This paper considers two potential methods, both based in utilitarianism, that can be used to grant animals a higher moral status. The first of these methods is an “animal-centric utility” based argument which seeks to decrease harm in non-human animals and increase non-human utility. The second of these methods is an “anthropocentric utility” based argument which seeks to decrease harm in human beings and increase human utility. Though both methods are generally effective at promoting animals receiving a higher moral status, the anthropocentric utility method is ultimately more persuasive for convincing society as a whole. Because of how normalized animal consumption has been throughout history, religious narratives, and human philosophy, the argument to give animals a higher moral status must continue to place homo sapiens at the forefront of the argument; people are more likely to be persuaded to benefit themselves as opposed to benefiting someone - or something – else. This paper analyzes these two methods and provides various avenues for implementing stronger animal rights.