Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS

21. THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS

IT HAS LATELY BECOME a growing fashion to extend the concept of rights from human beings to animals, and to assert that since animals have the full rights of humans, it is therefore impermissible—i.e., that no man has the right—to kill or eat them.

There are, of course, many difficulties with this position, including arriving at some criterion of which animals or living beings to include in the sphere of rights and which to leave out. (There are not many theorists, for example, who would go so far as Albert Schweitzer and deny the right of anyone to step on a cockroach. And, if the theory were extended further from conscious living beings to all living beings, such as bacteria or plants, the human race would rather quickly die out.)

But the fundamental flaw in the theory of animal rights is more basic and far-reaching.1 For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we “feel” that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man’s capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.

Thus, while natural rights, as we have been emphasizing, are absolute, there is one sense in which they are relative: they are relative to the species man. A rights-ethic for mankind is precisely that: for all men, regardless of race, creed, color or sex, but for the species man alone.

In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man’s capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor.

Animals . . . don't hurt another living thing simply for the sake of hurting them. Or because they had a crummy childhood. Or because they're drunk or on drugs. Or someone paid them to. Or they want to collect life insurance. They don't start horrendous wars based on lies and profit motives.

<SNIP>

Personally, I believe animals are our teachers. If we can be humble enough to learn from them, we may not need to debate their rights.

IT HAS LATELY BECOME a growing fashion . . . to assert that since animals have the full rights of humans, it is therefore impermissible—i.e., that no man has the right—to kill or eat them.

I have been a vegetarian for over thirty years. I would not even remotely entertain a rational thought of exercising cruelty on any higher order animal, but I still step on roaches whenever I see them. Spiders get carried outside. Being a gardener, I have a symbiotic relationship with insectivores.

I think the author is wrong on several counts.

I have not observed that this is a "growing fashion". I know of only a tiny number of people who assert that animals have the full rights of humans, and they are considered nut-cases, even among my most radical acquaintances. The author has firmly established, from the very first sentence, that he is about to flog a straw man, err, animal.

• In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man . . .

The writer departs here from the most fundamental statement of the origin of rights in our American heritage. The Founders did not declare that human rights are grounded in an examination of human nature. They stated that these rights were "endowed by the Creator".

• No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.

The writer is completely and utterly mistaken in this assertion, showing an abject ignorance of the intelligence and resourcefulness of higher animals, particularly primates. His conclusion that "natural rights" are limited to humankind is thus based on fallacies.

One can interpret this to mean man can do what he wants to with the animals on earth. God put them here as our plaything, and to eat.