Animal Rights is a vast topic, with countless subtopics and even more points of view. Some say it's unnecessary, others live by it. Some claim there is no factual basis for the animal rights movement to act upon, others go out and videotape the proof inside your neighbourhood slaughterhouse. Some state we have the ability, and therefore the right, to use animals, others put their minds to work and realize that by using animals we violate the most basic of unwritten laws; the sanctity of life.
The philosophy of animal rights isn’t merely consistent of the slogans one can find nowadays. There are profound answers to the silly questions asked by non-animal rights activists, and therefore I’ve decided to show you one of these answers. We’ll start with something basic; a question I've been asked uncountable times:
Why should animals have rights?
It’s all too easy to turn this question right around and say: Well, why shouldn’t they have rights? This, however, is far from the best reply I can provide you with. In our societies, us humans have based laws on moral concepts, such as discrimination, racism, and sexism. It is said to be wrong to judge someone for their beliefs, tone of skin, gender, disabilities, etc, but somehow an important concept was utterly ignored.
Racism is wrong because we’re all equal, and the tone of one’s skin isn’t an indicator for levels of intelligence, abilities, or in any way influences that individual’s right to live.
Sexism is wrong because despite the obvious, and scientifically proven differences between men and women, neither is considered to be better than the other, because we cannot help the fact that our gender may have imposed limitations on our capabilities. Yes, men are biologically built to be stronger and to be fitter for physical exercise. Yes, women are said to be able to multi-task better, and to be more organized and meticulous. No, neither of these things make one gender better than the other.
Discrimination by disabilities is wrong because the people often were born with the physical, psychological, or emotional handicaps, and therefore can’t help the fact that they are who they are. In other cases people become disabled later on in their lives, and again they aren’t to blame, and aren’t judged for what they can’t do. Do we have the right to kill demented elderly, or infants, or even toddlers, whenever we see fit simply because they have lesser intelligence levels? Or lesser abilities?
No.
Speciesism is wrong because no animal, human or otherwise, can decide what body they are born into, and because all life should be valued. You may think that it goes too far to call non-human animal life equally as important as human lives, and you are right. If a building was burning to the ground, and I had the opportunity to save one person, or one dog, I would naturally rescue the person because he or she is a member of my own species. Some say that the reasons for the non-human animals lesser importance is their lesser IQ. First off, we cannot measure the IQ of a non-human animal because we cannot communicate with them in a way that allows them to understand. This is as much a fault on our side, as theirs. They don’t speak our language, we don’t speak theirs. Secondly, we cannot possibly expect a member of a different species to fit into criteria we have designed to test our own species with. If intelligence levels are really what matters, then it would be natural to say that if a severely demented infant and a keen, intelligent pig were in a burning house, one would save the pig. In other words, it’s bullshit to point the finger at IQ levels, or the like, when it comes down to who gets to live and who gets to die.
I’d assume that all us humans can see that there is a basic set of rights every living being should have. Firstly, they deserve to live without being intentionally caused discomfort. To clarify this statement; imagine that one picks up a stick and smacks a horse as hard as they can, and then turn around and inflict an equal amount of pain on a child, so that both suffer evenly. How can we call one of the two actions right, and the other wrong? What we have here is two live beings, capable of conscious suffering, hurting equally, and only one of them is, by common moral values, considered to be in an abusive situation that needs to be stopped.
There are laws to protect children, infants, elderly, husbands, wives, you name it, from abuse, because we consider it wrong that they would be caused pain by another human being or non-human. When a dog bites a person, once, it runs the very real risk of being euthanized, despite the fact that with their species’ limits of capability the dog knows not what he has done wrong. When a human beats/starves/dehydrates a dog to death it is possible that he or she will either get away with it, or receive a lifetime ban of keeping animals. As you cans see, the human punishment vanishes into the background, compared to what the dog receives as a penalty. How is this, in any way, just when the dog doesn’t have a clue what he did wrong, and the human knows all too well?
It is claimed that we shouldn’t have to care about the rights of animals, per se, because, “unlike humans”, they have no interests. Now I ask you, isn’t it in the interests of a dog to be fed water and food, and to live without being in pain? The mere fact that the dog will not sit down and contemplate his future, or commit other actions that are human and fall outside the limitations of the dog’s species, doesn’t mean that the dog doesn’t want to live a good life.
No, we can’t go up to an animal and communicate in a proper way to ask whether or not he or she minds being slaughtered to provide food to others.
No, we cannot know what the animal is thinking, or what the animal wants most, or whether the animal even is fully conscious of what life is.
But Yes, we know they suffer from pain, which should be enough of a reason to indicate that not being hurt is in the animal’s best interests, and should therefore, by all means, be the most basic right of all. The right to live without being purposely inflicted pain upon by humans. That, my friends, is what animal rights is centered around. This most trivial right, this extremely simple concept. The animal suffers when we hurt it, and therefore, it is wrong.
The only plausible way to refute this argument is by claiming that animals do not suffer, and do not feel pain. That would automatically mean that we cannot suffer, and do not feel pain. Us individuals know that we can suffer and feel pain, but seeing as suffering and pain are “mental events” – meaning that we cannot observe them directly; I cannot feel your pain when you drop hot water on your skin- we cannot claim that animals don’t feel pain. When you inflict pain on an animal by the means of a beating, or electroshocks, or anything else, you can see that the animal recoils from the object that is inflicting the pain, and that the animal lets out sounds that indicate that it is, indeed, aching. If signs like this are enough to tell us that our fellow humans feel pain –as we can never feel their pain for ourselves- it should also be plenty of evidence to support the fact that animals do feel pain and do suffer, and that therefore it is in their interest not to be abused.
Now, if you have something to say, whether it be pro or con this argument, do not hesitate to express your views.
XxxDo
Ps. The book "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer, reffered to as the 'animal rights bible' by many, is an amazing read that fully explains the concept of animal rights. Both for those who believe in AR, and those who refute every bit of it, it is a fascinating book with intruiging reasoning and concepts.
