<p>This paper critically examines the conceptual and ethical challenges in framing human-animal relationships through the lens of rights and justice. Arguing that both "human" and "animal" lack universal, non-reductive definitions, the paper interrogates the viability of animal rights frameworks, highlighting parallels with the limitations of human rights. It traces religious and philosophical perspectives that cast animals as a "quasi-self" in relation to humans, underscoring how anthropocentric paradigms shape both empathy and dominance. Through a biopolitical analysis inspired by Agamben’s Homo Sacer and State of Exception, this study critiques contemporary approaches, including utilitarianism, capabilities theory, and speciesism, for failing to address systemic inequities underpinning human-animal dynamics. Examining practices such as domestication, companionship, and industrial exploitation, the paper situates these relationships within the broader ethics of capitalism and commodification. It concludes by reimagining the human-animal relationship as a negotiation of existence that resists universalizing categories, advocating for ethical frameworks grounded in lived experience and relationality over abstract rights discourse.</p>