Chapter Sections
1. Animal Ethics
2. Animal Rights
3. Comparing Animal
Philosophies
How to Do Animal Rights - and Win the War on Animals
Know Your Animal Ethics & Animal Rights
"To spread the concept [of animal rights] beyond our species is to jeopardize our dignity as moral beings, who live in judgement of one another and of themselves." Roger Scruton (1)Alternatively…
"...animal rights must not only be an idea but a social movement for the liberation of the world's most oppressed beings, both in terms of numbers and in the severity of their pain." Steven Best (2)
What are Animal Rights?
Animal rights are the rights of animals to be protected from human use and abuse and can take moral, legal and practical forms. People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use as we wish for whatever purpose, be it for food, clothing, experimentation or entertainment. Animal rights supporters also believe that we should consider the best interests of animals regardless of the usage value they may have for us. But what are animal rights specifically, how do animal rights compare with human rights, and should animals have rights?
Background to Animal Rights
The concept of human rights is often based on a belief in 'natural rights'. Natural rights are assumed to be given by God, or were enjoyed when people were living in a 'state of nature' before people were civilized, or are in some way possessed universally in that rights apply to everyone automatically, indisputably and irrevocably. The English philosopher John Locke in the 17th century was among the first to distinguished certain natural rights he thought people were entitled to: the rights to life, liberty and property.
Alternatively, human rights might be neither natural nor universal. You could argue that rights are only what people are willing to confer as they see fit on others, being the granting of particular benefits by people to people. The generally held modern view of human rights is that they are:
Major Dates for Rights
Animal Rights Theory
The justification for conferring rights on animals is that animals are in many important ways like humans. Animals are sentient creatures. They feel pleasure and pain, experience emotions, remember, anticipate and learn. What happens to them is important for them, unlike what happens to a rock or a stone. So, if you argue that humans deserve rights, by simple extension you can argue that animals also deserve rights.
We must, however, bear in mind that animal interests are not always the same as human interests. Therefore the range of rights that animals need are not always the same as the range of rights that humans need. Animals are not in need of equality before the law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion or fair taxation. Nor do animals have an interest in voting or getting a high school education. Hence, it would be meaningless and silly to talk of giving animals the right to these interests. However, this should not prevent us from bestowing relevant or appropriate rights on animals.
Relevant rights for animals can be any benefits appropriate for animals that people wish to bestow on them. Relevant rights for animals can include:
Fundamental Animal Ethical Positions
As for the actuality of giving rights to animals there are three fundamental positions:
1. Abuse: animals have no moral status.
This is the attitude that we owe nothing to animals except to make use of them as and how we like. It is the position many people held in past centuries and many people still hold today, especially in Asia, such as China.
2. Welfare: animals should have welfare.
This view is that animals are a resource for humanity, we should treat them kindly, but humans always come first when there is a conflict of interest. Welfarists acknowledge the need to use animals but try to alleviate 'needless' animal suffering. It is the position most people in the West support today.
3. Liberation: animals should be liberated.
This is the avant-garde position: animals deserve moral status similar in some way to human moral status. There are two types of animal liberationist and both want to abolish the use of animals on moral or other grounds. ‘New welfarists’ regard abolition as a long-term goal and meanwhile try to ease as much animal suffering as possible by introducing practical welfare measures. The 'hard-line abolitionists’ believe welfare is a waste of time and pitch straight for abolition of animal use on the grounds that if there is no abuse there is no need for welfare. Liberationists have a lifestyle quite different to the majority of people, being vegan or vegetarian and reject goods and services based on animals.
For a comparison of animal rights and animal welfare (and new welfare) see Animal Rights vs Animal Welfare, next page.
Variations on Animal Rights
The concept of animal rights has different levels of definition. So to make any discussion meaningful and avoid talking at cross purposes you need to clarify what people have in mind when they speak about animal rights. For example you can distinguish three basic views:
You need not confine yourself to these three levels when discussing animal rights. You can make up nuances as you like, such as broadening animal rights to apparently non-sentient animals and to the whole of nature or coming up with different definitions of animal rights.
Are Rights a Cure-all?
Rights should be absolute (cannot be suspended or hacked about to fit in with what someone may happen to want) if they are to protect individuals. Yet sometimes there seem to be cases for overriding rights during conflicts of interest. Killing some individuals to save others, for example killing mice spoiling a harvest and setting off a famine, or killing a plethora of predators, such as coyotes or foxes, eating the last individuals of an endangered species. How should we react in situations like these? We might temporarily have to adopt another philosophy, like utilitarianism, that you should act to bring about the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals. Thus we should be aware that rights are not a panacea that can cope with all moral conditions all the time; now and then we may have to look outside rights for other solutions to guide us when dealing with moral issues.
Another problem is that sometimes animals are said to have intrinsic value - have a worth in themselves irrespective of their value to humans. As an animal rightist you might claim that all sentient beings are entitled to rights because they have equal intrinsic value. But does intrinsic value really exist? Does it exist independently of humanity? Intrinsic value may simply be a part of the human value system that values things that have no value or are said to have no value. If you do not believe in intrinsic value then you might have to pursue animal liberation via utilitarianism, not through animal rights. As a utilitarian you could claim that sentient animals have interests and therefore no species (ie humanity) is more important than any other and we should give equal moral consideration to everyone's moral interests.
Both rightist and utilitarian views are similar in that withholding rights or equal consideration of interests is speciesism. A difference between these views is that you must not harm any animal who has rights even if the harm you propose may benefit the majority. On the other hand, according to utilitarianism, you are allowed to harm sentient animals providing the harm has a useful outcome and you would also do the same harm to humans.
Universal Declaration on Animals
Questions about human welfare and about nature conservation are addressed at the highest levels of government. They are debated at international meetings and agreements among nations are codified in binding Charters. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on Biodiversity are examples. Yet animals have no worldwide protection, presumably because they are so important a part of human economic exploitation.
The lack of success in shaping internationally binding charters on animal rights has not been for want of trying. People have attempted to identify and advance the rights of animals at least since the 18th century. Henry Salt (1851 - 1939) is credited with writing the first book on animal rights, Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress (3), published in 1892 and subsequently, and he traced efforts back to John Lawrence (1753 - 1839) one of the earliest writers in modern times on animal rights and welfare. Lawrence argued in his book, A Philosophical and Practical Treatise on Horses and the Moral Duties of Man Towards Brute Creation, published in 1796, that we have to care for animals and common law should support this principle in practice. (For more about Salt and Lawrence see Chapter 6.)
The 20th century saw a number of international declarations supporting animal rights. Perhaps the most prominent venture was the announcement (5) in 1978 by the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) of the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights. Among the Declaration's pronouncements are that all animals have the same rights to existence, no animal shall be ill-treated or subject to cruelty, animals, like humans, should command the protection of law, and dead animals shall be treated with respect. The Declaration, however, waned and faded away before it could reach significant levels of international agreement.
More recently some of the world's leading animal welfare organisations have started campaigning for the United Nations to adopt a new declaration, this time on the welfare of animals. Why welfare and not rights? Possibly the softer option of welfare is easier for people to accept, so that this new declaration has a better chance of being endorsed and enduring.
The animal organisations behind this new declaration, the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, envisage that signatory countries to the document will recognise animals as sentient beings. They hope their Declaration will make animal welfare an important global issue, pioneer the way for legally binding international agreements on animal welfare and hasten a better deal for animals worldwide. The Declaration would also underscore the importance of animal welfare as part of the moral development of humanity. So far a number of United Nations member states are acting as a steering group to advance the initiative at the UN. But achieving this Declaration for animals will be a long and twisting journey. To illustrate, the Convention on the Rights of the Child took thirty years of effort before the United Nations adopted it.
See Appendix 2 for a draft copy of the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare.
Popular Arguments For & Against Animal Rights
Listen to people's arguments for and against animal rights. Break down their arguments into simple statements and add them to these ten common outlooks to help argue your own case.
Drawing the Line
(1) Scruton, Roger. Animal Rights. City Journal. Summer 2000.
(2) Best, Steven. Essay Animal Rights and the New Enlightenment.
(3) Salt, Henry. Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress. G Bell & Sons: London, 1894. Reprinted 1980 by Macmillan & Co: New York and by Centaur Press: London.
(4) Lawrence, John. A Philosophical and Practical Treatise on Horses and the Moral Duties of Man Towards Brute Creation. T N Longman: London. 1796.
(5) The Times, 17 October 1978.
| How to Do Animal Rights - and Win the War on Animals. © Roger (Ben) Panaman, April 2008. All rights reserved. |