Whence animal rights?
Rationally Speaking - April 2003
Massimo Pigliucci

Do animals have rights? Just posing the question is likely to draw reactions ranging from outright scorn for the idea to very passionate appeals in defense of non-human living species. It seems to me that this is a crucial question because of what it says about how we intend to treat the environment in which we live. Yet, it is a question that opens up endless avenues of discussion that may not necessarily lead one towards a simple answer.

To begin with, as I have argued in this column before, "rights" are not a feature of the natural world, but rather an entirely human construct. That, of course, doesn't mean they are not interesting or important. Democracy is also a human construct, but its existence or lack thereof affects the lives of billions on the planet. The fact that rights are a human construct, however, means that we cannot appeal to the laws of nature to defend any particular viewpoint about them.

One could then construe the idea of animal rights as reflecting our acknowledgment that we live in a complex world that we share we other creatures, and that these other creatures should not be considered as pure means for our ends (in perfectly Kantian fashion, for the philosophically inclined). I am going to assume that all but the most callous individuals will agree to this rather mild statement. But we are just beginning to unravel the complexity: what should the extent of these "rights" be, to what range of other species should we extend them, and using what criteria?

Clearly, here opinions soon diverge radically. Consider individuals who choose a vegetarian life style in order not to harm other living creatures. There are several styles of vegetarianism, from people who don't want anything to do with any animal product whatsoever (including eggs, cheese, etc.), to people who are comfortable eating some animals, for example invertebrates (shrimp, clams), or even some vertebrates (fish). Furthermore, the motivations for being a vegetarian may also range enormously. Some feel this is a matter of not using other living creatures for our ends (however biologically justified this may appear to be), while others object to human practices of animal husbandry and are content when eating free-range or otherwise "humanely" raised animals, even chickens.

None of these positions is intrinsically irrational (though some may lead to a few internal contradictions when pushed to the limit), and there doesn't seem to be a way to decide among them according to purely logical criteria. For example, one common thread emerging from the consideration of the range of vegetarianism is that people seem to apply a rough biological criterion to their choices: the spectrum from vegans to people that eat free-ranging chickens could be interpreted as a continuum along evolutionary time (species that diverged early on from us, like plants, are OK to eat, those more closely related to humans, like most vertebrates, are not allowed). Or it could represent an assessment based on the degree of complexity of each species' nervous systems (most invertebrates, except squids and octopuses, are really dumb and it is difficult to think of them as having feelings, but dogs and even cats clearly seem to have them).

I am not saying that people consciously think in terms of evolution (heck, remember that about half of Americans don't actually believe in it!) or neurobiology, but they seem to feel that those are reasonable criteria. The difference between different kinds of vegetarianism, and indeed even the one between vegetarians and meat-eaters (actually, omnivores, since nobody eats only meat) then becomes a question of where one chooses to draw the line in the sand of biological complexity. Few seem to want to draw the line at the boundary between the organic and inorganic worlds (i.e., refusing to eat even plants), but anything beyond that is rather arbitrary.

Arbitrary lines in the sand, of course, are not irrational to draw. We do it all the times in our lives, simply because the world is too complex to attempt to live without holding any belief or engaging in any behavior that is contradictory with others we also espouse. The real questions seem to be: first, what criteria should we agree upon to sensibly talk about animal (or human, or plant) rights? Second, and once we have answered the previous question, how do we negotiate as a society where that line in the sand is best drawn?

The problem that many people are likely to find with this approach is that it doesn't fit simplistic positions: vegetarians, for example, can't simply claim that eating animal flesh is immoral without being willing to do the additional work of answering the two questions posed above. They don't get to hold the high moral ground by default (I am aware, of course, that the question of animal rights is much broader than just vegetarians vs. meat-eaters, but this particular debate well illustrates the broader issues). Omnivores, on the other hand, can't just reject the other side's position as silly, or they will logically be faced with uncomfortable questions of their own (so, if it is OK to eat animals, what about your dog? Chimps?)

I don't pretend to have an answer, but I think it is important to pose the questions more broadly and invite a less emotional discussion to take place. For the record, I do eat meat, but I object to the treatment of animals by the large meat-producing companies that run most of the business in modern Western societies.

What a great discussion to be having and one that will open the chambers of the mind no doubt. You pose not only interesting points and examples, but hit on the truth: we have created "animal rights" or "all rights" for that matter.

Simply speaking it is my firm belief that we are a victim of our culture, and of our enviroment. I know I am.

There are those of us who want to do good and not eat fish or animals, but in essence the greater picture of doing good often tips the scales the other way ---when we drive our cars on bloody oil or buy that new purchase of an item made in a third world country where an 8 year old works for 96 hours and has no medical treatment. Not to mention I can't find enough good help here in the US, everyone complains about losing their jobs but I find in my neck of the woods the younger generation would rather not work.

We are products of our society and conform to the box, sometimes stepping outside to look in, but what do we do about it?

As we are human, we have empathy, so we don't want to eat our pet dog. However in other countries, dogs are delicacies as are snails and other animal parts strange things that you would never, ever, eat.

Aren't we all mammals or animals? What makes it any different eating our dog or our cow, or each other? Oh, that's right, we have laws not to eat each other, and thank goodness for that. So, it appears we have rights we created for us, but what about Fido or Bessie the cow?

As for the almightly cow, considered holy in some lands, the only right he has is to be grilled at medium well on my barbeque pit. Sad but true. Yes, that makes me a hypocrite too, as I so feel bad about it. I'm American for Gosh sakes. Nothing like meat and potatoes or the ball park hot dog.

Just for the record, thought I am not vegan or vegetarian, I would rather live on grass and dandelions before eating my beloved Fido dog.

I look into the future and wonder will my grandchildren be able to eat cows or pigs? By that time will our world have grown so "green" and "empathetic" that the rights of all creatures will prevail, and three square meals will be soy in a box?

I don't want to know. If so, hooray for the animals as they will finally get the rights they deserve. Now in order to make a good living, I hope they will be put to work and able to collect social security and a paycheck!

As I sit and enjoy my rare steak I find myself thinking I need more A-1 on it. Never once do I think of eight generations prior, when survival was based on hunting wild animals and I think of how horrible it must have been to watch my ancestors slaughter every single bit of them, and eat them , then using their hides for clothing. Had I seen it with my own eyes, I would probably never pick up a steak again, much less use ground beef for burgers.

If I stopped to think how horrible it must be for that chicken I'm about to scarf down, for his life on this planet I may never eat him. The truth is, I don't want to know. I know in my heart that it can't be good.

Knowing would mean I will have no more tasty chicken. No chicken ala' king, or penne pasta, chicken salad or chicken on the barbie. And especially no KFC.

I know in my heart, I should not eat, much less buy or support the chicken industry. I know this because I caught a ten minute spot on the tail end of a chicken plant investigation and I had to vomit. It was horrible. I am however, a product of my environment and am in the box with the other millions of Americans who go out weekly go buy their eggs, meat, fish, and poultry.

So I suppose I have no rights or not enough empathy to stand on the soapbox to say or even comment on what rights animals do or should have. What gives me the right?

Perhaps that makes me cruel in some people's eyes, but until I can stomach the nasty tasting vegetable burgers it looks like fish and meat is my choice.

I can say more power to the PETA organization and the VEGANS, they are standing up for what they believe in, and it takes a strong stomach to live on soy and whey alone. They, are outside the box.

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this. They are honest and perceptive. Like you, I'm sure that if I had to go to the slaughterhouse or processing plant to kill that cow or chicken, I would no longer eat meat. But if I raised animals for food, I'd find a way to either kill the animal myself or take it somewhere to be killed. And I'd probably pride myself on treating the animal well and therefore think I was respecting its rights! Are animal rights about having the right not to be killed by humans or about being well treated before being killed? That is one of the objections to feed lots, that the animals don't get to live like animals (in our human conception of that). I can't really think we should make so much of the death of animals, because in the wild of course they die, and often even less pleasantly than when we kill them. So if we treat them well are all rights issues solved? I guess not, in the minds of the PETA people, because for them the very fact of saying we have dominion over an animal, have the right to say we can dispose of it as we like, is a moral issue.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4130308142


And not to distract from the topic here but I think that this is important as well. My views on the subject are expressed in the movie above. I think that the cultured acceptance of systematically demeaning animals is the first step to doing the same to other human beings. Producing cheap meat that is loaded with chemicals is also demeaning to the body and undermines the healthiness of society. I currently will eat meat but not if I don't have to, I plan on raising chickens when I am done school which I will probably eat.

I might raise kids to eat... the problem is figuring out what to feed them!

Hi Everyone:

When describing the new heaven and new earth at the end of the age,
Isaiah (in the Bible) states:

6 "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper's den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea. (Isaiah 11)
Since we may see the animals in heaven, we should be careful not to mistreat them on Earth.