I am in favor of legal rights for nonhuman animals (and other sentient nonhuman entities) but I think they should be based on sentience (the ability to have positive and negative experiences) rather than on autonomy or any capacities other than that required by sentience.

I think when we start talking about autonomy and self-ownership, that’s setting the bar too high because sentience exists at a much lower level. It requires consciousness but not necessarily self-awareness. That would exclude the majority of the animals on the planet – who are capable of suffering but are not autonomous or even necessarily self-aware, as well as excluding many humans.

In my opinion, too much emphasis has been put on studies of animal cognition rather than animal sentience. Because in order to protect all beings who can suffer, we only need to know if they can suffer, and not whether they can pass the mirror test.

If we talk about legal rights (as opposed to moral rights), then technically personhood is based on autonomy. However, judges create legal fictions all the time to treat non-autonomous humans (who are cognitively disabled, senile, infants, etc.) as if they were autonomous and then appoint a guardian for them. So this actually shows that it is sentience that matters and not autonomy.

And I do agree with you that most of the animals we enslave for food, clothing, and entertainment demonstrate autonomy, but I am concerned about the wellbeing of the animals who don't as well.

Thanks for an excellent, thought-provoking post.

Are you aware of the Nonhuman Rights Project? http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/