedom of opinion 9. Right of peaceful assembly and association 10. The right to participate in government 11. The right to social security 12. The right to work 13. The right to an adequate standard of living 14. The right to education 15. The right to health 16. The right to food and housing [Article 1](https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/factsheet2rev.1en.pdf) of the UDHR, which lays down the philosophical worldview underlying the declaration, reads: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Homo sapiens are the only animal which experiences the phenomenon of consciousness and enjoys orders of higher thinking – like abstraction, meta-awareness, planning, and ethical judgement – of which “reason and conscience” are symptoms. Human’s are equal because each (healthy) member of our species has equal agency over their actions. With varying degrees of accuracy, we can predict the consequence of future actions. This foresight allows us to anticipate how our actions in the now will affect others in the future. We can then foresee how the restraint of certain behaviors in the present will fashion a better future for us and for others, which is the heart of ethical reasoning (e.g. “hard right over the easy wrong”). Thus, foresight allows for morality. We can see this conscious-and-therefore-morally-capable basis for equality played out in the insanity pleading. When the court rules someone insane, the insane person is not held responsible for their actions because they are not rational actors and are thus incapable of moral judgement. They’re cleared of culpability, but are sequestered into mental hospitals, in no way equal or enjoying the same rights as the rest of rationally-capable society. Additionally, thirteen out of sixteen of the liberties listed above cannot even be applied to animals even if our society agreed they should, because they deal with social constructs like education, work, and peaceful assembly. Until pigs don top hats and work as bank tellers, human rights categorically cannot be animal rights. In regards the the text of those very human rights, the proof is in the pudding: According to the [Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights](https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/factsheet2rev.1en.pdf), “The [first] article thus defines the basic assumptions of the Declaration: that the right to liberty and equality is man's birthright and cannot be alienated: and that, because man is a rational and moral being, he is different from other creatures on earth and therefore entitled to certain rights and freedoms which other creatures do not enjoy.”