People will likely shoot from the hip in response, stating flatly they are strongly for the rights of animals. This initial response is often made without a second thought to the meaning of their stance; it is presented as a sympathetic character trait, a likability that makes the girl across the table sneak a simper of complacency and newfound comfort over the lid of her exorbitantly priced coffee. This is a natural response as a result of our immediate assessment upon hearing the term “animal rights”: the abolishment of cruelty. Animal cruelty recalls to our minds visions of blood-soaked tundras as evil, potentially soulless, criminals harvest baby seal carcasses. We envision dolphins (beautiful, intelligent dolphins) struggling for air in nets intended for tuna, baby cows locked up in cages nullifying their movement, and Golden Retriever puppies rotting away in cages, waiting to be executed. But let’s move on. All this talk of death is making the mood entirely too pensive, my turkey club bistro sandwich entirely too unappealing, and her smile entirely too unsettled. This approach to animal rights is as vapid and superficial as they seem, and the results will always reflect that. True animal rights will never become a reality as long as we approach the problem as we always have. In order to achieve results, it is a necessity to focus on the morality that the animal rights argument represents, as focusing on the tragedy and cruelty has thus far produced nothing; secondly, those who wish to live by and proliferate the idea of animal rights must take the power away from, if not abolishing, the perceived vanguard of their belief system by focusing on the true problem at hand and not giving in to distributing propaganda.

The issue of animal rights is something we ignore, something we push under the rug. "Animal rights", to the majority at least, is defending our dogs, cats, endangered species. Conversely, "animal rights activists" are thought of as an unabashed mob of individuals unconcerned with our beloved pets, but set on destroying everything we hold dear, or just PETA for short.

But why do we ignore the rights of certain living creatures, and uphold those same rights for others? If we are to consider ourselves a relatively morally sound society, we must consider the issue of using living creatures (against their will) for anything beyond companionship immoral. Yet we don't. Crushing the skull of your neighbor's dog is wrong, immoral, but eating a hamburger is perfectly acceptable.  The cow clearly feels pain when executed, as does the dog. Clearly, the dog has the right to live, and therefore, the cow retains the same right. Animal rights will continue to abide by this unconventional sense of morals until we change how we consider the issue, and how we let the activism cloud our judgement.

I will break it into two parts I consider the most problematic for the animal rights movement:

We, as a society, do not like to allow ourselves to be inconvenienced.

Most people will agree with the fact that our pets (or monkeys, dolphins, baby cows, so on) need to be protected. Caring for those animals is convenient.  Their consumption is not a staple of society, yet speaking up on their behalf makes us appear caring. I would assume that the right to live for the animal we are about to consume is on our mind, but our desire to continue consume severely outweighs the moral guilt we feel by doing so. Even the process in which we receive our meat for consumption is designed to keep us from being inconvenienced. Meat is presented in a sterilized package or colorful packaging from a fast food restaurant. We cannot be bothered by the process (see: muder) of which our food becomes  our food. When we do see the process, we are disgusted, and well, that's where problem two comes about.

PETA (and others like it), the most prominent animal rights movement organization in the world, is hurting the movement they claim to champion, and will never allow true animal rights.


PETA’s way of presenting their message to the masses is by attack-based propaganda. They protest outside of elementary schools in an attempt to deter children from drinking milk with their “Milk Sucks” campaign. They sponsor advertisements meant to bully and harrass fur wearers and non-vegetarians. They have even gone as far to commend a protest that culminated in the eating of a dog to protest fox hunts as “absolutely inspired.” (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/05/british_artist_1.php) It can be argued that such activism will be seen by the most people, but at what cost? The message invariably becomes convoluted in the way it is delivered, and the target audience is lost.

The other half of PETA’s gameplan is to shock the ignorant into anger (or sadness or disgust) about the way animals are treated by showing the most shocking, disturbing footage available as the “way things are.” This will not work for the majority, however, as they will turn away in disgust. The knot in their stomach will fade with the images from their short term memory.

Their pathos-based rhetoric will continue to fail, and it is something the organization must have observed. The current green movement is proof that we are willing to be inconvenienced if we are presented with logically-based argument. Why would an organization be so unwilling to accept smaller concessions --as in more gas efficient vehicles to the green movement-- if they would lead to saving the lives of animals in the present and lead to a path of true animal rights in the future?

The answer is simple; the moment true animal rights exist, PETA ceases to be relevant and the money trickles to a halt. PETA will offer their horrifying videos as long as they are able to, and there will always be a big fat DONATE button right next to it; the viewer is able to defer their responsibility, assuage their guilt and are no longer inconvenienced, and the PETA ball keeps rolling. When animals are given their due rights, their clientele will disappear. It is for this reason that animal rights activism will always struggle to be presented as Regan had hoped. Once the message can be spread to the masses as a collected, logic based argument, the desire for animal rights will be able to move beyond the realm of sympathetic character traits and a likability in a flirtatious situation.