Animal Rights – questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Animal Rights for
Jeremy Bentham thought that animals would be seen to have rights – on what grounds?
When Peter Singer talked of ‘speciesism’ to what was he referring?
According to Augustine, all commands concerning the welfare of animals were for the benefit of….
Are ‘animal rights’ and ‘animal welfare’ the same thing?
If you accept the doctrine of ‘animal rights’ what does this mean (for you)?
Comment on this paper:
ETHICS AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
The Rights of Animals and Living Matter to Life on Earth
A Position Paper by Muhammad Hozien for Ethics
Prof. Michael Haliprin William Paterson University
Spring 1999
Utilitarian:
The position of Peter Singer is that all animals are equal in the sense that they all can sense pain and suffering. They can also feel pleasure. His criteria for
judging animal rights are the animal’s capacity to suffer pain and enjoy pleasure. Since they can feel pain just as a retarded person or a child. They should
be treated as equal. He equates racism with specism. We should rise above this and give animals their due. He does however argue for a range of the
quality of pain. There is a difference between a hunter and Murderer. A difference between rescuing a human or a dog. He does not specify the quantity of
pain or pleasure. Humans derive greater pleasure from rescuing a human versus a dog. Therefore it is of a higher ratio of pleasure over pain for a human to
rescue.
Contractualist (The rights view):
The position of Tom Regan is that human life as well as animal life has an inherent moral value. Just as one human life is no less valuable than any other so
is animal life. That is it would be problematic to judge one human life to be less valuable than others i.e. babies, the senile, and the comatose. So it would
be to judge that animal life is less valuable than human life. They deserve full moral status just like the less fortunate humans. "All who have inherent value
have it equally, whether they be human animals or not." Further he states that the rights view does not tolerate any form of discrimination. He also states
Page 1 of 13
Animal Rights for
that the theory also extends to humans as well as animals. Further its application is uncompromising and abolitionist. This also extends to commercial animal
agriculture as well as hunting and trapping, be it for commercial or sporting ends.
Moral Argument or Moral Theory:
David Carruthers argues against the Animal rights movement and states that it is thoroughly misguided. He states that the movement for animal rights is a
reflection of the moral decadence in our society and not as moral positive. Further, He argues that the failings of animal rights movement is the lack of their
understanding of the human rights issue. He argues that animal rights issues are easier to digest than Human rights. Human rights is seen by simpletons as
a political issue or that the abuse of human rights has been brought about by political posturing.
He argues that many things [in addition to animals] that matter to us do not give rise to moral rights or duties. Such as Ancient buildings, oak trees and
works of art. He also states that things that do not have moral standings have indirect moral significance. People care deeply about works of art and maybe
under a moral obligation not to deprive future generations from experiencing them. Same with animals even if they do not have a moral standing it does not
follow that we should mistreat them. We have an indirect duty towards animals arising out of the legitimate concerns of animal lovers.
He also argues that animals have some moral standing not to the extent of equal rights with Humans. He gives the example of the burning house in which
you have only time to rescue either the human or the dogs that are in the cage. The natural human reaction is to rescue the human.
He maintains that under Rawl’s contractualism animals would not have moral rights as they do not count as rational agents. Those that argue that under
contractualism animals would be assigned rights under the veil of ignorance argument would be invalid. This would lead to animals attaining full rights, such
as the right to own property. If it is allowed that animals may have representatives to speak on their behalf behind the veil of ignorance there would be no
good moral reason not extend this to others [such as mountains and plants] not to have representatives.
Further when contractualism is made by human beings in order to facilitate interactions between human beings and to make possible a life of co-operative
community. This would extend to all those who are descended from rational agents (human beings.) This would infants, the senile and the mentally
defective.
The author concludes that there is no basis for extending moral protection to animals beyond that which is already provided. There is no good moral ground
for forbidding hunting, factory farming or laboratory testing on animals. There is no good no reason to encourage the feelings of [extreme] sympathy for
animals as those feeling would divert our attention from the claims of those who do have moral standing namely human beings.
Conclusion
I believe that the Animals Rights issue is blown out of proportion. Animals or any other living thing for that matter do have a right to this earth as much as
we do. With that said, I do take the opinion that everything on this earth is for the utility of humanity. This said does in no way shape or form give any one
the right to abuse, destruction, cruelty and any other form mischief. Animals should not be abused or made to suffer pain or as least pain as possible. When
Page 2 of 13
Animal Rights for
they are slaughtered for food they should be done so with the least painful method that will produce healthy meat. Past methods of slaughter that did not
properly drain the blood from the animal produced very unhealthy meat. Animals should not be made to watch other animals being slaughtered. These
methods of treating animals kindly have been around with us for a long time.
Any one that doubts that animals feel any pain should watch a wounded animal. Any child that kicked a cat or dog will notice that once kicked the animal will
squeal in pain and retreat. Although, personally, I am not an avid meat eater I do believe in the right of humans to eat meat. I would personally prefer
either chicken, tuna, salmon or shrimp to any meat dish. I do however eat meat and support the rights of others to eat meat. Although technically you could
get all the nutrients that one would get from meat from other sources why go out of your way when meat is readily available. I do however agree that we,
in west especially, do eat too much meat. I believe that consuming this much meat is not a healthy practice. Doctors will tell you that this much meat is not
good for us. Most of our health problems occur because of this.
Outline of Argument:







Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
a more humane way of treating animals
eating meat.
conserving our natural resources or a more wise use of our resources.
helping humanity everywhere and that should take precedence over any other creatures.
ending human misery and suffering.
Life to everyone that wants to live.
those that want to die by refusing medication and not by suicide.
IF I had a choice in what to give my money, to save a local animal shelter or human suffering in some faraway country I would choose to end as much
human misery as possible. I believe that if you end human misery, you will end all misery. If people were not so poor they would not be destroying all they
can see in front of them. If you were to burden the third world countries with debt, while enticing them with TV programming of course they are going to
use every bit of resources they have to meet their debt and seek that better and comfortable life that you are bombarding them with.
Further there is a flaw in the logic of the argument of specism. Who gives one species more rights than the other? Who gives the right of the Lioness to hunt
Gazelles in the plains of Serengeti, and I none? Is it because she has claws that can maul the gazelle with one blow? It is here where the logic breaks down.
Why should I be a vegetarian, while the Bengal tiger enjoys meat and an occasional native, a human prey? By logic of that argument we should turn all
carnivores into herbivores. Try feeding that Serengeti Lioness tofu! Perhaps we, as a nation, eat far too much meat. That is no reason to turn vegetarian.
Perhaps we are too mean and abuse animals far too much. Or perhaps we have become so sedated and jaded that we have never seen an animal
slaughtered for food. Once we see the slaughterhouse we are disgusted and turn vegetarian. I admit that I am a little soft, if I see meat not cooked or that
does not look appealing to me I will not touch it. Perhaps I will go days on end without eating meat. I however do not espouse vegetarianism nor do I
expect that anyone should follow that way of life. There is a nutritious value in meat, which no one can doubt, that leads to healthier muscle growth.
Page 3 of 13
Animal Rights for
The argument that states that man can live on bread and water alone. Yes, humans can survive on a very meager diet but who would want to volunteer to
subject himself to such hardship except the most dedicated of saints, mystics and gurus. This is no life for the entire human nation.
If our daily meat intake was to go down perhaps not only the price of meat would go down the whole industry would experience a decrease and therefore
fewer animals would be wasted. Wasted here means not used up by humans or carnivorous animals. Or better yet, the less industrialized nations, read third
world, would enjoy meat for a change. Further why should we just stop at living animals? Why not just carry out that argument to plants, are they not
living? Or is it that their life does not count in the scheme of specism? Why does plant life have to suffer. Maybe we should just inject ourselves with
manufactured chemicals and vitamins that sustain our existence. Should we not eat anything organic, that CH combination, that life is made of. I realize that
this is carrying it too far, but by the same token the logic of the specism argument just does not cut it. Where one should draw the line. Why stop at life,
and a feeling of pain? To me that drawing of the line is confused and convoluted logic. Does an animal have to scream or squeal in order for us to judge that
it feels pain?
Why not just treat all animals, plants, and inanimate objects just with respect and morality. To me a person that goes and destroys a house, one that is
habitable, uproots trees that give fruit, kills animals for no reason than the kill are all no different. Perhaps the fault lies not in that we do not have a moral
theory to rely upon but we have no moral to rely upon.
Source: http://muslimphilosophy.com/mih/ethics/e1.htm
7. Are ‘animal rights’ the same as ‘animal ethics’?
8. When abuse of animals is widespread, when the bellowing of thirsty animals in cattle cars is heard and ignored, when cruelty still prevails in many
slaughterhouses, when animals are clumsily and painfully butchered in our kitchens, when brutish people inflict unimaginable torments upon animals
and when some animals are exposed to the cruel games of children, all of us share in the guilt.1
Do you feel guilty?
9. According to Kant, why be kind to animals?
10. Peter Singer wrote:
“"There are important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each
have. Recognizing this obvious fact, however, is no barrier to the case for extending the basic principle of equality to nonhuman animals."
Write a response to this.
1
Taken from Albert Schweitzer, The Teaching of Reverence for Life, trans. Richard and Clara Winston (New York: Holt and Rinehart, 1965). 9. Quotation taken from Blackstone. "The
Search for an Environmental Ethic," 306.
Page 4 of 13
Animal Rights – answers
Animal Rights for
1. Animals feel pain
2. The attitude that humans are superior to animals. He compared it to racism.
Two possibilities may be logically extracted from such theories of ultimate origin. Either humanity and the animal kingdom both have the same rights by the
reckoning of fiat, or neither have rights since such are not a necessary by-product of naturalism (that the universe is matter in motion and nothing more).
Clearly we do not reason the latter to be true. When the seagull swoops down to the river to grasp a fish, and the eagle wrests it away from the gull with its
talons, we don't declare the
gull a murderer or the eagle a thief. A certain agency is necessary for a being to either be morally culpable or to possess rights. Merely declaring that the
virtue of superior intellect imbues these rights on humanity is short-sighted hubris. Such attributes merely make for a more cunning "survival of the fittest"
paradigm. Ethicist Peter Singer would probably suppose the former of the two possibilities to be true. He calls the supposition of humanity having greater
rights than animals
"speceism." While many may consider his ethics wacky, his conclusion is logical if the premises are true. I suggest they are not.
The Atheist/Humanist removes God from the equation, while living on the generous capital pilfered from a theistic worldview. Rights can only be unalienable
if they are transcendent and bestowed by God. If they are not, then there is no moral mooring to secure anything nobler than "the rule of the jungle," which
is the inertia propelling the animal kingdom. And notice I am not saying that infidels have no unalienable rights, but that they couldn't exist if what the
infidel stands on is true.
Source: http://www.americandaily.com/article/16542
3. Humans.
4. Animal welfare is a different issue than animal rights. The failure to distinguish these two issues, concerned respectively with the reduction of pain
and suffering on one hand and the possession by animals of rights comparable to those of humans, is a significant source of confusion (Schmidt
1990).
As emphasized by Burghardt and Herzog 1980, Our relations with other taxa are guided by several forces, including
(1) Human benefit (food, clothing, pests/competitors, danger/disease, domestication
(2) Anthropomorphism (pain/suffering, goriness, similarities, cuteness, size, repugnance)
(3) Ecology (rarity, diversity, ecological balance)
(4) Psychology (habituation, aesthetics, spiritual/religious, variability, plasticity)
Read “Is Bre’r Rabbit our Brother” by Burghardt and Herzog 1980
Page 5 of 13
5. Accepting the doctrine of animal rights means:






No
No
No
No
No
No
Animal Rights for
experiments on animals
breeding and killing animals for food or clothes or medicine (Veganism anyone?)
use of animals for hard labour
selective breeding for any reason other than the benefit of the animal
hunting
zoos or use of animals in entertainment
6. The essay/paper was for discussion.
7. See box:
In a nutshell animal rights is a small part of the much broader animal ethics.
Animal Rights
Animal Ethics
1. Concentrates only on rights, which is a small part of animal ethics.
1. Has a broad scope that includes animal rights (and overlaps with Environmental
Ethics).
2. Is a doctrine.
2. Does not offer any specific view on how we should treat animals.
3. Says that animals should have rights somewhat (i.e. not exactly) like humans
do.
3. Asks how we should treat animals and provides a number of approaches.
4. Is part of Duty Ethics, i.e. we have a duty to give animals rights and respect
those rights.
4. Duty ethics is just one part of the scope of animal ethics.
5. Maintains that using animals for human gain is morally wrong and that animals
should merit their own intrinsic value.
5. Tries to resolve moral animal-human issues using a number of approaches.
6. Concentrates on sentient animals.
6. Applies to all animals.
Source: http://www.animalethics.org.uk/aec-a-entries.html#Animal%20Rights%20vs%20Animal%20Ethics
Page 6 of 13
7. See box:
Animal Rights for
If Aldo Leopold is the mentor of the land ethic tradition, so Albert Schweitzer could be that of the animal rights movement. Perhaps one reason Schweitzer
has not played this role is that, in point of fact, the rights of animals have been defended by minority traditions in philosophy at least since the eighteenth
century.6 Nevertheless, in advancing his reverence-for-life ethic In the early part of our century, Schweitzer well anticipates the concerns of contemporary
animal rights advocates. Schweitzer writes:
When abuse of animals is widespread, when the bellowing of thirsty animals in cattle cars is heard and ignored, when cruelty still prevails in
many slaughterhouses, when animals are clumsily and painfully butchered in our kitchens, when brutish people inflict unimaginable torments
upon animals and when some animals are exposed to the cruel games of children, all of us share in the guilt.2
Schweitzer’s interest in eliminating the unnecessary suffering of individual animals is at the heart of the animal rights movement.
Singer is among the movement’s most articulate spokespersons. His well-known Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals (New York:
Avon, 1975) deals specifically with the suffering inflicted on individual animals in scientific experimentation, agribusiness, and industry. The examples he
gives -- ranging from pain experiments on rhesus monkeys and dogs, through the inhumane conditions in which pigs and cattle are reared for food
consumption, the blinding of rabbits in the testing of cosmetics -- are staggering both in terms of the pains suffered by the animals and in terms of the
numbers of animals affected.8 He argues that there is no reason in principle why the suffering of our fellow creatures should matter less than our own. The
fact that some animals cannot reason or talk in language we understand should be as irrelevant to us as is the fact that some humans in relation to whom
we have ethical obligations -- severely retarded children, for example -- can neither reason nor talk. Quoting Jeremy Bentham, the late eighteenth-century
utilitarian philosopher, Singer writes: "the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they suffer?" (PML ch. 18, sec. I).
Singer’s answer, of course, is yes. Not only do animals act as if they experience pain, he says, biology shows that the higher animals -- our fellow mammals,
for example -- are equipped with neurophysiological mechanisms for pain similar to our own. Because animals can suffer, we have ethical obligations not to
inflict upon them more pain, relative to their capacities for sentience, than we would inflict on creatures of our own kind, relative to our capacities. We are
obliged, not necessarily to treat all creatures equally, but rather to give all sentient creatures equal moral consideration (ALNE 3). To neglect such
consideration is to fall into a bias that is just as unacceptable in its own way, and analogously destructive in its consequences, as racism or sexism. Singer
calls it speciesism.
In helping us to move beyond speciesism, Singer proposes several forms of action. In addition to ending unnecessary experimentation in science and the
unnecessary infliction of pain on animals in industry and agribusiness, we should end many other practices that society currently sanctions. For example, we
2
Taken from Albert Schweitzer, The Teaching of Reverence for Life, trans. Richard and Clara Winston (New York: Holt and Rinehart, 1965). 9. Quotation taken from Blackstone. "The
Search for an Environmental Ethic," 306.
Page 7 of 13
Animal Rights for
should stop "hunting for sport or furs; farming minks, foxes and other animals for their fur; capturing wild animals (often after shooting their mothers) and
imprisoning them in small cages for humans to stare at; tormenting animals to make them learn tricks for circuses, and tormenting them to make them
entertain the folks at rodeos; slaughtering whales with explosive harpoons; and generally ignoring the interests of wild animals as we extend our empire of
concrete and pollution over the surface of the globe" (ALNE 23). "We should write to our political representatives urging them to pass legislation that
obstructs these activities; make our friends aware of the issues; educate our children to be concerned about the welfare of all sentient beings; and protest
publicly on behalf of nonhuman animals" (ALNE 163).
Finally, Singer argues, we should become vegetarians. "Whatever the theoretical possibilities of rearing animals without suffering may be, the fact is that the
meat available from butchers and supermarkets comes from animals who did suffer while being reared" (ALNE 165). The people who profit by exploiting
large numbers of animals on factory farms "do not need our approval. They need our money" (ALNE 166). It is only by our boycotting meat that animals can
cease to suffer under the conditions of contemporary factory farming.
Not all advocates of animal rights endorse all the solutions Singer proposes. For example, process theologians, who are among the few within the
contemporary theological community to be concerned with animal liberation, and to whom I will turn shortly, accept the eating of meat under certain
conditions. But one way or another all advocates of animal rights, process thinkers included, lament the fact that so many domesticated animals can and do
suffer unnecessarily at the hands of humans. Believing that the infliction of such suffering is immoral, their hope is that in the future such suffering will
cease, either because humans have been morally persuaded or legislatively coerced.
Source: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2745
9. Being kind to animals is useful practice … to be kind to humans.
10. See box (also see the same box for question 9.)
"If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, ... but his act is inhuman and damages in
himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. ... We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." (Immanuel Kant, 2056)
What is Kant saying here?
Effectively, Kant is taking the view here that animals have only instrumental value, morally speaking.
"... so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. ... Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity." (205)
So, for instance:
Page 8 of 13
Animal Rights for
"Vivisectionists. who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since
animals must be regarded as man's instruments." (206)
Peter Singer objects strenuously to a view like this.
********************************************
Singer's View in Brief: Animal experimentation or consumption is wrong except in a case in which we would be willing to experiment or consume a human
with similar capabilities to the animal.
"I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognise should extend to all members of our species." (208)
Note his comparison to 'Black Liberation' & 'Women's Liberation' movements.
What does he mean by "All Animals are Equal"?
"The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way ". (209)
"There are important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have.
Recognizing this obvious fact, however, is no barrier to the case for extending the basic principle of equality to nonhuman animals." (209)
E.g., No right for men to be pregnant.
No voting rights for pigs.
A Typical Response to Singer:
P1: Rationality is the basis of equality.
P2: All humans are equal to one another in virtue of being rational beings.
P3: Animals are less rational than humans.
C: Animals are not equal to humans.
Singer's Response - it's dangerous to base our claims about what makes people equal on the claim that we are all 'factually' equal.
Source: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/2800a/AnimalRights.html
Page 9 of 13
Animal Rights for
Animal Rights for
Page 10 of 13
Animal Rights for
Page 11 of 13
Animal Rights for
Page 12 of 13
Animal Rights for
Page 13 of 13