Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach?

Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia. Charlton is also a law professor at Rutgers University and she is the co-founder of the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic. In this article Francione and Charlton mainly focus on persuading people to believe in animal rights but only focus on one right, the right of animals not to be property. The article is written in a well-supported manner with a lot of details and examples backing it up, but a few counter-arguments can be made against some of their arguments.

In Francione and Charlton’s article, they discuss animal rights and the misconceptions people have towards the property of domesticated animals. They start the article by talking about Peter Singer, an author, who is considered to be the ‘father of the animal rights movement’. They argue against Singer as they believe he promotes animal welfare and not animal rights. The authors then explain their focus on animal rights which is the right of an animal not to be property. They argue that animals should have the same

The article mainly focuses on this issue, not mentioning the aspects of animal rights. The authors argue their points well but can have counter-arguments against some