The humans claim sacred texts make them masters and animals their slaves, but the animals point out that nothing in those passages actually says so. A text granting usefulness or provision is not the same as a text granting ownership. Claims of rightful dominion often read more into their sources than is there.
Every creature was made with its own reason and purpose, for its own benefit and protection, not simply to serve humans. That purpose is often hidden from ordinary people and grasped only by those deeply rooted in knowledge. So the fact that an animal can be put to work tells you nothing about what it is for.
The animals argue that if the judge had actually witnessed them hauling, ploughing and charging into battle, bleeding and starved, he would have pitied them. Cruelty survives partly because those with power over a creature never see what its life is like. Making the suffering visible is itself the argument.
Each claim of human superiority is met by an animal that does that very thing better, as when the bee points to its own craft surpassing human skill. Superiority judged by ability keeps collapsing, because some creature always outdoes us on any given measure. Humans are shown as greedy, brutal and arrogant, making their case weaker the more it is examined.
In the end, everyone agrees that only one thing sets humans above animals: that humanity produces its prophets, saints and spiritually perfected people. The human case is won not by what ordinary humans are but by what the best of them can become. So the privilege is justified by an unrealised potential, not by how most people actually behave.