Do Animals Have Rights?
Should animals be harmed to benefit mankind? This pressing question has been
around for at least the past two centuries. During the early nineteenth
century, animal experiments emerged as an important method of science and, in
fact, marked the birth of experimental physiology and neuroscience as we
currently know it. There were, however, guidelines that existed even back then
which restricted the conditions of experimentation. These early rules protected
the animals, in the sense that all procedures performed were done so with as
little pain as possible and solely to investigate new truths. Adopting the
animals’ perspectives, they would probably not agree that these types of
regulations were much protection, considering the unwanted pain that they felt
first followed by what would ultimately be their death. But, this is exactly
the ethical issue at hand. For the most part, animal rights are debated in
regards to two issues: 1) whether animals have the ability to rationalize or go
through a logical thought process and 2) whether or not animals are able to
experience pain. However, “it will not do simply to cite differences between
humans and animals in order to provide a rational basis for excluding animals
from the scope of our moral deliberations” (Rollin 7). This, Bernard Rollin
claims, would be silly. He says that to do this is comparable to a person with
a full head of hair excluding all bald men from his moral deliberations simply
because they are bald. The true ethical question involved is, “do these
differences serve to justify a moral difference?” (Rollin 7). Also, which
differences between humans and non-humans are significant enough to be
considered in determining the non-human’s fate?
Over the years, many differences have been proposed. Some theorize that rights
depend upon the ability to possess interest, which in turn depend upon the
ability to form verbal formulations, for example. If this were so, then it
would rule out the possibility of rights for most animals, with maybe the
exception of some primates. But, as Rodd states, “beings incapable of
possessing genuine rights might possess moral status in virtue of other
qualities, such as the capacity for suffering” (Rodd 4). So, it is easily seen
how many views have accumulated over time. The task of determining animal
rights has also come into the context of examining these inherent differences
on qualitative and quantitative levels. We can say, for instance, that on a
qualitative level, a cow is less intelligent than a human. But, we must then
determine, on a quantitative level, how much more unintelligent that cow really
is when compared to humans. And, once we decide that, we must then decide if
that margin of intelligence is enough for us humans to slaughter that cow in order
to benefit human kind from its products.
Questions like this and others, which are very similar, have become the
snowballing debate over the question of animal rights. Where do we draw the
line? How do we determine the value of another being’s life? Well, up to this
point, we as a society have been pretty confident in judging the lives of
millions of animals worldwide (or so we can conclude by looking at the number
of animals sacrificed each year for the purpose of experiment, education,
goods, etc.). We must first step back and analyze the ethical dilemma at hand
and then proceed to carefully weigh its consequences.
If we examine the question of animal rights cautiously, it is most often viewed
as an ethical dilemma as opposed to an economic or cultural issue. This is due
to the fact that a life is at stake and we, as humans, must decide if we are
justified to take that life, while in the process inflicting suffering, in
order to benefit society as a whole. We must almost play God, in a sense, in deciding
which animal lives are expendable and which are valuable enough to allow to
remain living. This ethical dilemma almost assigns a value to life. The debate
over animal rights asks if it is worth killing innocent animals in order to
benefit such items as education, material production or human medicine. Looking
at this argument, one might say that humans are greedy and disrespectful of
God’s creation. But, are we supposed to try experimental medicines and surgical
procedures on humans and risk their death? Or is it better to educate students
about anatomy and physiology through the sacrifice of animals? Ethically, does
the end justify the means? David Lee Miller argues that for us to engage in a
strictly ethical conversation on the topic of animal rights, “we would do well
to suspend our individual material interests in the outcome of the discussion”
(Miller 3). I agree with Miller here that to speak of the determination of
animal rights on an ethical level, which is where it should be, we certainly
cannot be concerned with how nice it would be to have a full-length mink coat
or a fabulous alligator purse. It must come down to the ethics of killing an
animal for the sake of the value of its life and not for the sake of weighing
the amount of money you will receive for the sale of one hundred pounds of
beef. But, simply by looking at how large this debate has grown, we can see
that making this separation is very difficult. Often times, material interests
get in the way and lead our ethical thought astray. But can it be alright to
allow these interests to take charge? This all depends on your ethical
standpoint regarding the assignment of rights to animals. If you believe their
rights to be non-existent, then what do you care if millions of them are
killed? On the other hand, if you see all life as equal then the “senseless”
killing of animals is comparable to the slaughter of innocent human beings.
There are many viewpoints concerning this issue that need to be dealt with in
order to fully grasp the mindset of those so deeply involved in the struggle to
determine what, if any, rights that animals possess.
Tom Regan, a professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University and one
of the leading proponents of this theory, claims that animals have “rights” – the
right to be treated in a certain way. Regan claims that animals have
preferences, goals, and most importantly, mental states that enter into the
explanation of their behavior. In his words, animals are ”subjects of a life”
just like humans and each subject of life contains “inherent value”. What Regan
means by this is that by performing experiments on animals, you are reducing
them to mere tools and violating their basic rights. He justifies his theory by
using an example containing the retarded and insane. He says that if these
types of persons are allowed moral rights, despite their inability to think
rationally, then all mammals should have moral rights. Also, he states that
discriminating on the basis of species is really fundamentally just the same moral
mistake as discrimination on the basis of race or sex. Discriminating on these
terms is morally irrelevant and fails to accord equal consideration, states
Regan. Another theory that is against cruelty to animals in such a manner is an
approach that is epitomized in the writings of both St. Thomas Aquinas and
Immanuel Kant. This viewpoint differs from Regan’s because it suggests that
animals are not necessarily direct objects of moral concern. However, there are
definitely certain things that are not morally justifiable in treating animals
in this manner. With this view, cruelty to animals is forbidden, not because
animals are objects of moral attention, but rather because of the psychological
fact that people who brutalize animals may tend to behave in the same manner
toward other people. Still, this theory denies that animals should be used as
experimental tools, although it does so in a way that leaves the possibility of
their rights very fuzzy. A final important theory that supports giving animals their
rights involves the topic of pain. Do animals feel pain? According to David Lee
Miller, if non-human animals act like they are experiencing pain, then they
probably are. If non-human animals act like they experience pain, but somehow
do not, states Miller, then it would be strange happenstance. Miller claims
that even for those who are deemed not to exhibit qualities such as
consciousness, they should still be given the benefit of the doubt. This theory
is justified because it relates very directly how humans and non-humans share
very similar reactions to the same stimuli, in this case, pain.
On the other hand, there are several theories that affirm animals should not be
assigned rights. Most of these theories revolve around the notion that animals
do not have the ability to reason, which is considered the most important
feature of humans and is what sets them apart from non-humans. One of the most
persuasive reasons usually offered for excluding animals from being direct
objects of moral consideration is the claim that whereas man possesses an
immortal soul, animals are not so blessed. This theory has dominated the
Catholic Church and the popular mind for centuries. The supporters of this
theory believe that since there exists a lack of soul in non-humans, there also
exists a lack of reason, which in turn, demotes animals below humans and causes
us to see them as inferior. Once we see them as inferior, it is extremely easy
to deny their rights. Another viewpoint concerning the denial of animal rights
is seen widely in the scientific community. Most scientists believe that since
they have already demonstrated that human benefits are derived from animal
experimentation, there is no need to provide any ethical argument that
justifies harming millions of animals each year. They say that animals provide
too much human benefit (food, transportation, entertainment) for us to be
concerned with any moral aspects of whether or not to keep harming them.
Finally, it is believed that only creatures capable of acting morally are
themselves deserving of moral concern. This theory states that moral laws and
principles are the product of a sort of social contract, which only rational
beings are capable of participating in. The contract is an agreement among only
rational individuals to treat others in a certain way, provided that they are
themselves treated the same way in return. Since animals cannot enter into
agreements such as these, mainly because they lack reason and language, they
cannot be considered objects of moral concern.
Looking at both sides of the argument, I see a much stronger case for the use
of animals in experimentation, education, and overall human benefit. First of
all, I think that there is way too much human reliance on animals to stop their
use for human benefit. They provide us with commodities such as meat, safe
medicines (indirectly), and a greater understanding of anatomy which allows
millions of humans to be saved each year. Some life form has to “take one for
the team”, in a sense, so which one would you choose? Would you die for an
animal? Also, some animal advocates say that the mammal is valued and that its
properties are unique. This seems like a large contradiction in the sense of a
denial of equality if you ask me. If the key issue is the animal’s life, why do
they put some life on a pedestal and leave others on the ground? Then where can
you draw the line? Do fleas have the same inherent value as apes? To me, all
animals are equally inferior since none of them can reason or express a logical
thought. I see animals as very primitive as a whole. Also, since superiority
depends obviously on differences in composure, some question which difference
is most valuable. Some suggest that animals possess many characteristics that
are superior to humans, such as smell and hearing. However, it is obviously
reason that dominates over everything else since we humans are the only ones
that possess it and are obviously the most advanced.
Remaining on the topic of reason, I turn to the theories and views held by one
of the great German philosophers of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. Kant
argues that only rational beings can count as moral agents and, even more
importantly for my purpose in this paper, that the scope of moral concern
extends only to rational beings. This notion of reason is central to the
philosophy of Kant. A large aspect of the possession of reason in Kant’s view
is the ability to arrive at knowledge that cannot be shown to be false by
experience and can be known to be true simply by thought. A good example of
this a priori knowledge is, “The sum of the angles of a triangle is 180
degrees”. As everyone who had studied geometry knows, that statement can be
proven by reason, and once it has been proved, we can say that we know it must
be true. The important part of this concept for this paper is the fact that
Kant claims that only human beings can possess this type of knowledge, and only
the possession of this knowledge can allow a being to assert judgements that
claim universally . This idea of universal claims brings me to Kant’s idea of
the “categorical imperative”. This, he believes, is the correct principle for
determining how rational beings ought to treat one another, or themselves for
that matter. The “categorical imperative” states that one should never make an
exception for one’s self by acting on reasons that one could not will every
other rational being to act on. He states, “I ought never to act except in such
a way that I can also will that my maxim should become universal law” (Kant
70). In Kant’s deontological system, universalizing the exception destroys the
rule. He also formulates an idea of duty in which he claims that, “Duty is the
necessity to act out of reverence for the [moral] law” (Kant 68), and, “human
action is morally good if it is done from duty alone” (class outline). These
statements reflect on Kant’s idea of seeing moral actions on a basis of ends
and means. Kant, believing that the only rational beings are human beings,
states that we should value human beings simply for their function as rational
beings and respect that function for its own sake, or their end, regardless of
their usefulness for us. We should never treat humans solely as a means to some
end we happen to have.
Looking at Kant’s arguments, I believe that he would share my overall
perspective that animals do not possess rights. Kant believes that only human
beings are rational due to the fact that only humans can entertain, understand,
and formulate statements that are universal in scope. So, only human beings
fall within the scope of moral concern. Animals, he claims, cannot have a sense
of a priori knowledge because they are tied to stimulus and response reactions.
For example, animals may respond to this particular fire in a way that
indicates its awareness that this fire is dangerous here and now, but only
humans have the capacity to understand that all fires are potentially
dangerous. Also, Kant states that only rational beings are “ends in
themselves”, meaning that only rational beings should be valued for their own
sake. Kant actually states, as noted by Rollin, that “Animals are… merely as
means to an end. That end is man” (Rollin 19). Therefore, in Kant’s
perspective, if animals are not rational and only rational beings should be
seen as ends, animals are simply a means with a certain instrumental value
available for human exploitation. However, Kant does assert that we should
avoid cruelty to animals. He does not contradict himself, though. He desires to
avoid cruelty because he believes that this sort of behavior can lead to
cruelty towards men or, on a lower scale, that cruelty to an animal causes
human harm since it is damage to his/her property.
While Immanuel Kant would clearly have a distinct view on animal rights, other
philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, might not be as easily inclined to take
a stand either way. Mill believes in a philosophy called utilitarianism. Mill’s
approach, which is sometimes called Hedonistic Utilitarianism, holds that
pleasure and pleasure alone is intrinsically good, while pain and pain alone is
intrinsically evil. To determine what the best consequences would be in any
given case, they think, we must determine which alternative available to us
will bring about the optimum balance of pleasure over pain for everyone
affected by the outcome. In other words, they want to induce the most pleasure
for the greatest number of people and the least pain for the smallest number of
people. Pleasure, in their view, denotes happiness, while pain denotes
unhappiness. Utilitarianism takes into account the pleasures and pains of
everyone affected by the outcome of what we do. It will not allow us to
consider the pleasures and pains of some and ignore the pleasures and pains of
others. Mill was a believer in the highest good, which he states, will follow
the principle of utility. The principle of utility argues that action that
produces happiness is morally correct. His idea of the principle of utility,
therefore, is a consequentialist theory, or one that determines our moral direction
through our consequences.
My interpretations of Mill’s viewpoints lead me to the conclusion that
utilitarians would not take a particular stance on animal rights until they had
examined the entire scope of the scene. Looking at this issue from a utilitarian
perspective, an animal’s rights are completely dependent upon the issue of
pleasure versus pain. First of all, they would have to decide if animals
actually felt pain. As stated earlier in the essay, some hypothesize that
animals feel pain simply because their physical reactions to stimuli that cause
humans pain are very close to the physical reactions of humans under the same
stimuli. If it was concluded that animals did in fact feel pain, Mill, or any
utilitarian, would have to take every creature’s interest into account. This
includes everyone from a man who needs a baboon heart to survive, to a woman
who enjoys mink coats, to the animal who feels the pain from both of the
previous cases. Since the utilitarians want to reduce as much pain as possible,
they would need to decide which would be lesser: the pain felt by the animals
during experimentation or the pain felt by humans if there were a lack of
animal experimentation. In the end, I believe that the principle of utility
would have to guide the utilitarians in their decision whether or not to assign
rights to animals. Moral correctness regarding animal rights would have to come
as a result of weighing the pleasures and pains of both humans and animals and
deciding what is best for mammals as a whole.
Both Kant and Mill express a number of extremely valid points, along with some
weak arguments, in their philosophical views as applied to animal rights.
Kant’s inspection of reason is very logical as seen in his idea of a priori
knowledge. Only humans could be capable of such a task since animals generally
do respond to instinct. Evidence of this claim sets humans apart from animals
through one of the most important arguments regarding the issue of animal
rights: the ability to reason. However, despite the advantage of reason,
rational beings should not be the only beings that are “ends in themselves”. I
view all beings as having an end in themselves, including animals. However, I
see animal experimentation and sacrifice as a necessary means for human
survival. Moving to Mill, his idea of pleasure and pain has possible strong
points in that pain is attempted to be reduced and pleasure is attempted to be
magnified. This idea seems like a universal good that can be easily accepted.
However, this idea is only seen as good to those who receive pleasure. The
animals, for example, lose in the case of animal experimentation since they
receive the bulk of the pain. Also, the utilitarian idea that you must consider
the pleasure and pain of everyone and then come to a conclusion seems too
difficult and far-fetched. This concept should be restricted to considering
only the pleasure and pain of those directly involved, which is difficult in
this case since almost all people and animals are implicated into this dilemma.
Despite the strengths of both Kant’s and Mill’s arguments, I do not believe
either one is single-handedly apt to make an omniscient decision regarding the
bestowing of animal rights. Kant’s policy portrays animals as the non-rational
servants of man. This view could not hold up in today’s animal rights debate
because it is too harsh and does not take into account the animal as having a
purpose in life for its own sake. Mill’s point of view is too hedonistic, even
though it aims to reduce pain at the same time. Religious authorities might
even claim the utilitarian perspective to be atheist since its structure is so
highly aimed at pleasure.
Finally, I ask this question to one who is totally against the slaughter of
animals for any reason. If big, disgusting rats infested your house, would you
round up each one and free them in the woods, or would you set dozens of
rattraps around the house or maybe call an exterminator? My point is that if it
doesn’t threaten you directly, you may not realize the full extent of the
ordeal. Considering the seriousness of the ethical dilemma of bestowing animal
rights or not, and weighing all of the opposing views, I come to the conclusion
that siding with those who promote the use of animals for human benefit seems
more logical and practical, despite the fact that life is lost.
Annotated Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Harper & Row
Publishers. New York, New York. 1964.
-Used Kant’s text in order to lay down his principles and beliefs. Mainly used
simply for background into his theories.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey. 1957
-Used this to give background of Utilitarianism, including theories and
principles.
Miller, David Lee. The Debate About Animal Properties.
http://www.sunyit.edu/~miller1/PROP.HTM. 29 October 2000.
-Helped with theory on pain and gave many good pro-rights evaluations.
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation.
Oxford University Press. New York, New York. 1993.
-Provided the initial history information. Also, gave a few ideas about both
pros and cons of rights
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
Berkeley, Los Angeles. 1983.
-Since Regan is very pro-rights, his book helped with that part of the paper.
Rodd, Rosemary. Biology, Ethics, and Animals. Oxford University Press. New
York, New York. 1990.
-Helped with the ethical aspect of the paper (part b). Also contains values of
animals and humans.
Rollin, Bernard E. Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books. Buffalo,
New York. 1981.
-Contained aspect of the soul and relates theories of Kant (very helpful!)
Smart, J.J.C.; Williams, Bernard. Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge. 1973.
-Used to develop strength and weaknesses of mill’s ideas
Smith, Norman K. Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. The Humanities Press.
New York, New York. 1933.
-This text was used sparingly to develop Kant’s understanding of reason.
Sorabji, Richard. Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western
Debate. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. 1993.
-Goes through and evaluates aspects of humans and compares them to animals.