Animals Rights

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 263
  • Published : May 12, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Animal rights
There is much disagreement as to whether non-human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights.

There is much less disagreement about the consequences of accepting that animals have rights.

The consequences of animal rights
Animal rights teach us that certain things are wrong as a matter of principle, that there are some things that it is morally wrong to do to animals.

Human beings must not do those things, no matter what the cost to humanity of not doing them.

Human beings must not do those things, even if they do them in a humane way.

For example: if animals have a right not to be bred and killed for food then animals must not be bred and killed for food.

It makes no difference if the animals are given 5-star treatment throughout their lives and then killed humanely without any fear or pain - it's just plain wrong in principle, and nothing can make it right.

Accepting the doctrine of animal rights means:

• No experiments on animals
• No breeding and killing animals for food or clothes or medicine • No use of animals for hard labour
• No selective breeding for any reason other than the benefit of the animal • No hunting
• No zoos or use of animals in entertainment
Top
The case for animal rights
Philosophers have usually avoided arguing that all non-human animals have rights because:

• the consequences are so limiting for humanity
• it would give rights to creatures that are so simple that the idea of them having rights seems to defy common sense The second problem is dealt with by not arguing that all animals have rights, but only that 'higher' animals have rights.

One leading author restricts right to mentally normal mammals at least one year old (called 'adult mammals' from now on).

The case for animal rights
The case for animal rights is usually derived from the case for human rights.

The argument (grossly oversimplified) goes like this:

• Human animals have rights
• There is no morally relevant difference between human animals and adult mammals • Therefore adult mammals must have rights too
Human beings and adult mammals have rights because they are both 'subjects-of-a-life'.

This means that:

• They have similar levels of biological complexity
• They are conscious and aware that they exist
• They know what is happening to them
• They prefer some things and dislike others
• They make conscious choices
• They live in such a way as to give themselves the best quality of life • They plan their lives to some extent
• The quality and length of their life matters to them
If a being is the subject-of-a-life then it can be said to have 'inherent value'.

All beings with inherent value are equally valuable and entitled to the same rights.

Their inherent value doesn't depend on how useful they are to the world, and it doesn't diminish if they are a burden to others.

Thus adult mammals have rights in just the same way, for the same reasons, and to the same extent that human beings have rights.

Top
The case against animal rights
A number of arguments are put forward against the idea that animals have rights.

• Animals don't think
• Animals are not really conscious
• Animals were put on earth to serve human beings
• Animals don't have souls
• Animals don't behave morally
• Animals are not members of the 'moral community'
• Animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment
• Animals don't think
St Thomas Aquinas taught that animals acted purely on instinct while human beings engaged in rational thought.

This distinction provided the frontier between human beings and animals, and was regarded as a suitable criterion for assessing a being's moral status.

Animals are not really conscious
[pic]
The French philosopher Rene Descartes, and many others, taught that animals were no more than complicated biological robots.

This meant that animals were not the sort of thing that was entitled to have any rights - or...
tracking img