Animal Rights Arguments Essay On Television

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.


The case against animal rights

A number of arguments are put forward against the idea that animals have rights.

  • Animals don't think
  • Animals are not really conscious
  • Animals were put on earth to serve human beings
  • Animals don't have souls
  • Animals don't behave morally
  • Animals are not members of the 'moral community'
  • Animals lack the capacity for free moral judgment
  • Animals don't think

St Thomas Aquinas taught that animals acted purely on instinct while human beings engaged in rational thought.

This distinction provided the frontier between human beings and animals, and was regarded as a suitable criterion for assessing a being's moral status.

Animals are not really conscious

The French philosopher Rene Descartes, and many others, taught that animals were no more than complicated biological robots.

This meant that animals were not the sort of thing that was entitled to have any rights - or indeed any moral consideration at all.

Animals were put on earth to serve human beings

This view comes originally from the Bible, but probably reflects a basic human attitude towards other species.

Christian theologians developed this idea - St Augustine taught that "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their [animals'] life and their death are subject to our use."

St Thomas Aquinas taught that the universe was constructed as a hierarchy in which beings at a lower level were there to serve those above them.

As human beings were above animals in this hierarchy they were entitled to use animals in any way they wanted.

However, as C.S. Lewis pointed out:

Animals don't have souls

Christian theologians used to teach that only beings with souls deserved ethical consideration.

Animals did not have souls and therefore did not have any moral rights.

This argument is no longer regarded as useful, because the idea of the soul is very controversial and unclear, even among religious people. Furthermore it is not possible to establish the existence of the soul (human or animal) in a valid experimental way.

This also makes it difficult to argue, as some theologians have done, that animals should have rights because they do have souls.


Animals aren't 'moral'

Some of the arguments against animal rights centre on whether animals behave morally.

Rights are unique to human beings

  • rights only have meaning within a moral community
  • only human beings live in a moral community
  • adult mammals don't understand or practice living according to a moral code
  • the differences in the way human beings and adult mammals experience the world are morally relevant
  • therefore rights is a uniquely human concept and only applies to human beings

Animals don't behave morally

Some argue that since animals don't behave in a moral way they don't deserve moral treatment from other beings.

Animals, it's argued, usually behave selfishly, and look after their own interests, while human beings will often help other people, even if doing so is to their own disadvantage.

Not all scientists agree: Jane Goodall, an expert on chimpanzees has reported that they sometimes show truly altruistic behaviour.

Animals don't have rights against other animals

Another reason for thinking that animals don't behave morally is that even the most enthusiastic supporters of animal rights only argue that animals have rights against human beings, not against other animals.

For example, as Mary Warnock put it:

Why this might be relevant to the question of whether animals should have rights becomes clearer if you rephrase it in terms of duties or obligations instead of rights and ask - why should human beings have obligations towards animals, if animals don't have obligations to other animals or to human beings?


Fundamental rights

Animal and human rights boil down to one fundamental right: the right to be treated with respect as an individual with inherent value.

Philosophers have a traditional way of expressing this:

From this fundamental right come other rights.

Particular species only get relevant and useful rights - so animals don't get all the rights that human beings get. For example: animals don't want or get the right to vote.

When rights conflict

Sometimes a particular situation results in a conflict of rights.

Two methods can be used to determine the best course of action when there is no alternative to violating the rights of some individual or group:

  • The Miniride Principle: Where similar harms are involved, override the fewest individuals' rights.
  • The Worse-off Principle: Where dissimilar harms are involved, avoid harming the worse-off individual.

Harm is defined as the reduction of the capacity to have and fulfil desires.

This definition of harm benefits people over animals because human beings have far more desires that they want to satisfy than do non-human animals.

This resolves many of the traditional problems of humans versus animals in favour of humanity, because the human being under consideration would suffer far more harm than the non-human animal.

But be careful: this method of choosing alternative courses of action is not utilitarian, it doesn't necessarily lead to choosing the course of action that produces the greatest overall happiness.


The problem of 'marginal people'

The phrase 'marginal people' or 'marginal human beings' is unpleasant. We use it here only because if you read the literature of animal rights you will encounter it often, and it's important to know what it means. We do not intend to denigrate the status or worth of any human being by using it here...

The problem with the line of thought in the section above that it takes rights away from many human beings as well as from non-human animals.

This is because some human beings (babies, senile people, people with some severe mental defects and people in a coma) don't have the capacity for free moral judgement either, and by this argument they wouldn't have any rights.

Some philosophers are prepared to argue that in fact such 'marginal human beings' don't have rights, but most people find that conclusion repellent.

The argument can be rescued by rewriting it like this:

  • If an individual is a member of a species that lacks the capacity for free moral judgment, then he or she does not have moral rights.
  • All non-human animal species lack the capacity for free moral judgment.
  • Therefore, non-human animals do not have moral rights.

But this is not an argument; it's a statement that human beings have rights and non-human animals don't, which is pure speciesism, and hardly persuasive.

It's also vulnerable to the (probably unlikely) arrival of a species of extra-terrestrial creatures who demonstrate the capacity for free moral judgement.


+ All Animal Rights Essays:

  • The Horror that is Animal Testing
  • Are we teaching the right things, to the right people, in the right way?
  • Against Animal Testing
  • Factory Farming and Animal Cruelty
  • Use of Animals for Research
  • Animal Testing in Cosmetics
  • No More Hunting Animals
  • Humans And Animals Relationships
  • Where Are Women's Rights?
  • Symbolism in Animal Farm
  • Owning Exotic Animals, Is It Ethical?
  • We Need to Get Rid of Animal Testing
  • Animal Cruelty: Dog Fighting
  • Aboriginal Land Rights
  • Animal Hoarding
  • Animal Testing Is Wrong
  • Animals and Its Beneficial Uses to Man
  • Animals Take Over in Animal Farm by George Orwell
  • No-Kill Shelters Rehabilitation for Animals
  • Animal Dilemma
  • The Environment and Its Rights
  • Right to Counsel
  • Stop Animal Cruelty
  • Animal Testing - Necessary or Barbaric and Wrong? - Discursive Essay.
  • Poor Treatment of Circus Animals
  • Animal Farm by George Orwell
  • Relationship between Animals and Humans
  • The Lowest Animal by Mark Twain
  • Animal Liberation
  • Animal Rights, Human Wrongs vs. The Damned Human Race
  • Animal Farm, 1984
  • Animal Testing is Wrong
  • Animal Testing Persuasive Essay
  • Adoption of Animals
  • Hero Of Animal Farm
  • The Necessities of Animal Experimentation
  • Animal Experimentation Pros and Cons
  • Animal Farm by George Orwell
  • Should Animals Be Kept in the Zoo?
  • The Cons of Animal Testing
  • An Inside Look at Animal Experimentation
  • George Washington - the Right Leader at the Right Time
  • Animal Testing is Vital to Medical Advances
  • Argument for Stopping Animal Abuse
  • George Orwell's Animal Farm
  • Animal Farm by George Orwell
  • Animal Testing
  • The Cruelty of Animal Testing
  • Animal Testing Ethics
  • Animal Testing is Wrong!
  • Animal Cruelty - Essay 7
  • Cosmetics Testing on Animals, Is It Necessary?
  • Killing an Animal for Clothing
  • Totalitarian Government in Animal Farm
  • Spay And Neuter your Animals
  • Marine Animals: The Manatee
  • Limitation on Animal Testing
  • Animals vs. Humans in Medical Experimentation
  • Animal Shelters and the No Kill Movement
  • Animal Testing Should Be Banned
  • Do Animals Have A Say?: Comparative Analysis of Animal Rights, Human Wrongs and Proud to be Speciecist
  • Do Animals Have Language?
  • Animals and Humans Are Not Equal
  • Genetic Engineering: Rights and Responsibilities
  • Property Rights and the Economic System
  • Animal Abuse
  • Analysis of Animal Treatment in Circus
  • Animal Cruelty on Factory Farms
  • Peter Singer's Views on the Killing of Animals
  • Animal Farm And The Russian Revolution
  • Euthanasia: Your Right
  • Essay on Animal Imagery in A Doll's House
  • The Ethics of Animal Use in Biomedical Research
  • The Ethical Treatment of Animals
  • The Controversy of Testing on Animals
  • Bill of Rights & Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen
  • A Brief History of Animal Abuse and Cruelty
  • Animal Testing and Researching
  • Animal Experimentation
  • Animal Testing
  • Animal Farm by George Orwell
  • Animal Farm by George Orwell
  • The Unethical Treatment of Animals
  • Animal Farm Research Paper
  • Plant And Animal Cells
  • Black Civil Rights and Feminist Rights
  • Serving the Public and the Animals
  • Gay Rights: Homosexuals Deserve the same Rights as Heterosexuals
  • Animal Cruelty
  • Animal Testing: a Cruel and Inhumane Way
  • Animal Testing: Pros and Cons
  • Women's Rights Are Human Rights by Hilary Clinton
  • Analysis on Gary Steiner´s Animal, Vegetable, Miserable
  • Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *