Animal Rights/Welfare

Why do we have rights, including equal protection of the law and other personal freedoms? This question has been debated for thousands of years, but one major answer to this question is that we understand the value rights has to our success as a society. Freedom of speech, for instance, furthers democracy and the free flow of ideas, as well as individual liberty to express oneself. Therefore, in this country, we live under a Constitution that provides certain basic liberties, as well as other state and federal laws that furthers such liberties -- for instance, even if one argues the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty or support the use of contraceptives, various state laws have laws that do.

If basic rights and liberties are valued when humans are involved, how about when other animals are at issue? Well, we do not go around kicking dogs; if someone does so, few would think it was a good thing, and usually an anti-cruelty law would be violated. We are culturally and emotionally attached to various animals such as dogs, cats, dolphins caught in fishing nets, whales in ice, and so on, but we generally feel cruelty to animals is wrong. We even think people who pull the wings off flies are a tad bit loony.

Why? Well, some people feel animals are creatures of God, which we were given "dominion" or resposibility over (see Genesis 1:26), though is not usually felt to mean that we can not use them for various ends, even if it is not necessary. Nonetheless, some religions and ethical movements do believe the sanctity of animal live requires that we do not needlessly kill or harm them for food or clothing. Likewise, a belief that animals are beings that "have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from the utility to us" (Tom Regan), need not be part of a theistic belief in God at all.

A basic respect for life for its own sake does not include just animals, nor need it require us to always protect them. For instance, many ecologists feel hunting furthers the overall ecological diversity of society, though hunters tend not to be that concerned with that fact when they try to bag the choicest animals, animals of a certain type many states selectively protect for that very purpose. Nonetheless, this last point shows that a true across the board respect for life tends to further the rights or freedom (for that is what it boils down to) of animals to be free from unnecessary harm from humans.

One immediate reason why we do not hurt animals is that we understand that many of them clearly feel pain, especially if we are concerned with mammals and with a bit of thought and observation we would see that applies to all verterbrae (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) as well. We may have an emotional attachment to certain animals for various reasons, including personal interaction (pets), beauty (butterflies), and majesty (whales), this innate desire not to cause pain is a major factor. Various studies has shown cruelty to animals is but an symptom of further emotional problems that may very well express itself in ways that directly affect us. Nonetheless, we also care about the animals themselves, though we are somewhat arbitrary in doing so (people who wear fur coats care about starving stray animals and so on).

We also protect animals either directly or indirectly because it furthers our self-interest in various other ways. For instance, diversity of life helps us by providing various food, medicine and other resources. Pollution, over-grazing, and an excess of hunting all may cause problems to such resources. The current mass production of animals causes a great deal of pollution and is rather wasteful, while in return providing a diet that causes an excess of heart diseases and other ailments. Likewise, various means to collect seafood pollutes our waterways, harms animals such as dolphins, and affects poorer nations and peoples who rely seafood much more than richer nations do.

Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that animals have some rights, or that giving them such rights would benefit humans. If we may do so because of religious, ethical, or practical reasons, but the concept is clearly present. Maybe, the word 'right' looks weird in this context -- visions of Rover v Wade, but what is a right but "that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc." (Random House). If you do not like the term 'right' do not use it, but keeping animals free of unnecessary infliction of pain in the very least is really not that controversial of a position.

This may be a time to throw in a few words on the constitutional situation of animals. The government has various powers over the environment and also on animals directly, as seen by cruelty to animal statutes. A few more radical animal rights theorists argue that animals are persons, which sounds silly. Nonetheless, they mean legal persons, which includes corporations, but not unborn children or those who are brain dead. Logically, it would also include thinking individuals like aliens (the science fiction kind). It clearly involves those not aware they have rights, such as infants and those in comas. The argument is that animals, or certain types, are like humans enough to have some of the rights of persons, just like corporations have limited rights. Yes, corporations ultimately are made of persons, but logically animals also can and are seen as a type of person, both legally and emotionally.

The problem comes when such a basic idea runs counter to our self-interest, or perceived self-interest. Some of these self-interests, such as the pleasure from wearing fur or leather (where alternatives are easily obtainable) or painful animal testing for cosmetics and household cleaners, are rather flimsy compared to the harm inflicted. Other self-interests, including testing on animals for life or health saving drugs, are stronger, but even here problems arise. Let me briefly address a few uses of animals, and the perceived justifications involved.

The use of furs, even furs obtained from farm raised animals instead of those received by painful leghold traps or clubbing, merits little discussion in my view. Harm to animals for fashion does not seem that much of a close case. Leather at least comes from animals used for food; fur bearing animals are generally only raised and killed for fur.

Hunting is a bit more complicated, since some clear good comes from it. Nonetheless, as noted above, hunters are often not concerned with furthering ecological ends like dealing with overpopulation, though they do help (how much is open to debate). They also provide funds via fees to state upkeep of the environment as well as to private industry. The problem is there are alternative to controlling overpopulation and upkeep of state parks etc. Furthermore, we do not hunt to "cull" the population of stray cats or poor people, which sounds offensive, but only if you respect deer less than cats. Hunting cats generally would endanger the population of those who live near them, but hunting other animals often does that as well.

Hunting and fishing also provides enjoyment and respect for nature. This is nice, but there are alternative ways to enjoy oneself and respect nature without killing beings that live there. Fishing, for instance, has a big cultural value in this country, but remember it is one that involves the killing of fish (who feel pain, especially via death by choking in air) and often harms the environment. Going on a boat trip without catching fish, which is often what fishing trips actually involve (including some beer). The same can be said about things such as carriage rides, that are not easy on the horses, and circuses, which requires various burdens and harm to the animals involved.

Animals are also kept in captivity for various other reasons. We keep animals for pets, both for companionship and other reasons, such as guard and seeing eye dogs. The treatment of pets often is less than ideal, including abandonment, failure to neuter, and general mistreatment. Nonetheless, well cared for pets (best obtained via pounds over problem filled breeding or pet store methods) are generally a beneficial example of human/animal relationships. Zoos also have problems, even if there is some value involved both for us to observe, learn and respect animals, and for researchers to learn about them as well. The nature of most zooes make this research less than ideal, since they are artificially created environments, while being restrictive for the animals involved. The ultimate cost and benefit balancing of zoos is unclear, though such confinement seems cruel on its face.

All of this issues are important, but the two uses that clearly affect the most animals by far is animal experimentation and use of animals for food. In respect to the first use, Peter Singer in Animal Liberation provides one extended look at just how painful such testing is to animals. Furthermore, much of the testing is in areas not that important, are repetitive or flawed, and ignores the many alternatives are involved. Also, the differences between animals and humans has led to situations where results on animals do not apply to humans, such as the drug thalidomine. If we take into consideration all these factors, the only truly justified use of animals is for truly important drugs and the like, and even here alternatives are usually available.

The use of animals for food, especially given the alternatives as shown by the long existence of vegetarians and vegans, does not even have this complexity. Furthermore, we are not even limited to looking at the harm or justice of killing a deer or catching a fish, since the mass production of animals for food do not include such one on one actions. It involves the mass production of food via a procedure known as 'factory farming', which involves serious pain and suffering to the animals involved. It also includes the use of antibiotics and other chemicals that are not good for us. Finally, as noted, it is wasteful and harmful to the environment, which points to the problem of the collection of many types of seafood.

The harm involved is hinted at by this excerpt concerning the life of a factory farm animal, found in Vegetarian Times: Vegetarian Beginner's Guide:

"The abuse starts when an animal is born, taking the form of procedures such as branding with hot irons, removing (or docking) of the tail, teeth cutting, debeaking with hot irons, and castration. All these procedures are administrated without any anesthetic. In most cases, newborns are separated from the mother at birth; in other cases, they are forced to feed from the mother at an accelerated pace in order to faciliate rapid growth....

Life only worsens for most of the animals when they are full grown.... After only a short time of confinement in darkness with little or no exercise, the cows, chickens and pigs begin to exhibit behaviors that if demonstrated by a human would indicate severe mental illness."

Vegetarianism thus is a moral imperative if we respect the rights and well being of animals to be free from cruelty and unnecessary pain. It also has health benefits, which is a major reason why it is popular for many people. [As an aside, though our body is made to eat animal products, until recently in human history (and even here only for certain peoples), they have not been the staples of our diet] Many eat healthy, but feel it is okay to have fish and chicken, but on an ethical level, chickens are one of the animals most harmed by factory farming. It is worth mentioning that the raising of animals used for milk and diary products causes much pain (as well as other problems raised), while being not as healthy as the available alternatives, not even touching upon the chemicals given to cows that often wind up in the milk.*

Vegetarianism also is not unhealthy, all nutrients are provided, as seen by the long practice of it by Hindus and other groups. Finally, it is suggested the use of animals for food provides a certain ecological balance -- the problem is that mass production of food includes an artificial growth of certain animal populations, which would not be present if not put there in the first place. Therefore, the consumption of animals (at least those that feel pain) is problematic on many levels, while vegetarianism and/or veganism (no dairy or egg products) is great on many levels.

Vegetarianism is a choice people make for many reasons, but some see it as but part of a moral and ethical system of non-violence, known as "ahisma." This is basically the overriding theme of an interesting little book entitled "Compassion: The Ultimate Ethic" by Victoria Moran, which is not a complete examination of the subject by any means, but a good starting point for those interested. Though it touches upon various vices of the use of animals, Moran's overall message is that veganism (here defined as not using animal products, including leather and wool) is necessary for a person to truly lead a life of non-violence. I would agree, but also would add that it is for me a personal everyday way for me to live my beliefs. The struggle against animal cruelty is a long and hard one (what else is new? the fight against injustice always was and will be), it is much more managable on a personal level, as well as serving as an example of what is possible. I do not know how much good it does, and it remains hard at times to keep true myself (see note), but it is worth it on a personal level and hopefully in some way will be worth it in a more universal way as well.

My overall purpose was to explain why animals should be seen to have some kind of rights or at least not be unduly harmed. Furthermore, such harm has been shown to be counterproductive if the only thing we are concerned with is our self-interest, especially if we are concerned with the well being of the animals involved. Animal welfare includes many issues, as shown by the different links provided on these pages, and benign treatment of animals is just as complex. Therefore, though the ideal may be to not consume any animal products, being a vegetarian that sometimes eats dairy and/or egg products is a big step. Likewise, though it is a tad hypocritical, selective concern for animals helps as well. The goal is to be informed, act in a consistent (or somewhat consistent) fashion in areas such as preventing harm, and work in some way to respect all kinds of lives, not just certain select humans, not even just humans themselves.

Furthermore, a respect for animals that goes far enough as to prevent unnecessary harm (and wearing furs, hunting, or eating meat is rarely necessary) does not require us to see animals as our equals. The argument that only humans have souls or that we are special in some other fashion does not end matters. The counter-argument is that animals are equal enough biologically (they feel pain etc), sociologically (various animals have societies e.g. cats, monkeys etc), spiritually and so on to humans to deserve at least what I have just mentioned. Oh and by doing so, you help yourself in many ways too. Not a bad deal.