The most famous proponent of this view is the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation (1975), though Singer is technically a utilitarian. The stricter deontological view (rights based on personhood) comes from Tom Regan, who argued in The Case for Animal Rights that certain animals are "subjects-of-a-life" with inherent value. If an animal has a right to life, you cannot kill it for food, even if you do it painlessly. If an animal has a right to liberty, you cannot keep it in a zoo, even if the zoo has excellent enrichment. If an animal has a right to bodily autonomy, you cannot perform medical experiments on it, even if those experiments cure human diseases.
In the modern era, the way humanity interacts with non-human animals has shifted from a matter of tradition to a matter of moral urgency. From the factory farms that produce our burgers to the laboratories that test our shampoos, the ethics of our dominion over other species are being scrutinized like never before. The most famous proponent of this view is
The welfarist solution: Regenerative grazing, higher welfare standards, smaller operations. Meat will become more expensive, but we will eat less of it, and the animals we do eat will have lived a good life. If an animal has a right to liberty,
The question isn't whether you support animal welfare or animal rights. The question is: And are you willing to change what you put on your plate to get there? If you want to learn more, look into the "Brambell Report" (welfare), Tom Regan's "The Case for Animal Rights" (rights), or the documentary "Dominion" (rights). Your education is the first step toward changing the law. From the factory farms that produce our burgers