Animal Rights PhilosophyAnimal Rights Philosophy

Do animals have rights? Conflict and negotiation: who has rights and who

decides?

Key ConceptsKey Concepts Animal welfare Animal rights

MOVIES Five Freedoms denied to farm animalshttp://www.animal-lib.org.au/multimedia/movies.shtml Meet Your Meathttp://www.peta-online.org/mc/tv/veg.html

BackgroundBackground

Long tradition of Animal Welfare like RSPCA and Humane Society

More recently there has emerged a more militant movement arguing that we should see animals as having rights

WARNING – disturbing photos next two slides

PhotosPhotos

Rights- based movementsRights- based movements The AR movement can best been seen as an

extension of other human rights struggles Last century there was a ‘slave trade’ which

civilised people supported because ‘everyone knew’ Blacks and so couldn’t be given the same rights as white people. And with their current abilities were only capable of being slaves

Likewise, women were seen as different and ‘inferior’ and not able to vote or get an education. This is still true in some places in the world.

Animal rights activists argue that the same logic is being used to justify the exclusion of non-human animals.

Animal rightsAnimal rights These things were changed when

people mobilized to end them and now ‘everybody knows’ that women and Blacks should have equal ‘rights’, and the denial of these rights is now labelled as sexism or racism.

Animal rights activists argue that there is no good reason not to extend the notion of ‘rights’ to non-human animals and it is species-ism not to see this.

Some misconceptionsSome misconceptions

The key text in this was Peter Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation

Singer is not arguing that humans and other non-human animals should have the SAME rights

How many animals do you think would be an acceptable number to kill to get a polio vaccine (it was 2.5 million)? When put this way a cost/benefit analysis which at first looks scientific hides the value judgment involved. How do we decide?

Singer’s ArgumentSinger’s Argument

Singer is a UTILITARIAN. He argues that our best criteria for determining ethical decisions is that we should MINIMIZE the amount of suffering.

Does this seem a valid criteria to you?

Singer (cont.)Singer (cont.) We know that animals can suffer pain (that

is they have central nervous system unlike plants) and act in ways consistent with the observation that they can even, to some extent, anticipate pain and suffering (eg. they struggle when captured).

Whether non-human animals should have rights then is not based of whether they can reason or talk but whether they can suffer.

Singer (cont.)Singer (cont.) There is no logical reason to deny

that animals suffer (those that deny it are in the same position as slave-traders who said Negroes don’t feel pain like ‘us’).

Thus there is no prima facie case for excluding non-human animals from SOME consideration – this does not mean they are entitled to the SAME consideration

Singer (cont.)Singer (cont.)

Once this argument is accepted – that is we should minimize unnecessary suffering – Singer argues, then we need to do so as long as we don’t significantly increase the amount of suffering to humans. So, the question becomes what actions should we take in which the suffering of animals outweighs the cost to humans. Is it necessary to: Eat them? Experiment on them? Wear their

fur? Use them in circuses, rodeos?

Animals as foodAnimals as food

Most usual contact with non-human animals is at mealtime

Is it necessary to eat non-human animals?

If Singer is right then we would need to establish that human interests outweighed the animals interest (as in the case of Eskimos, who need to eat it to survive—but that doesn’t apply to most of us)

Health risks of meatHealth risks of meat OXFORD STUDY 11000 subjects – half on

usual meat and others on vegetarian diets: 40 percent less cancer , 30 percent less heart disease, 20 percent less likely to die before age 80

CHINA HEALTH STUDY 6500 subjects "In my view, no chemical carcinogen is nearly so

important in causing human cancer as animal protein." -- T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. Director, the China Health Project

There is a lot of good research to suggest that meat-eating is hazardous to your health. The China Health Study shows that as the traditionally vegetarian Chinese have added meat to their diet, there is a direct correlation in increased heart disease and cancer, leading to the director’s comment above.

Environmental damageEnvironmental damage 2.5 acres of crop land can produce

enough vegetables for twenty people, enough grain for fifteen people, enough chicken for two people or enough beef for one

It takes 20 000 litres of water and 8-10 kilos of grain to produce a kilo of beef (plus topsoil, clearing etc)The benefits of eating non-human animals look dubious in the light of the environmental costs. So Singer’s argument would say that we are hardly justified in imposing suffering on non-human animals, when we don’t need to eat them (and we may in fact be better off).

Animal ExperimentsAnimal Experiments

Do animal experiments relieve more suffering than they cause? MNC’s research into effects of

shampoo, skin cream, smoking, LD 50 tests on food colourings

This looks shaky after the cost/benefit analysis. Much of the research is of dubious benefit, let alone leading to significant human improvement.

Objection 1Objection 1 Animals eat each other so why

shouldn’t we eat them? Odd looking to animals for moral guidance Animals kill because it is necessary for

them to eat, this would not be the case with humans

Sociologically this is an argument from the supposed ‘naturalness’ of an action to its social effects which is invalid. In fact, much of what is “natural” we have laws against.

Objection 2Objection 2

Humans and animals are qualitatively different so we are entitled to treat them differently.

But how is any difference MORALLY relevant? Everyone is different. What is acceptable

criteria for causing pain that includes only non-human animals? Don’t use tools, don’t go bowling, don’t speak in human languages, may be true but does it follow that we should not minimize their suffering?

Objection 2 (cont)Objection 2 (cont)

Even if we take self-consciousness as key human characteristic Of course in some cases it may be morally

relevant – humans suffer more in some cases

BUT Some animals (parrots and apes) have

shown self-consciousness, and some people (in comas) do not. Does it follow that our interest as self-conscious beings over-ride that of the merely sentient when our self consciousness is not at stake?

Objection 2 (cont)Objection 2 (cont) What about someone with a

severe intellectual impairment, if self consciousness is the basis of moral decision then would we say we should be able to eat them? Experiment on them?

Or do we say that they need ‘special consideration’?

Objection 3Objection 3 Ethics or rights are reciprocal and so it

makes no sense to extend rights to animals It also excludes intellectually disabled,

children and infants Could be used in slave trader’s situation

since Blacks were not able to reciprocate, we owed then nothing

Singer rejects reciprocity as a basis for ethics Another theorist, Ted Benton, remarked that

this amounts to saying that “only human beings can grant rights – so we won’t!”

SummarySummary I hope you are now clearer

about some of the arguments about animal rights and about the ways in which science is used and misused in environmental debates

More common arguments are discussed in the FAQs on this website.

ChristianityChristianity

Two Traditions Human beings as dominating the earth

Natural world seen only as instrumental to salvation

Because of the incarnation, great ontological gap between human beings and all other natural beings

Human beings have immortal soul, animals don’t

Human beings as stewards of the earth

BuddhismBuddhism

Compassion and respect for life A consistent ethic of respect for life

Reincarnation Human souls may be reborn as

animals, thus the possibility of a much smaller gap between human and animal worlds

Native American Traditions:Native American Traditions:The Navajo and the HopiThe Navajo and the Hopi

Harmony (hozho) emphasizes a balanced relationship of respect

Emphasis on everything having its proper place

Models of the Relationship Models of the Relationship between Humans and Animalsbetween Humans and Animals

Animals as Objects of Use Animals as Objects of Respect Animals as Rights Holders

Animals as Objects of Use:Animals as Objects of Use:UnrestrainedUnrestrained

Animals are seen merely as being objects available for humans to use

Origins: Christianity Technology

Animals as Objects of Use:Animals as Objects of Use:RestrainedRestrained

Animals are still seen primarily as objects to be used by human beings, but moral considerations constrain this use

We must treat animals humanely or else we diminish ourselves

Animals as Objects of RespectAnimals as Objects of Respect

In this view, animals--and their pain--are seen as having some moral standing in the human world, even if it is not equivalent to human standing.

We are urged to reduce animals suffering unless there is a strong human benefit for such suffering (e.g., medical research with animals).

Animals as Rights HoldersAnimals as Rights Holders

Animals are seen as holders of rights What entitles a being to rights?

Some rights-conferring characteristic intelligence sentience soul

What rights do animals have? Life Life in natural habitat

Consequentialist Consequentialist ConsiderationsConsiderations

Whose suffering counts?

SpeciesismSpeciesism

Defenders of animal rights often maintain that those who disagree with them are guilty of “speciesism,” I.e., the view that we arbitrarily grant human beings rights that we do not accord to animals.

Considerations about RightsConsiderations about Rights

Who has rights? On what basis?

Rationality Soul Ability to suffer Ability to have a future

How do we adjudicate conflicts of rights

Animal Rights and AbortionAnimal Rights and Abortion

One’s position on animal rights may have interesting implications for one’s position on abortion.

If an entity has rights solely on the basis of its ability to experience pain, and if the fetus can experience pain, then it may have rights, even though it may not be accepted as human.

Concerns about Concerns about CharacterCharacter

Compassion Proximity--do we just not want to

see animal slaughter?

Searching for Common Searching for Common Ground Ground

Medical Experimentation Commercial Animal Agriculture Wild Animals, Zoos, and Animal

preservation

Medical ExperimentationMedical Experimentation

Some animal experimentation is avoidable or redundant

Can animal suffering count, even if it doesn’t count as much as human suffering?

Commercial Animal AgricultureCommercial Animal Agriculture

Some methods of raising and slaughtering animals involve much more suffering for the animals than others

Wild Animals, Zoos, and Wild Animals, Zoos, and Animal PreservationAnimal Preservation

Should animals be held in captivity for humans to view? Promotes animal welfare programs

Should we try to preserve animal species that may otherwise die out?

PetsPets

In what ways, if any, should human beings have close attachments to animals?