Although this topic has been discussed for a long time, there is still a high degree of confusion in both the academic and public discussions on the issue of animal rights. In an effort to dispel doubts and to provide a theory to explain the position on animal rights in a clear, simple and straightforward, Professor Gary Francione wrote the book "Introduction to Animal Rights, Your Child or the Dog" ( "Introduction to Animal Rights, Your Child or the Dog?") published in July 2000. In this he explains the position of animal rights seeks acceptance of a basic right, that of not being treated as a resource or property.
First, we should define what is "right". Although there are many theories of rights, for practical purposes we will focus on an aspect that is common to the vast majority of these: A right is a way to protect interests. To say that an interest is protected by law, ie that interest is protected from being violated or ignored, simply because doing so would benefit someone. For example, my right to freedom protects my interests, beyond the value that others can give to that interest. If someone wants to imprison me, simply because this will benefit you, my right to freedom protects me from such treatment. To say that another animal has the right to be treated as a property means that the interest of such an animal in not being treated as an economic resource should be protected, and should not be violated merely because it benefits humans to do so.
The basis of animal rights is quite simple and rational. It comes from the principle of equal consideration, which holds that as a fundamental moral issue, we must treat similar cases similarly. Both human animals and non-humans are similar in at least one aspect, which sets us apart from everything else in this universe; we are beings "beings", ie beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering. Nonhuman animals have an interest in not suffering, just as humans have an interest in not suffering.
We know that among humans there is an immense variety of interests and hardly exist 2 humans who want the same things. Some prefer Mozart, others Pink Floyd.. Some prefer to go to college and get a degree, others prefer to learn a trade, and there may even be others who suffer from some severe mental retardation, and have no interest in going to college or learn a trade. However, all humans who are not brain dead or have lost the "sentience" otherwise, have an interest in avoiding pain and suffering.
Although we cannot protect all human suffering to others, and although we may not even reach agreement on what interests should be protected by rights, most people agree that all humans should be protected from suffering resulting from its use as a resource / ownership of other humans. In a world deeply divided on many moral issues, one of the few accepted standards and legislated by the international community is the prohibition of human slavery. And if this is not the form of slavery is "humane" or not. It is not if the slave is treated well or badly. Condemn human slavery as such, in all its forms. While it would be wrong to assume that human slavery has been eradicated from the planet, the institution of slavery is considered universally immoral, and is prohibited by law.
Protect the interest of a human being not the property of others with a right, which means we do not allow this interest to be violated or ignored simply because it would benefit someone else to do so. And the right to be treated as the property of others is essential and is unlike any other rights it is the foundation / basis for all these other rights. It is a prerequisite for the possession of morally significant interests. If you do not recognize that a human has the right not to be treated exclusively as a means to the ends of another, then any other right that we give as the right to freedom, to free speech or to vote is meaningless.
To put it simply, if I can enslave and kill you whenever I want, any other rights you may have will not help you much. We may not agree on what other humans have rights, but to have any right, must have the basic right not to be treated as a thing.
The principle of equal consideration requires that we treat similar interests in a similar manner, unless there is a morally significant reason not to. So the question is, is there any reasons to justify the morally significant fact give all humans the basic right not to be treated as the property of others, while denying the same right to other animals and treat them simply as resources?
The most common response is that there are differences in fact (proven) between humans and other animals, to justify this disparate treatment. For example, we argue that other animals cannot think "rationally" or "abstract", then it is acceptable that we treat them as our property.
First, deny that many animals are capable of rational and abstract thought is so hard to deny that dogs have tails. But even if this were true, what possible difference would that, as regards the moral aspect? Many humans, such as young children, elderly people with senile or human diseases with severe mental retardation cannot think rationally or abstractly, and we never think of using those humans as subjects for biomedical experiments painful, or as sources of food or clothing. Despite what we say, we treat the interests of other animals differently, and therefore disclaim any moral significance to these interests.
There is one feature which distinguishes humans from all other animals. Any attribute you can think of that makes human beings "special" and therefore different from other animals, is shared by a group of non-human. Any "defect" that makes us think the other "lower" animals is shared by a group of us. In the end, the only difference between them and us is the species and the species itself is not a morally relevant criterion to exclude other animals from the moral community, nor is race a justification for human slavery justification or sex to make women the property of their husbands. The use of species to justify the ownership status of other animals is "speciesism," like the use of race or sex to justify the property status of humans is, respectively, "racism" and "sexism ".
If we take the interests of other animals as morally significant, then we should treat similar cases similarly, and we cannot treat the other animals in ways that would not be willing to treat any other human.
Applying the principle of equal consideration, then we extend to other animals this one basic right that we extend to all humans, the right not to be treated as a thing. But just as our recognition that no human should be the property of others required the abolition of slavery and not merely the regulation of this to make it more "humane" our recognition that other animals have this basic right would mean that We cannot continue to justify our institutionalized exploitation of animals for food, clothing, companionship, entertainment or experimentation. If you really believe what we say, and recognize that other animals have morally significant interests, then you really have no choice: we must seek the abolition of animal exploitation, not just regulation.
Note: This article is based on an interview with Gary Francione, Professor of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark. For further analysis I recommend reading his books, especially "Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?"
Comments