In the modern era, the relationship between humans and non-human animals is under greater scrutiny than ever before. From the factory farms that produce our food to the laboratories that test our cosmetics, and from the zoos that entertain our children to the wild spaces we are slowly consuming, the ethical question remains: What do we owe to animals?

This legal group has been filing habeas corpus petitions—traditionally used by human prisoners to challenge unlawful detention—on behalf of captive chimpanzees and elephants. They argue that these cognitively complex animals are autonomous beings.

Welfare is incremental. A welfare victory is a law requiring that a chicken has a perch to sit on, not the end of chicken farming. While widely accepted, the welfare model has fierce critics—often from within the animal rights camp. They argue that welfare is a "cage with a bigger window." By making people feel better about eating meat (because the animal was "humanely raised"), welfare actually perpetuates the system of exploitation. As philosopher Gary Francione puts it, "Happy exploitation is still exploitation." Part II: Animal Rights – The Abolitionist Vision The Philosophy of "Non-Person Persons" Animal rights theory, most famously articulated by philosopher Peter Singer (specifically preference utilitarianism) and legal scholar Tom Regan, takes a radical leap. It argues that animals are not property. They are "subjects-of-a-life" who possess inherent value separate from their usefulness to humans.

The choice, as always, starts with the single consumer. Read the label. Watch the documentary (Dominion, Earthlings). And sit with the uncomfortable truth: The animal on your plate had a life. Whether that life was merely "better" or whether it should have happened at all is the defining moral question of our time.