Some believe that the philosophy of animal rights is part of the human rights movement, and is not separate from them. That means that the same philosophy that represents and defends human rights also defends non-human animal rights.
Advocates are mostly agree that animals should not be seen as property, or used as garments, laboratory animals or for entertainment, or even food.
Proponents see the issue from different perspectives. Abolitionists ague that animals have moral rights, and encourage people to feel uncomfortable with exploiting animals.
Professor Gary l. Francione promotes ethical veganism. He says that the groups for animal rights that receive subsidies, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, are trying to make people feel uncomfortable with making use of animals. He calls such groups as “new welfarists”. Animal rights philosopher Tom Regan suggests that at least some animals, but probably most of them, are “subject-of-a-life, with their beliefs, desires, memories, and a sense of their own future.
Sentiocentrism is a theory implying that sentient individuals deserve their rights.
Protectionists are seeking improvement in the way animals are treated, with the aim of abolishing animal testing completely or almost completely. Protectionists claimed that animal testing could be conducted on humans, which admittedly would have taken a little more time, but are possible and even more effective.
Philosopher Peter Singer said that the protectionism is not only focused on moral rights of animals, but as well on the argument that animals have interests. Singer argues that the animals live in a kind of human, or rather beastly symbiosis with each other where there are internal conflicts and disputes, sense of influences and self-esteem, self-reliance.
Singer argues that we as human beings are unfair treating some animals right and some bad, for example, cats that are treated well and with respect throughout the world, while animals such as rats are often used in test cages.
In parallel with the debate on moral rights, they taught animal law nowadays in the law schools in North America. Several legal scholars support the extension of basic rights to at least some animals.
Those who oppose animal rights argue that animals are unable to initiate social contact, and that they therefore cannot have rights. The philosopher Roger Scruton, among others, believes that only humans have obligations, and that therefore only humans should have rights. However, this is a very vague idea that one can discuss the likelihood of animals having obligations as well as humans to find their food, plays to stay, etc. Most animals react instinctively to attempts to make contact with tem by other animals or defend themselves so as expected, whereupon one can state that both animals and humans have rights.
A parallel argument is that the animal may be used as resources for as long as there is no unnecessary suffering.
Some forms of animal rights activism, such as the Animal Liberation front, which is destroying fur farms and laboratories, have drawn criticism, even from other parts of the animal rights movement.