The philosophy of Animal Rights
THE PHILOSOPHY OF
ANIMAL RIGHTS
The
other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a
variety of ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to them
apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they
are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life
that fares better or worse for the one whose life it is.
That
life includes a variety of biological, individual, and social needs.
The satisfaction of these needs is a source of pleasure, their
frustration or abuse, a source of pain. In these fundamental ways, the
nonhuman animals in labs and on farms, for example, are the same as
human beings. And so it is that the ethics of our dealings with them,
and with one another, must acknowledge the same fundamental moral
principles.
At
its deepest level, human ethics is based on the independent value of
the individual: The moral worth of any one human being is not to be
measured by how useful that person is in advancing the interest of
other human beings. To treat human beings in ways that do not honor
their independent value is to violate that most basic of human rights:
the right of each person to be treated with respect.
The
philosophy of animal rights demands only that logic be respected. For
any argument that plausibly explains the independent value of human
beings implies that other animals have this same value, and have it
equally. And any argument that plausibly explains the right of humans
to be treated with respect, also implies that these other animals have
this same right, and have it equally, too.
It
is true, therefore, that women do not exist to serve men, blacks to
serve whites, the poor to serve the rich, or the weak to serve the
strong. The philosophy of animal rights not only accepts these truths,
it insists upon and justifies them.
But
this philosophy goes further. By insisting upon and justifying the
independent value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically
informed and morally impartial reasons for denying that these animals
exist to serve us.
Once
this truth is acknowledged, it is easy to understand why the philosophy
of animal rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every
injustice other animals are made to suffer.
It
is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of
animals used in science, for example, but empty cages: not
"traditional" animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in
the flesh of dead animals; not "more humane" hunting and trapping, but
the total eradication of these barbarous practices.
For
when an injustice is absolute, one must oppose it absolutely. It was
not "reformed" slavery that justice demanded, not "re- formed" child
labor, not "reformed" subjugation of women. In each of these cases,
abolition was the only moral answer. Merely to reform injustice is to
prolong injustice.
The
philosophy of animal rights demands this same answer-- abolition--in
response to the unjust exploitation of other animals. It is not the
details of unjust exploitation that must be changed. It is the unjust
exploitation itself that must be ended, whether on the farm, in the
lab, or among the wild, for example. The philosophy of animal rights
asks for nothing more, but neither will it be satisfied with anything
less.
10 Reasons FOR Animal Rights and
Their Explanation
1. The philosophy of animal rights is rational
Explanation:
It is not rational to discriminate arbitrarily. And discrimination
against nonhuman animals is arbitrary. It is wrong to treat weaker
human beings, especially those who are lacking in normal human
intelligence, as "tools" or "renewable resources" or "models" or
"commodities." It cannot be right, therefore, to treat other animals as
if they were "tools," "models and the like, if their psychology is as
rich as (or richer than) these humans. To think otherwise is irrational.
"To describe an animal as a physico-chemical
system of extreme complexity is no doubt perfectly correct, except that
it misses out on the 'animalness' of the animal."
-- E.F. Schumacher
2. The philosophy of animal rights is scientific
Explanation: The
philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in
general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches
that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in
degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is
obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and
hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our
psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best
science.
"There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"
-- Charles Darwin
3. The philosophy of animal rights is unprejudiced
Explanation:
Racists are people who think that the members of their race are
superior to the members of other races simply because the former belong
to their (the "superior") race. Sexists believe that the members of
their sex are superior to the members of the opposite sex simply
because the former belong to their (the "superior") sex. Both racism
and sexism are paradigms of unsupportable bigotry. There is no
"superior" or "inferior" sex or race. Racial and sexual differences are
biological, not moral, differences.
The
same is true of speciesism -- the view that members of the species Homo
sapiens are superior to members of every other species simply because
human beings belong to one's own (the "superior") species. For there is
no "superior" species. To think otherwise is to be no less predjudiced
than racists or sexists.
"If you can justify killing to eat meat, you can justify the conditions of the ghetto. I cannot justify either one."
-- Dick Gregory
4. The philosophy of animal rights is justice
Explanation: Justice
is the highest principle of ethics. We are not to commit or permit
injustice so that good may come, not to violate the rights of the few
so that the many might benefit. Slavery allowed this. Child labor
allowed this. Most examples of social injustice allow this. But not the
philosophy of animal rights, whose highest principle is that of
justice: No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating
another's rights, whether that "other" is a human being or some other
animal.
"The
reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less
strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the (other) animals"
- John Stuart Mill
5. The philosophy of animal rights is compassionate
Explanation: A
full human life demands feelings of empathy and sympathy -- in a word,
compassion -- for the victims of injustice -- whether the victims are
humans or other animals. The philosophy of animal rights calls for, and
its acceptance fosters the growth of, the virtue of compassion. This
philosophy is, in Lincoln's words, "the way of a whole human being."
"Compassion in action may be the glorious possibility that could protect our crowded, polluted planet ..."
-- Victoria Moran
6. The philosophy of animal rights is unselfish
Explanation:
The philosophy of animal rights demands a commitment to serve those who
are weak and vulnerable -- those who, whether they are humans or other
animals, lack the ability to speak for or defend themselves, and who
are in need of protection against human greed and callousness. This
philosophy requires this commitment, not because it is in our
self-interest to give it, but because it is right to do so. This
philosophy therefore calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth
of, unselfish service.
"We
need a moral philosophy in which the concept of love, so rarely
mentioned now by philosophers, can once again be made central."
-- Iris Murdoch
7. The philosophy of animal rights is individually fulfilling
Explanation:
All the great traditions in ethics, both secular and religious,
emphasize the importance of four things: knowledge, justice,
compassion, and autonomy. The philosophy of animal rights is no
exception. This philosophy teaches that our choices should be based on
knowledge, should be expressive of compassion and justice, and should
be freely made. It is not easy to achieve these virtues, or to control
the human inclinations toward greed and indifference. But a whole human
life is imposssible without them. The philosophy of animal rights both
calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, individual self-fulfillment.
"Humaneness is not a dead external precept, but a living impulse from within; not self-sacrifice, but self-fulfillment."
-- Henry Salt
8. The philosophy of animal rights is socially progressive
Explanation: The
greatest impediment to the flourishing of human society is the
exploitation of other animals at human hands. This is true in the case
of unhealthy diets, of the habitual reliance on the "whole animal
model" in science, and of the many other forms animal exploitation
takes. And it is no less true of education and advertising, for
example, which help deaden the human psyche to the demands of reason,
impartiality, compassion, and justice. In all these ways (and more),
nations remain profoundly backward because they fail to serve the true
interests of their citizens.
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
9. The philosophy of animal rights is environmentally wise
Explanation: The
major cause of environmental degradation, including the greenhouse
effect, water pollution, and the loss both of arable land and top soil,
for example, can be traced to the exploitation of animals. This same
pattern exists throughout the broad range of environmental problems,
from acid rain and ocean dumping of toxic wastes, to air pollution and
the destruction of natural habitat. In all these cases, to act to
protect the affected animals (who are, after all, the first to suffer
and die from these environmental ills), is to act to protect the earth.
"Until
we establish a felt sense of kinship between our own species and those
fellow mortals who share with us the sun and shadow of life on this
agonized planet, there is no hope for other species, there is no hope
for the environment, and there is no hope for ourselves."
-- Jon Wynne-Tyson
10 Reasons AGAINST
Animal Rights and Their Replies
1. You are equating animals and humans, when, in fact, humans and animals differ greatly.
Reply: We
are not saying that humans and other animals are equal in every way.
For example, we are not saying that dogs and cats can do calculus, or
that pigs and cows enjoy poetry. What we are saying is that, like
humans, many other animals are psychological beings, with an
experiential welfare of their own. In this sense, we and they are the
same. In this sense, therefore, despite our many differences, we and
they are equal.
"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals."
-- Peter Singer
2.
You are saying that every human and every other animal has the same
rights, which is absurd. Chickens cannot have the right to vote, nor
can pigs have a right to higher education.
Reply: We
are not saying that humans and other animals always have the same
rights. Not even all human beings have the same rights. For example,
people with serious mental disadvantages do not have a right to higher
education. What we are saying is that these and other humans share a
basic moral right with other animals -- namely, the right to be treated
with respect.
"It is the fate of every truth to be an object of ridicule when it is first acclaimed."
-- Albert Schweitzer
3. If animals have rights, then so do vegetables, which is absurd.
Reply:
Many animals are like us: they have a psychological welfare of their
own. Like us, therefore, these animals have a right to be treated with
respect. On the other hand, we have no reason, and certainly no
scientific one, to believe that carrots and tomatoes, for example,
bring a psychological presence to the world. Like all other vegetables,
carrots and tomatoes lack anything resembling a brain or central
nervous system. Because they are deficient in these respects, there is
no reason to think of vegetables as psychological beings, with the
capacity to experience pleasure and pain, for example. It is for these
reasons that one can rationally affirm rights in the case of animals
and deny them in the case of vegetables.
"The case for animal rights depends only on the need for sentiency."
-- Andrew Linzey
4. Where do you draw the line? If primates and rodents have rights, then so do slugs and amoebas, which is absurd.
Reply: It
often is not easy to know exactly where to "draw the line." For
example, we cannot say exactly how old someone must be to be old, or
how tall someone must be to be tall. However, we can say, with
certainty, that someone who is eighty-eight is old, and that another
person who is 7'1" is tall. Similarly, we cannot say exactly where to
draw the line when it comes to those animals who have a psychology. But
we can say with absolute certainty that, wherever one draws the line on
scientific grounds, primates and rodents are on one side of it (the
psychological side), whereas slugs and amoebas are on the other --
which does not mean that we may destroy them unthinkingly.
"In
the relations of humans with the animals, with the flowers, with all
the objects of creation, there is a whole great ethic scarcely seen as
yet."
-- Victor Hugo
5.
But surely there are some animals who can experience pain but lack a
unified psychological identity. Since these animals do not have a right
to be treated with respect, the philosophy of animal rights implies
that we can treat them in any way we choose.
Reply:
It is true that some animals, like shrimp and clams, may be capable of
experiencing pain yet lack most other psychological capacities. If this
is true, then they will lack some of the rights that other animals
possess. However, there can be no moral justification for causing
anyone pain, if it is unnecessary to do so. And since it is not
necessary that humans eat shrimp, clams, and similar animals, or
utilize them in other ways, there can be no moral justification for
causing them the pain that invariably accompanies such use.
"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?"
-- Jeremy Bentham
6. Animals don't respect our rights. Therefore, humans have no obligation to respect their rights either.
Reply: There
are many situations in which an individual who has rights is unable to
respect the rights of others. This is true of infants, young children,
and mentally enfeebled and deranged human beings. In their case we do
not say that it is perfectly all right to treat them disrespectfully
because they do not honor our rights. On the contrary, we recognize
that we have a duty to treat them with respect, even though they have
no duty to treat us in the same way.
What
is true of cases involving infants, children, and the other humans
mentioned, is no less true of cases involving other animals, Granted,
these animals do not have a duty to respect our rights. But this does
not erase or diminsh our obligation to respect theirs.
"The
time will come when people such as I will look upon the murder of
(other) animals as they no look upon the murder of human beings."
-- Leonardo Da Vinci
7.God gave humans dominion over other animals. This is why we can do anything to them that we wish, including eat them.
Reply:
Not all religions represent humans as having "dominion" over other
animals, and even among those that do, the notion of "dominion" should
be understood as unselfish guardianship, not selfish power. Humans are
to be as loving toward all of creation as God was in creating it. If we
loved the animals today in the way humans loved them in the Garden of
Eden, we would not eat them. Those who respect the rights of animals
are embarked on a journey back to Eden -- a journey back to a proper
love for God's creation.
"And
God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit
of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
-- Genesis 1:29
8.Only humans have immortal souls. This gives us the right to treat the other animals as we wish.
Reply: Many
religions teach that all animals, not just humans, have immortal souls.
However, even if only humans are immortal, this would only prove that
we live forever whereas other animals do not. And this fact (if it is a
fact) would increase, not decrease, our obligation to insure that this
-- the only life other animals have -- be as long and as good as
possible.
"There
is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as they like
about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be good and kind
to other animals as well as humans, it is all a sham."
-- Anna Sewell
9.
If we respect the rights of animals, and do not eat or exploit them in
other ways, then what are we supposed to do with all of them? In a very
short time they will be running through our streets and homes.
Reply: Somewhere
between 4-5 billion animals are raised and slaughtered for food every
year, just in the United States. The reason for this astonishingly high
number is simple: there are consumers who eat very large amounts of
animal flesh. The supply of animals meets the demand of buyers.
When
the philosophy of animal rights triumphs, however, and people become
vegetarians, we need not fear that there will be billions of cows and
pigs grazing in the middle of our cities or in our living rooms. Once
the financial incentive for raising billions of these animals
evaporates, there simply will no be not be millions of these animals.
And the same reasoning applies in other cases -- in the case of animals
bred for research, for example. When the philosophy of animal rights
prevails, and this use of these animals cease, then the financial
incentive for breeding millions of them will cease, too.
"The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That is the essence of inhumanity"
-- George Bernard Shaw
10.
Even if other animals do have moral rights and should be protected,
there are more important things that need our attention -- world hunger
and child abuse, for example, apartheid, drugs, violence to women, and
the plight of the homeless. After we take care of these problems, then
we can worry about animals rights.
Reply:
The animal rights movement stands as part of, not apart from, the human
rights movement. The same philosophy that insists upon and defends the
rights of nonhuman animals also insists upon and defends the rights of
human beings.
At
a practical level, moreover, the choice thoughtful people face is not
between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both.
People do not need to eat animals in order to help the homeless, for
example, any more than they need to use cosmetics that have been tested
on animals in order to help children. In fact, people who do respect
the rights of nonhuman animals, by not eating them, will be healthier,
in which case they actually will be able to help human beings even more.
"I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."
-- Abraham Lincoln
.:source:.
Posted by, I Want Changes To Happen!
- Previous »
Information and Links
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
