I cannot answer the question exactly, not even at the philosophical or theological level. I can just tell that I am absolutely sure that animals are not simple automata. In terms of the Biblical usage I doubt whether they have the quality called "spirit" but I am sure they have a soul. They can suffer and they have a full scale of emotions. Therefore they do deserve compassion whenever possible. Another general observation is that cultures and individuals who are cruel to animals are cruel to fellow human beings as well and they tend to dehumanize others who do not belong to their family or nation. (Sometimes even people belonging to their own family). Whatever the reason, I refrain from killing or harming unnecessarily animals. This does not mean that I do no kill mosquitoes or that I do not eat meat. It is possible, however, that if I would have to kill animals myself to eat them I would opt for vegetarianism.

I cannot answer the question exactly, not even at the philosophical or theological level. I can just tell that I am absolutely sure that animals are not simple automata. In terms of the Biblical usage I doubt whether they have the quality called "spirit" but I am sure they have a soul. They can suffer and they have a full scale of emotions. Therefore they do deserve compassion whenever possible. Another general observation is that cultures and individuals who are cruel to animals are cruel to fellow human beings as well and they tend to dehumanize others who do not belong to their family or nation. (Sometimes even people belonging to their own family). Whatever the reason, I refrain from killing or harming unnecessarily animals. This does not mean that I do no kill mosquitoes or that I do not eat meat. It is possible, however, that if I would have to kill animals myself to eat them I would opt for vegetarianism.

Re: 2. All experiencing subjects have equal inherent value.

Why should we accept this? Couldn't the nature or quality of the experiences make for differences in inherent value?

Re: 3. All those with equal inherent value are entitled to equal moral rights.

This depends on whether inherent value can be conceived as invariable or variable over time. Also, can't moral rights can be gained, lost, or forfeited -- e.g. as punishment for immoral acts, as recipient of a promise, etc.

It's because of such questions that I lean toward moral particularism.

I guess they do , well domesticated ones !!!!

Since Prof Banhegyi mentioned , if being kind is being a vegetarian , then I am a born vegetarian :)

Again , in Hinduism , because we consume milk of cow we worship her like a mother and so cow slaughter is considered a sin.

All forms of life should be treated equally, except that plant and their fruits should be used as food for humans and other animals. Other than that, they also deserve a fair treatment.

Dear Dr. Gyorgy Banhegyi,

I did not mention you in my previous answer. But I also agree 100% with your position.

Maybe

Initially I think, it is important to claim, they deserve respect as part of the nature, if they are dangerous for man then are there other frames of valuating than they are domestic animals like dog, cat or horse.

According to Deep Ecology of Arne Næss all living beings have the right to live, and that this right is universal and can not be quantified.

See: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_Deep_Ecology_be_considered_a_philosophical_basis_for_environmental_conservationism

Without developing all the premises, I consider that non-human animals should enjoy the same rights as humans in comparable contexts.

Both feel, have feelings and emotions; besides that they also have conscience and intelligence

If they are denied these qualities to non-human animals, and are only considered as beasts that are guided exclusively by their instincts, it is not possible to enter other lands because of a lack of depth in reasoning and limitations to the prejudices of superiority of those who consider them.

Personally, I like the idea that nonhuman animals have the same right to respect and moral concern that humans have. However, a number of arguments are put forward against this idea, and accepting the doctrine of nonhuman-animal rights means to deny many human activities (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml). Therefore, I think that the doctrine of nonhuman-animal rights should be accepted as much as possible but it would be difficult completely to accept it.

Islam define the rights of animals as not to beat them , not to put extra burden on them which they can not afford, to give them enough food, not to compromise their freedom , do not separate their kids from their mothers, if you slaughter them the knife should be Sharpe enough to ease the process . Many examples are found in history that some one kept the animal hungry so he was sent to hill , and some one treated a sick dog or gave water to a thirsty dog he was awarded paradise by God.

As the universe is made for human beings all its inclusions are made to serve human beings so human is superior to animals but if he obeys his lord , GOD (ALLAH) but if he disobeys his creator (GOD,ALLAH) then he is not.

So animals are created for serving to humans some are for travel , some are for milk,some are meat, some are for their leather . As we use them we should take care of them.

Similarly animals are used for research purpose but their ethical rights declared for them as well but they are not equal to human

I can say with full confidence, YES, but it is our duties towards such creatures.

Emad

Human is the first priority in context of rights. If the human right is in danger by providing the right to the animal then these nonhuman right is not good. As my concern "Law of Robot" is applied by replacing the "Robot" to "nonhuman animal".

Yes, certainly nonhuman animals do have the same right to respect and moral concern as humans do....

Another good question from Kirk. A lot of interesting opinions. Making the case for a particular viewpoint is much more difficult. Imagine what you would say to persuade those who do not consider non-human animals worthy of respect! It is of some debate in science and philosophy whether all animals are even 'experiencing subjects' (are insects?). How could we determine this? Some have mentioned that ALL forms of life have rights to live and be respected, and I imagine this includes bedbugs and mosquitoes ( Mahayana Buddhism would go this far). Alas, all three premisses have been questioned in the philosophical literature (Karl's point above). Some philosophers (e.g Kant) consider rationality the bedrock of direct moral obligations toward other species, others whether they can suffer (Bentham, Rowlands), and so on. However, we might avoid such a debate by giving animals (at least the cute or useful ones) a secondary type of status based on other factors (perhaps the effects on our character: are people who mistreat animals more likely to do the same to other human beings?).