NEXT / BACK

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


 

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.




 
 


..
..



 



 
 


..