A Life That Matters, Even Without Words

By Samantha Yang, Del Norte High School, '27

Artwork by Leanne Fan, Westview High School, '26

A Life That Matters, Even Without Words

Just because animals cannot speak human language does not mean they have nothing to

express. While it may be shown in different ways, such as a dog’s aggressive tail wag, an

elephant's grief over the loss of a friend, or a chimpanzee reaching out for comfort, animals show us powerful emotions: their care and love for themselves and others around them. Like humans, animals want to feel good, play, avoid pain, and live freely; thus, I argue that all non-human animals should be treated well as they possess similar interests, such as preventing pain and living meaningful lives. They deserve rights that protect their interests, making it a moral and legal responsibility for humans to treat them with care and respect.

Animals demonstrate their state of mind: they wish to be safe, free from pain, and want to

enjoy their lives. Science supports this statement by showing that animals are sentient, capable of experiencing emotions such as pleasure, fear, joy, and even sadness. According to “The Moral Status of Animals,” from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, sentient beings have “moral status,” which means they deserve consideration. The article also states that animals are “subjects of a life” because they possess beliefs, desires, and memories, even if those are not as complex as those of people, ultimately proving that their life is meaningful to them regardless of how humans perceive them (Stanford 2024). Hauskeller, in her essay “Living Like a Dog,” agrees, explaining that animals can live meaningful lives full of emotions and relationships. This can be represented as dogs can show loyalty and affection, pigs play and solve puzzles, and elephants are known to mourn their dead (Hauskeller 2019). These behaviors reveal that animals care, think, and feel about their experiences, indicating signs of a deep, emotional life. Treating animals well begins by recognizing that their experiences matter, and although their interests may differ slightly from those of humans, they still count. Whether it is their need for space to roam, companionship, or freedom from pain, animals exhibit preferences that can improve or

worsen their lives, and respecting those preferences is the first step toward recognizing their

rights as non-human animals.

However, merely understanding their interests is the minimum, as people often also

overlook what animals want, especially when money, power, or convenience are involved. This leads to the second reason why animals should have rights: rights provide a stronger form of protection for them in situations that involve using them in research, dog shows, making profits, and other purposes. In the article “Do Animals Have Rights?” from PMC, the author argues that because animals can suffer and experience pleasure, they deserve moral rights and basic claims, such as the right not to be harmed or treated as property. Ladwig argues that if the best reason for human rights is that we can feel, suffer, and care about what happens to us, then sentient animals also meet that standard as they feel pain and care about their lives (Ladwig 2023). Although animal and human rights differ widely, both deserve protection from serious harm and unfair treatment. Some laws, such as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), continue to address these issues. As stated in the article “Should Nonhuman Animals Be Recognized Legally as Persons,” Favre describes the law’s intent: it was created to regulate how animals are treated in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. However, the article continues to discuss the problem that, while the AWA was a step in the right direction, it still leaves many animals unprotected, such as farm animals, birds, and rats and mice used in research, which are often excluded. The article also notes that animals covered by the AWA may not receive strong protection, since the law focuses primarily on preventing cruelty in extreme cases rather than on ensuring animals have meaningful lives. While the AWA helps at a minimum, it does not go far enough to protect all animals’ interests or ensure they are all treated fairly and given rights (Favre 2024). Animals deserve more than just minimum care; they deserve stronger, more protective laws that recognize their rights and individuality.

Additionally, Roma Beke explains in her paper, “To What Extent Should Non-Human

Animals Have Legal Rights,” from the University of York, recognizing animals as sentient is

only the beginning. The law may acknowledge that animals can feel, but it still does not treat

them as whole legal beings. Many animals in the U.K. are still used for experiments, live in

factory farms, or are treated as property. Beke argues that these inconsistencies demonstrate that recognizing animals' interests is not enough, and that without clear legal rights, such as the right to live free from cruelty or confinement, animals remain vulnerable in these areas of concern (Beke 2016). Despite society's efforts, without strong, enforced laws, animals will continue to suffer. Thus, recognizing animals’ emotions and sentience cannot be the only change. Animals need a legal status that will protect them from every aspect of life, not just in exceptional cases. Francione, in his article “Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism,” discusses how different theories approach this issue. Francoine focuses on the theory of reducing suffering. However, this can be unfair as hurting animals to save many people is unethical (Francoine). On the other hand, rights theory suggests that animals should not be used as tools for others, even if the outcome is beneficial. Tom Regan, in “The Case for Animal Rights,” agrees with this statement. He believes that animals are a “subject of life,” have their own experiences, and should never be mistreated (Regan 1985). As science continues to reveal more about animal intelligence and emotions, some researchers believe it is time to update the law to reflect these findings. In “Legal

Personhood for Animals: Has Science Made Its Case?,” Michael Pardo argues that advances in neuroscience and behavior studies support the idea that animals, especially dolphins and

elephants, deserve legal rights. In his article, he emphasizes that animals show signs of self-awareness, complex social bonds, and problem-solving in their everyday lives. He explains

that all of these traits show similarity between the behaviors of animals and humans. If science is used to justify humans with limited abilities, animals with advanced thinking should be considered as well (Pardo 2013). Beyond the facts shown by science, Cheryl Abbate, in her article, "People and Their Animal Companions," explores how humans form deep, emotional relationships with companion animals, explaining that people often care about their pets as family, yet these same people continue to support ideas and laws that harm animals. Abbate argues that this shows humans recognize animals' value emotionally, even if they do not always act on it ethically. Both scientific and emotional views show that animals are more than just property. They are thinking, feeling beings we connect with deeply, and the law should reflect that by giving them stronger protections and possibly legal personhood (Abbate 2023).

All animals have sentiments, such as a desire to avoid pain and to live freely. Therefore,

they should have rights protecting them from pain and suffering. As humans, our lives intertwine with animals, and they help us understand their emotions and needs. Giving them their rights ensures they are protected while being a crucial part of humanity. This builds a strong argument for treating animals well, whether in science, on farms, in zoos, or in our homes. Animals deserve compassion, protection, and justice. Not just because we care about them, but because they are similar to us in many ways and matters in the realm of life.