Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study analyzes the relationship between advances in Animal Law and the need for educational strategies aimed at preventing animal cruelty. It discusses the legal and scientific transformation of animals’ status, driven by the recognition of sentience and the expansion of constitutional and statutory animal protection in Brazil. It argues that stronger legal protection, although essential, does not by itself ensure changes in social practices, particularly in the face of the cultural normalization of animal suffering and emerging forms of producing, circulating, and encouraging violence in digital environments. Based on bibliographic and documentary research, the study examines interfaces among Animal Law, Environmental Education, humane education, and Basic Education. As a theoretical and educational contribution, it proposes Human–Animal Relations Education (HARE), structured around five interdependent dimensions: scientific, ethical, legal, socio-environmental, and digital. The proposal seeks to foster interspecies ethical, legal, and scientific literacy, grounded in the capacities to perceive, understand, problematize, judge, and act. The study concludes that the social effectiveness of animal protection requires articulating legal accountability, prevention, and education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barros et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: