All political communities must make decisions about how to regulate the treatment of animals. Most states currently protect animals through outlawing the infliction of ‘unnecessary suffering’. But do animals’ rights end there? In this book, Alasdair Cochrane argues that states must go much further. Animals have rights to be protected not only from the cruelty of individuals, but also from those structures and institutions which routinely (and, in some cases, necessarily) cause them harm, such as industrialised animal agriculture. But even that isn’t adequate. In order to ensure that their interests are taken seriously, it is imperative that we represent their interests throughout the political process – they require not only rights to protection, but also to democratic membership. Cochrane’s important intervention in this controversial debate will be essential reading for anyone interested in the intersection of political theory and animal rights.

THE argument for animal rights, a classic since its appearance in 1983, from the moral philosophical point of view. With a new preface.

To all of these animals we owe respect for their basic inviolable rights.

At the same time, he argues that humans have a greater interest in life and liberty than most species of nonhuman animals.

Gary L. Francione is a law professor and leading philosopher of animal rights theory. Robert Garner is a political theorist specializing in the philosophy and politics of animal protection. Francione maintains that we have no moral justification for using nonhumans and argues that because animals are property or economic commodities laws or industry practices requiring "humane" treatment will, as a general matter, fail to provide any meaningful level of protection. Garner favors a version of animal rights that focuses on eliminating animal suffering and adopts a protectionist approach, maintaining that although the traditional animal-welfare ethic is philosophically flawed, it can contribute strategically to the achievement of animal-rights ends. As they spar, Francione and Garner deconstruct the animal protection movement in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and elsewhere, discussing the practices of such organizations as PETA, which joins with McDonald's and other animal users to "improve" the slaughter of animals. They also examine American and European laws and campaigns from both the rights and welfare perspectives, identifying weaknesses and strengths that give shape to future legislation and action.

Humankind coexists with every other living thing. People drink the same water, breathe the same air, and share the same land as other animals. Yet, property law reflects a general assumption that only people can own land. The effects of this presumption are disastrous for wildlife and humans alike. The alarm bells ringing about biodiversity loss are growing louder, and the possibility of mass extinction is real. Anthropocentric property is a key driver of biodiversity loss, a silent killer of species worldwide. But as law and sustainability scholar Karen Bradshaw shows, if excluding animals from a legal right to own land is causing their destruction, extending the legal right to own property to wildlife may prove its salvation. Wildlife as Property Owners advocates for folding animals into our existing system of property law, giving them the opportunity to own land just as humans do—to the betterment of all.

The debate about our treatment of nonhuman animals has been traditionally dominated by moral philosophers, and the crucially important role of politics has been hitherto neglected. This innovative edited collection seeks to redress the imbalance by interrogating some vital questions about this so-called ‘political turn’ in animal ethics.. The questions tackled include: What can political philosophy tell us about our moral obligations to animals? Should the boundaries of the demos be expanded to allow for the inclusion of animals? What kind of political system is most appropriate for the protection of animals? Does the protection of animals require limits to democracy, as in constitutional devices, or a usurping of democracy, as in direct action? What can the work of political scientists tell us about the governance of animal welfare? Leading scholars in the field explain how engaging with politics, in its empirical and normative guises, can throw much needed light on the question of how we treat animals, and how we ought to treat them.