Topic 20: Animal Rights PDF

 Topic 20: What Does It Mean to Say That Animals Do or Do Not Have Rights? A famous deontologist is the German philo- When you have completed this topic, you sopher Immanuel Kant. In the late 1700s, he should:...

 Topic 20: What Does It Mean to Say That Animals Do or Do Not Have Rights? A famous deontologist is the German philo- When you have completed this topic, you sopher Immanuel Kant. In the late 1700s, he should: developed a moral framework based on the concept of inherent human rights – rights that Be able to describe the difference all humans have simply by virtue of being between consequentialist and non- human. Kant believed that humans could figure consequentialist approaches to out fundamental moral principles using our moral reasoning capacity for rational thought, and that we did Feel confident explaining Kant’s not need to know the consequences of specific moral position and the arguments acts to do so because the most important thing raised against this position by his was our intention when deciding how to act. He contemporaries also believed that, if we all took the time to think Understand Tom Regan’s arguments about morality as often as he did, all rational for including animals in the people would agree that there is really only one core moral principle, which he called the deontological framework categorical imperative. This principle is simple – Be familiar with the practical we should always act in a way that we would limitations of extending moral rights like others to act. Thus, if we would not like to to animals be murdered, then we must agree that murder is inherently a wrongful act, even if it sometimes produces good consequences. This is best Deontology (nonconsequentialism) summarised by what is called the golden rule. Many philosophers argue that moral issues Kant stated his Golden rule as "Act only on that cannot be resolved simply by calculating costs maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will and benefits in an objective, dispassionate, that it should become a universal law“. Basically, utilitarian way. These philosophers, called either we can interpret this as “do to others as you nonconsequentialists or, more commonly, would have them do to you”. deontologists, usually agree that consequences As it turns out, this is a profound moral principle are morally significant, but they maintain that that is adopted in some form by most cultures. other things are also morally relevant, such as It is also enshrined in nearly all major human intentions. Deontologists might say, for religions. Here is a sample of quotes taken from example, that stealing money from someone a philosophy book written by William Shaw who does not need it, even to give it to a good (1993). cause, is morally wrong, because the act of stealing is morally wrong in principle. According Good people proceed while considering that to these theories we have a right to our own what is best for others is best for themselves possessions, and other people therefore have a (Hitopadesa, Hinduism) duty not to steal from us, regardless of Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself consequences. (Leviticus 19:18, Judaism) Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that Kant, of course, was strongly influenced by the men should do to you, do ye even so to them prevailing religious orthodoxy. He was also (Matthew 7:12, Christianity) influenced by one of the great early philosophers, René Descartes. Living in the early Hurt not others with that which pains yourself 1600s, when animal experimentation was just (Udanavarga 5:18, Buddhism) getting started, Descartes had to agree that What you do not want done to yourself, do not animals resemble humans physically in many do to others (Analects 15:23, Confucianism) ways. Descartes argued, however, that animals No one of you is a believer until he loves for his lack language, and the behavioural complexity brother what he loves for himself (Traditions, thought to be indicative of reasoning, and, Islam) further, that these are critical moral attributes. You might have heard his famous saying ‘I think, therefore I am’. Descartes thought that thinking was absolutely critical to moral worth. If you’re interested in more information on Descartes, it can be found here. According to Descartes, the bodies of both animals and humans are really nothing but complex machines, able to automatically perform intricate actions and display cries of joy, sadness or pain. The important difference between the species, he contended, is that humans alone possess an incorporeal mind or soul, which is entirely independent of the body, and which alone is capable of sustaining rational Note, however, that Kant, and nearly all of these thought. Because humans are rational, they religions, specifically exclude animals from their count in a moral sense. Because nonhuman teachings. Kant strenuously denied that morality animals are not, they are technically not ‘others’ extended beyond the human sphere. He and therefore have no moral value. believed that everything existed for a reason, with only humans being an end in themselves. All other organisms were seen as being here for us to use; as being a means to an end. Kant acknowledged that members of other species are capable of suffering, and he condemned cruelty to animals on the basis that it tended to ‘harden’ people towards cruelty to other humans. He denied, however, that animals had any moral status in their own right – that their suffering is morally relevant. From Kant’s perspective, we do not need to be concerned about animals for their own sake. They are not moral ‘others’ and their suffering does not count in a moral sense. Any concern about their welfare is indirect, based on the value of this Most of us are somewhat sympathetic to Kant’s concern for promoting human ‘rights’. If you’re perspective, finding it difficult not to accept that interested in more information on Kant, it can be humans are morally special in one way or found here. another. On the other hand, there is no evidence of any kind of distinction between the body and will to live. Hence, a fundamental principle of the mind, with most people now believing that morality is that it is good to maintain and the mind arises from the working of our brains. cherish life, and evil to destroy it. Schweitzer In addition, one unfortunate implication of argued that a truly moral person would preserve Kant’s view is that all animal species are placed all forms of life, to the extent of not breaking in the same moral category. From the flowers and of rescuing worms caught stranded perspective of Kant and Descartes, there is one after a rainstorm. moral line, drawn in the sand, with all humans on one side and all animals on the other. There is no moral distinction between a chimp and a sea slug, and we can do what we like to either without consideration of their different capacities for pain and suffering, the social complexity of their existence, or their level of cognitive development and self-awareness. Opponents to Kant and Descartes Very few modern people are prepared to agree totally with these views, but Descartes and Kant had their opponents even hundreds of years ago. Back in the 1700s, the philosopher Voltaire challenged Descartes regarding his apparent double-standards. According to Voltaire, Descartes had nothing but behavioural evidence to indicate that humans have souls, feel pain or experience emotions, since none of these can be observed directly, and since speech is really just a very complex form of behaviour. It was therefore irrational, he argued, to conclude that animals did not have souls or In one section of his manuscript, Schweitzer feel emotion, simply because they were unable discussed how the will-to-live of one organism to verbally confirm their presence, when, it often survives only by virtue of the fact that appeared, humans and animals had a great deal other organisms, with their own will-to-live, are in common. killed. This is an observation often used by Darwin contributed to the debate in the 1800s. people who wish to deny moral status to His evolutionary theory was unable to justify any animals. These people argue that, since other fundamental difference between man and higher animals clearly do not feel compelled to act mammals. According to Darwin, many animals ‘morally’ towards species other than their own, possess some capacity for reasoning, and share humans have no obligation to do otherwise. with humans every other attribute that consider Schweitzer argued that the critical difference morally significant. If a line is to be drawn in the between our own and other species is that we sand, therefore, perhaps some animals should DO have the mental capacity to reflect on our be recognised as ‘others’ and placed on the actions and embrace other life forms, and that morally significant side with humans. doing so elevates us to a higher moral existence. Probably the most radical pro-animal view was Rather than this leading us to deserve special put forth by Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965). consideration, however, he argued that it means According to Schweitzer, the most immediate that we have MORE STRINGENT moral and comprehensive fact of consciousness is a obligations than other species, a conclusion with quite profound consequences. Schweitzer recognised this, of course, and commented on all living organisms have some degree of some of the consequences of his moral view, inherent value, which he defined as being value particularly with respect to many of the independent of their usefulness to others or procedures customarily performed with animals. moral goodness. This inherent value, he argued, is not necessarily equal, but can be measured by the organism’s experience of its own life. Further, he argued that we already accept that a doctrine of equal rights protects those with inherent value, so it follows that animals should be protected with rights just as humans are. More information on Tom Regan can be found here. Regan’s book was very influential when it was first published. Peter Singer had already launched the whole Animal Liberation movement with his book, using utilitarian ethics Enlarging our moral community to this extent as his moral framework. As you’ll recall, Singer remains quite a radical view. One thing worth argued that animal interests ought to be taken noting, however, is that Schweitzer’s reverence- into consideration when we weigh the costs and for-all-life ethical framework potentially runs benefits of any action that might affect them. into the same practical problem as does Kant’s This sounds reasonable enough, but it means totally human-centred view. Again, all organisms that, in principle, we can use animals for our own (this time including humans), are placed in the purposes provided the costs to the animals are same moral category, so that there are no outweighed by benefits. Granting animals rights grounds for distinguishing between chimps and on the basis that their lives are inherently sea slugs. Rather than disregarding the welfare valuable takes things much further, saying that of either, we must consider all species equally we ought not use animals for our own purposes as moral ‘others’. In addition, if life, rather than at all, even if the benefits of doing so are suffering, is the most important moral attribute, immense and the costs minimal. then we are probably acting immorally when we kill things to relieve their suffering or when we kill some things, like parasites, to relieve the suffering of others. Obviously, this radical view cannot be sustained without extensive changes being made to the way we live and think in the Western world, well beyond what most people would consider to be morally obligatory or even morally defensible. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that Schweitzer’s approach to ethics has never been widely adopted in Western cultures. The case for animal rights Tom Regan, a deontologist writing in the 1980s, To understand this line of reasoning, we need to reignited old debates about the place of animals delve just briefly into what rights are and how in deontological ethical approaches by they might be applied to animals. According to presenting a very strong case for including the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the animals in deontological theories. In his book, concept of rights dominates most modern ‘The Case for Animal Rights’, he proposed that understandings of what actions are proper and which institutions are just. Rights structure the importantly, they are generally held to reflect forms of our governments, the contents of our natural rights, rights that are claimed to exist laws, and the shape of morality as we perceive even when they are not developed or enforced it. But what exactly are rights? This turns out to by a human society. See this link for a more be a difficult question to answer, even though comprehensive discussion of this point. most people seem to believe that humans have rights: things like a right to life, a right to choose, a right to vote, a right to work, a right to equal treatment before the law, a right to carry a concealed weapon, a right to be left alone, a right to sleep in on Sunday mornings, a right to follow the religion of one’s choice. Most people agree with at least some of these statements, even though they find it difficult to articulate what rights are. Perhaps the easiest way to think about rights is to consider them as entitlements to do or refrain Traditionally, it has been understood by from doing certain things. But while this deontologists that humans have these natural explains what rights are, you might still rights simply by being human. This position was reasonably ask where they come from. This is easy to defend in days gone by, when humans easy to explain in the case of legal rights, which were thought to be ‘special’ in all kinds of ways, are rights described and protected by the law. If but it has become untenable as our knowledge the country that you live in has a law against of the natural world has grown. If rights were theft, then you have a legal right not to have something that existed out there in nature, your property stolen and you also have a legal independently of humans, then they should be responsibility not to steal the property of other consistent everywhere, much like gravity is. But people. in earlier societies it was quite normal for different people to be granted different rights, with some having more rights than others. This makes it look as though natural rights fall into the same category as legal rights – something we make up and impose on each other because we agree to do so for the sake of living harmoniously. Importantly, though, confusion about what rights are, and where they come from, does not necessarily mean that animals do not have any. People like Tom Regan argue that if, as a Legal rights are politically important, but they society, we are prepared to say that humans are not the same as moral rights. Most of us have rights, then, unless there is a morally agree that even people living in a country that significant difference between humans and all does not have laws against theft or genocide animals, at least some animals should have should agree that these actions are morally rights too. This makes perfect sense. Either wrong. Moral rights are generally acknowledged rights do not exist at all, or they should be to be stronger than legal rights, serving as applied fairly, on the basis of some critical fundamental rules of interaction between moral attribute rather than species membership. Tom entities by placing constraints and obligations Regan, remember, said that animals should have on the actions of groups or individuals. More rights because they are subjects-of-a-life and, hence, have inherent value. Anyone who at all because they have rights to life and liberty, watches animals (at least animals like birds and among other things. PETA, remember, is mammals) for an extended period of time would dedicated to establishing and defending the have to agree that they experience and enjoy rights of all animals and operates under the their lives and that they have a continued simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, interest in doing so. This should probably count wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. for something in a moral sense. The ALF is even more dogmatic, being prepared to harm humans for the sake of saving animals from exploitation. Rights based approaches to animal ethics are very compelling and continue to grow in popularity. One of the problems with these approaches, however, is that they seem very black-and-white. The whole point of rights is that they are supposed to be absolute and natural, reflecting entitlements that cannot be traded away simply because doing so benefits someone else. In the real world, however, rights conflict all the time and are traded away for The basic argument of modern deontologists is other things. Perhaps animals do have a right to simply that animals are not placed on earth as a life, but do humans also have rights to eat meat, means to an end, but are an end unto go hunting, use animal products and keep pets, themselves and, because they are subjects-of-a- for example? Groups like PETA would say that life, have inherent value that deserves our the right to life outweighs these other rights, but respect. If we already agree that rights exist to it is difficult to explain on what basis rights can protect inherent value then, in principle, be ranked and compared. animals, at least to the extent that they do experience their own lives, should have rights equivalent to those granted to humans who experience their lives to the same extent. Clearly, this line of reasoning has radical consequences for the way animals are treated. Under a ‘rights-based’ system of ethics that is inclusive of animals, moral agents, like ourselves, with an interest in acting morally, would have moral duties not to infringe on animal rights. And since we generally cannot ‘use’ an animal for our own purposes without infringing on some kind of right not to be used, Another important issue is that, while there are this would mean that we could not use animals some pest species, like mosquitoes and at all. cockroaches, that seem to exist in spite of our This, of course, is entirely consistent with the efforts to annihilate them, most animal species claims made by the more radical abolitionist survive today only by virtue of their association animal advocacy groups we heard about with humans. It seems likely that species such as previously. These groups simply do not accept dairy cows, pigs and hens would virtually that we act morally by improving the welfare of disappear were we to decide that we would no animals that we use for our own purposes. longer exploit them for our own purposes. Many Instead, they say that we ought not use animals wild animals would also disappear if we decided they had a right to live and die without human though some of them do live in captivity and interference. Even our pet animals, and those we even though they inevitably end up dead, just use in sports, exist because they please us. If we like we do. are unable, on moral grounds, to infringe upon Applied ethics their rights to life and freedom, then would these animals end up extinct? How does this fit As you can probably see by now, the application with the concept of a right to life? Do species of existing ‘normative’ moral theories to issues have a right to exist even if it means individual involving animals is incredibly complex. Both animals lose some of their rights? consequentialists and deontologists appear to be absolutely correct in arguing that the same rules that apply to humans should apply to animals, or at least to those animals that have interests (consequentialism) or inherent value (nonconsequentialism). In our post-Darwinian world, we simply have no grounds for arguing that humans are unique in ways that count morally. Animals can clearly suffer, so if suffering is the most important thing then of course we need to take animal suffering into account when we weigh up the costs and benefits of behaving in certain ways. Similarly, if humans have natural rights, rights that are based not on membership of the human species alone, but on the inherent value of humans as living, experiencing, organisms, then, because animals also experience their lives, of course they must have similar rights. So how do we put this reasoning into action? Saying that animals should count morally is one thing, but actually acting in accordance with this reasoning is something else again. At this point in our cultural development it seems very unlikely that humans are going to stop exploiting animals any time soon. Sure, there are These issues, and many others like them, some individual people who try to exploit present quite large problems for people holding animals as little as possible, perhaps by an absolutist view about the place of animals in becoming vegan, refusing to wear animal- society. Are animals better off being exploited derived clothes, and not keeping pets, but we or extinct? Some conditions we currently keep all need to remember that it is not possible to animals in are totally abhorrent and those live in our society without exploiting animals. animals might be better off dead than living in You might recall from our very first topic that those conditions. On the other hand, this is not Christien Meindertsma researched what necessarily true for all animals, some of which happens to a pig’s body after it is killed. Her seem to have a pretty good quality of life. And research revealed that the body parts end up in besides, who says life has to be perfect to be over 180 different products. These include fresh worth living? Few human lives are perfect but meat, but also things like bullets, bread, roads most of us would choose an imperfect life over and medical products – things likely to be used not being born at all. Many animals in the world even by those who opt out of eating animal appear to have a fairly good quality of life, even products. And, of course, even strict vegans are reliant on animals for their food – the fertiliser other approaches, you should spend 15 minutes used to grow vegetables and grains is often or so exploring this website. It begins by asking made from animal waste, insects pollinate the you a series of general questions to determine plants and manpower (usually coming from what kind of ethical approach you tend to adopt, people who do eat animal products) is necessary and you can then work through some case to harvest produce and get it to market. studies involving animal issues to clarify your views. There are also many other resources available via the internet, including videos of lectures given by Peter Singer, Tom Regan and other moral philosophers who are interested in animal issues. Summary In this topic we considered the deontological or non-consequentialist approach to moral reasoning and, in particular, whether it could shed light on how we should relate to the animals in our society. The deontological approach, associated with Kant and later applied to animals by Tom Regan, holds that the rightness or wrongness of a given action cannot be determined by reference only to the consequences of that action. Instead, it is proposed, we should act towards others in the same way that we would want them to act towards us, and we should acknowledge that all humans (and perhaps all animals) have inherent value simply because they are able to For this reason, it is not realistic at present to experience having a life. expect Western societies to stop exploiting If you are a deontologist, using concepts like animals or to grant animals the same kinds of intent, rights and responsibilities to guide your rights that are granted to humans, even if doing behaviour, then it is very difficult, and perhaps so would make perfect sense. Those of us impossible, to exclude all animals from your concerned about animals can either give up or considerations. As we’ve heard before, there are take the more conservative approach of the always some animals that are more conscious, welfare-oriented advocacy groups, insisting that and therefore more capable of experiencing the animals we use are well cared for. In the next their lives, than are some humans, making it topic we are going to think about how we can speciesist to rank these humans above animals tell whether an animal is well cared for or not. in a moral sense. The problem with this line of This requires knowing what animals need and reasoning, however, is that it produces prefer, which can be difficult to ascertain. obligations towards all animals that are beyond Other approaches to animal ethics what most members of our society would think are reasonable. Perhaps animals will be granted Because this is not a subject about animal rights in future societies but, for now, it is ethics, we have concentrated in the last two probably more realistic to focus on what we can topics on just the two main approaches to moral do to improve the welfare of animals living in reasoning. To finish off this topic it is important our current society, within our existing legal, that you recognise that other approaches also cultural, and ethical frameworks. exist. For a brief introduction to some of these  References and/or supplementary resources Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. University of California Press. Sandoe, P, & Christiansen, S. (2008). Ethics of animal use (1st Ed.). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. Shaw, W. H. (1993). Social and personal ethics. Wadsworth Publishing Company.