Lynn Hunt responds to the apparent inconsistency of the claim that human rights are "self evident" (see the Declaration of Independence), while necessarily having to write them into a document articulating what form these rights take. Hunt argues, "The process had and has a kind of circularity to it: you know the meaning of human rights because you feel distressed when they are violated. The truths of human rights might be paradoxical in this sense, but they are nonetheless still self-evident."
Hunt's insight, I believe, can be applied to animal rights as well: we know the meaning of animal rights because we feel distressed when we see a "downer" cow being dragged to slaughter behind a forklift, for example; when a dog is being forced into combat with another dog we know that both of the animals' rights are being violated. Our "inner sense of outrage" demands the proper response when a hen is sexually assaulted by a slaughterhouse employee. If a horse is starved by her human our moral intuitions say "This is wrong!"
However, the object(s) of our moral outrage is limited by our collective irrational biases, and prejudices against certain species' of animals, which seems to suggest that the truths of animal rights are not truths at all in the moral sense: animal rights are not universal but culturally relative, subjective constructions. I mean, we all continue to gleefully eat the bodies of billions of animals annually, while Michael Vick spends time in prison for his actions.
The logic of this response, however, can and must also be applied to the context of human rights. I live in Washington D.C., a city populated by thousands upon thousands of homeless men, women and children, who suffer from malnutrition, the elements, psychological trauma, etc. And yet, this continues. Everyday we walk past these individuals, preferring to spend our money on alcohol at one of the local bars instead of spending those dollars on a meal for some pitiful looking homeless women. Rape is used as a weapon of war throughout our world today, but we prefer to bicker about which consenting adults ought to have the opportunity to marry (the right of marriage, of course, is also considered a human right). Infant Chinese girls are considered replaceable, less in value than their male counterparts, but this does not prevent us from enacting policy favoring trade with China. Genocide in Darfur continues. Our government sanctions torture, a form of punishment and interrogation explicitly condemned as immoral in the Declaration of Independence's articulation of those inalienable, universal human rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Does this suggest that the truths of human rights are in fact not self-evident, but a prudent creation - a fiction? I only have the "right to life" if my government say's so. If not then I don't, and you don't either. "Liberty" is like health care, it's a privilege. Was Jeremy Bentham correct when he argued that talk of moral or inalienable rights is "nonsense upon stilts."
Is this correct? I think, or rather I know, the answer to this question is no. And so do you. Where do they come from? Perhaps reason, Nature or god, our shared sentience; I don't know, but they're real.
For selfish reason T, U, and V, and for other reasons W, X, Y, and Z we fail to demand action in response to our inner outrage over various moral wrongs; however, we experience that inner outrage nonetheless. This holds true for both human rights and animal rights.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
