The Philosophy of Animal Rights
|
Vegetarianism and
Friendship |
About CAF |
Links
Animal Rights Archives
| CAF Grant
Application | Books
The Philosophy of Animal Rights
by Dr. Tom Regan
10 Reasons
FOR Animal Rights and
Their Explanation |
10 Reasons
AGAINST
Animal Rights and
Their Replies |
|
|
|
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 just
|
| |
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 workds,
"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. The philosophy of animal rights is peace-loving.
|
| |
Explanation: The
fundamental demand of the philosophy of animal rights is to
treat humans and other animals with respect. To do this requires
that we not harm anyone just so that we ourselves or others
might benefit. This philosophy therefore is totally opposed to
military aggression. It is a philosophy of peace. But it is a
philosophy that extends the demand for peace beyond the
boundaries of our species. For there is a war being waged, every
day, against countless millions of nonhuman animals. To stand
truly for peace is to stand firmly against speciesism. It is
wishful thinking to believe that there can be "peace in the
world" if we fail to bring peace to our dealings with other
animals. |
|
| |
"If by some miracle in all our struggle the earth is
spared from nuclear holocaust, only justice to every living thing will
save humankind." -- Alice Walker |
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 |
The Philosophy of Animal Rights |
Vegetarianism and
Friendship |
About CAF |
Links
Animal Rights Archives
| CAF Grant
Application | Books
Culture and Animals, 3509 Eden Croft Dr., Raleigh, NC 27612
home -
Nancy@cultureandanimals.org -
Phone:919-782-3739, Fax:919-782-6464
|
