Animal rights with relation to how pain is felt, is a commonly encountered argument. The argument that animal rights should be based upon the ability to feel pain does have some merit, but the idea is ultimately, deficient. To explain why the argument is deficient, while retaining some validity, it necessary to investigate why the argument is used. To explore what the strong points of the argument are, and lastly analyze the argument's shortcomings. The reasons the argument of pain-based assertion of animal rights is so commonplace today is complicated, but relatable. The main reason the pain-based argument is so common, is largely due to the utilitarian school of thought. Originated by the British philosopher and thinker Jeremy Bentham, whose quote, "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' Note, 'Can they talk?', but rather, 'Can they suffer?'" is often used in animal rights materials. The Utilitarians, one of the two landmark camps in animal rights, believe that the ability to feel pain offers basis for animal rights. Another reason why the pain argument is a prevailing one is because it is easy to relate to and explain. There are no platitudes, or overcomplicated language. The argument is simple. Because they feel pain, much like humans do, animals are entitled to rights. Furthermore, since pain is almost universally recognized as a bad thing, people are naturally inclined to evaluate, and realize the metaphorical weight of the pain. Holding rights as being tied to the pain makes the rights seem more precious, as they can be tied to suffering. One subtle reason pain-based assertions of animal rights are a fitting argument, is due to the ease of which the argument can be used against the most common targets of animal rights activists. Animal research, factory farms, animal killing, and animal abuse, would certainly undergo close scrutiny in a pain-based argument. These ideas cover the main reasons why the message of pain-based animal