Advocating for animals equally from within a liberal paradigm

Abstract

Orthodox liberal thought rejects the notion that (some) non-human animals should be allocated justice on the same basis as humans. Extending human protection to animals would break down the human/animal divide. It would also have the effect of rendering many current animal uses morally illegitimate. However, the application of one set of standards to humans and another to animals is not the only way in which current animal protection trends harm animals. Even within the group ‘non-human animal’, different standards are applied. Inconsistencies mean that animal protection legislation safeguards some animals more strongly than others. Given that, this article asserts that if animal protection theorists wish to advocate positively on behalf of animals, without offending those who subscribe to a mainstream liberal point of view, a way forward is to address inconsistencies between different types of animals, and not challenge inconsistencies between humans and animals.