|
|
Chapter 2.1 Animal Rights Introduction
Animal rights are benefits people give to animals. Benefits can be moral, legal and practical and can include the right of protection from human use and abuse. 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 rightists also believe we should consider the best interests of animals regardless of any value the animals may have for us. But what are animal rights specifically? How do animal rights compare with human rights? Are rights a remedy for all moral problems? Background to RightsOne of the first to distinguish rights was the English philosopher John Lock (1632 - 1704), who thought people were entitled to the rights of life, liberty and property. People often base their concept of rights on a belief in ‘natural’ rights, or that they are given by God, or were somehow enjoyed long ago, when people lived in a ‘state of nature’ before they became civilized. Furthermore, they assume these rights are universal, that is they apply to everyone automatically, indisputably and irrevocably. Alternatively, you could claim that human rights are neither natural nor universal; 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.Modern human rights are said to be: Natural - rulers do not invent them. Universal - they apply to everyone. Equal - they are the same for everyone. Inalienable - no one can lose them. Rights are usually contracted between a country's government and its citizens, like the right to vote, the right to fair trial and the right to free speech, and vary from country to country. Many states make utterances about giving their citizens rights but do not fully grant them. Major Dates for Rights1776 The Declaration of Independence of the United States recognised the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. This was the world's first major published statement of human rights.1789 The National Assembly of France approved rights for the common man, including equality before the law, equal opportunity, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, freedom of speech and religion, security of property, and taxation commensurate with ability to pay. 1948 The United Nations affirmed their Universal Declaration of Human Rights, setting out over two dozen rights, including the right of individuals to life, liberty, education, equality in law, freedom of movement, religion, association and information.
Not everyone agrees about 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. Animal Rights. City Journal. 2000.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. Essay: Animal Rights and the New Enlightenment.Animal RightsThe justification for conferring rights on animals is that animals are in many important ways like humans. Animals are sentient creatures who are subjects of a life: they feel pleasure and pain, experience emotions, remember, anticipate, learn, and 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, it is rational that animals also deserve rights.Animal interests, however, are not always the same as human interests. Thus the range of rights that animals need is not always the same as the range of rights that humans need. Animals are not in need of equality before the law, or freedom of speech and religion, or of fair taxation. Nor do animals have an interest in voting or being literate. Hence, it would be meaningless and silly to give animals rights to these affairs. However, this should not prevent people from bestowing relevant and appropriate rights on animals. Relevant rights for animals can be any benefits appropriate for them that people wish to bestow on them. Relevant rights for animals can include:
Fundamental Animal Rights PositionsAs for the actuality of giving rights to animals there are three fundamental positions: abuse, welfare and liberation.1. Abuse Animals have no moral status. We owe nothing to animals except to make use of them as and how we like. This is the position many people held in past centuries and many people still hold today, especially in China and surrounding countries. 2. Welfare Animals should have welfare. We should treat animals kindly, but humans always come first when there is a conflict of interest, because humans are superior and animals are a resource for humanity. Welfarists acknowledge the need to use animals but try to alleviate 'needless' animal suffering. This is the position most people in the West support today. 3. Liberation We should liberate animals. 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 (larger cages for chickens, straw bedding for pigs). 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 then there is no need for welfare. Liberationists tend to have a lifestyle quite different from the majority of people, being vegan or vegetarian and reject goods and services based on animals. Variations on Animal RightsThe concept of animal rights has different levels of definition. To avoid talking at cross purposes and to keep your bearings, it is useful to clarify in your head what people may have in mind when they speak about animal rights. For example you can distinguish three basic views: absolute, equal and relative.1. Relative Animal Rights We should avoid causing animals 'unnecessary' suffering, but human welfare is more important than animal welfare and we should overrule the interests (rights) of animals if we have good reason to do so. Animal welfarists hold this view. 2. Equal Consideration We should give equal consideration to the similar interests of animals and humans. When making a moral decision about the suffering of a dog and a human, neither want pain inflicted on them, so we should give the same weight of consideration to the dog as we would to the human. If we are not prepared to make a human suffer then we should not make a dog suffer. 3. Absolute Animal Rights We should always protect the rights of animals, even when doing so is troublesome personally and difficult for society. People should not experiment on dogs to develop a possible life-saving drug (other experimental methods should be found) even if it might mean delaying the drug's development by some years. This is the view that animal rightists are inclined to hold. Although useful to remember, you need not confine yourself to these three levels when discussing animal rights. Make up nuances as you like, such as broadening animal rights to apparently non-sentient animals, or to the whole of inanimate nature, or by coming up with different definitions of animal rights. Are Rights a Cure-all?Rights should be absolute if they are to protect individuals; they cannot be suspended or hacked about to fit in with what someone may happen to want. Yet there seem to be cases for overriding rights during moral dilemmas, such as killing some individuals to save others. This might be when mice are spoiling a harvest and setting off a famine, or when coyotes or foxes are eating the last individuals of an endangered species. How should we react to conflicts of interest like these? We might respond by temporarily adopting another philosophy, like utilitarianism - that you should act to bring about the greatest good to the greatest number of individuals. Therefore rights may not be 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 with rights is that sometimes people say animals have intrinsic value: an importance in themselves irrespective of their value to humans. You might claim that all sentient beings are entitled to rights because they have equal intrinsic value. But does intrinsic value really exist in itself? Intrinsic value might simply be subjective: it is what people say has value for themselves. If you do not believe in intrinsic value then you might have to pursue animal liberation via equal consideration and utilitarianism, not through animal rights. As an equal consideration utilitarian you could claim that sentient animals have interests and thus no species (that is humanity) is more important than any other; therefore, we should give equal moral consideration to every creature's relevant moral interests. For & Against: argue your caseListen to people's arguments for and against animal rights. Break down their arguments into simple statements and add them to these common outlooks to help argue your case.Beware that many arguments against animal right are based on fallacies. One common fallacy is that we should do something just because it is a fact that it happens naturally. But it is not inevitable. Our ancestors lived semi-nude in the stone age (fact), therefore we ought to live semi-nude today (error of judgement). Also, some arguments against animal rights are based on stating a fact and then drawing a value judgement from it. Value judgements do not necessarily derive from facts. John takes an over-large shoe size (fact), therefore his feet are too big (value judgement). 1. Drawing the Line
|
|