I think starting at proving why human rights exist is the more valuable logical path as there’s some contention that inalienable human rights exist and it doesn

I think starting at proving why human rights exist is the more valuable logical path as there’s some contention that inalienable human rights exist and it doesn’t seem reasonable that animals have rights and humans don’t. I’d suggest that once you have a reasonable proof for human rights (imo the best one is argumentation-ethics) then you can see whether there’s an objective argument for rights that applies to animals.