Animals Deserve More Rights: An Argument for Compromises and Unification within the Leading Animal Rights Theories
Advisor(s)
Dr. Jonathan Spelman
Confirmation
1
Document Type
Poster
Location
ONU McIntosh Center; Activities Room
Start Date
24-4-2026 12:00 PM
End Date
24-4-2026 12:50 PM
Abstract
This essay examines the historical development, philosophical foundations, and future direction of animal rights in the United States. Beginning with the limited legal protections afforded to animals prior to the nineteenth century, it traces the progression from New York’s 1866 anti-cruelty statute to modern federal legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act and other regulatory reforms. It then turns to contemporary litigation, focusing on the 2022 case concerning Happy the Elephant and the efforts of the Nonhuman Rights Project to secure her release through habeas corpus. Although unsuccessful, the case illustrates both the limits and possibilities of current legal frameworks. The paper evaluates three major approaches within animal ethics: Gary Francione’s abolitionist approach, Peter Singer’s animal welfare approach, and Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. After defining each theory and applying it to Happy’s case, I present a substantive objection to each, arguing that no single framework is sufficient as a stand-alone strategy. In response, I advocate for a unified and compromise-driven path forward and detail which compromises are necessary to achieve greater progress for animals in the legal system. To better illustrate my proposed compromises, I use them to argue for reforming state laws to classify animals as “sentient property,” which offers a realistic and impactful step toward expanding meaningful legal protections while laying the groundwork for broader future reform.
Recommended Citation
Lloyd, Sunny M., "Animals Deserve More Rights: An Argument for Compromises and Unification within the Leading Animal Rights Theories" (2026). ONU Student Research Colloquium. 83.
https://digitalcommons.onu.edu/student_research_colloquium/2026/Posters/83
Open Access
Available to all.
Animals Deserve More Rights: An Argument for Compromises and Unification within the Leading Animal Rights Theories
ONU McIntosh Center; Activities Room
This essay examines the historical development, philosophical foundations, and future direction of animal rights in the United States. Beginning with the limited legal protections afforded to animals prior to the nineteenth century, it traces the progression from New York’s 1866 anti-cruelty statute to modern federal legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act and other regulatory reforms. It then turns to contemporary litigation, focusing on the 2022 case concerning Happy the Elephant and the efforts of the Nonhuman Rights Project to secure her release through habeas corpus. Although unsuccessful, the case illustrates both the limits and possibilities of current legal frameworks. The paper evaluates three major approaches within animal ethics: Gary Francione’s abolitionist approach, Peter Singer’s animal welfare approach, and Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. After defining each theory and applying it to Happy’s case, I present a substantive objection to each, arguing that no single framework is sufficient as a stand-alone strategy. In response, I advocate for a unified and compromise-driven path forward and detail which compromises are necessary to achieve greater progress for animals in the legal system. To better illustrate my proposed compromises, I use them to argue for reforming state laws to classify animals as “sentient property,” which offers a realistic and impactful step toward expanding meaningful legal protections while laying the groundwork for broader future reform.