Animal Rights The worst sin towards our fellow

Animal Rights "The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That's the essence of inhumanity" George Bernard Shaw

What does "Animal Rights" mean? –plural noun the rights of animals, claimed on ethical grounds, to the same humane treatment and protection from exploitation and abuse that are accorded to humans. HOWEVER “It is not the animals who are demanding rights, but the humans who are conferring rights upon the animals. This argument is not about the rights of animals but about the duties of human beings. ” http: //susanrosenthal. com/articles/animal-rights-or-human-responsibilities

Animal Rights is a philosophical view that animals have rights similar or the same as humans. True animal rights proponents believe that humans do not have the right to use animals at all. Animal rights proponents wish to ban all use of animals by humans.

Animal Welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal wellbeing, including proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthansia.

Animal Welfare cont. Animal welfare proponents seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals. Animal welfare proponents believe that humans can interact with animals in entertainment, industry, sport and recreation, and industry, but that the interaction should include provisions for the proper care and management for all animals involved. Animal welfare proponents support self-regulation of animal sports, including rodeo, polo, three-day eventing, FFA competitions, horse racing, field trials and endurance riding. Animal welfare groups utilize scientific evidence to base animal care and handling guidelines.

Speciesism Discrimination against animals is “speciesism”, analogous to racism To discriminate on the basis of species membership, or even on the basis of intelligence or rationality, is like discriminating on the basis of skin color What matters is sentience. Any animal that is sentient (can feel pleasure or pain) counts as a moral subject. All pleasure or pain, or preferences, should count equally, whether they are the pleasures of preferences of humans or animals

The Value of Life http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=I 3 Y 3 qcd. Wkto&feature=pl ayer_embedded&has_verified=1 Discussion point: Are human and animal lives of equal value?

Something to ponder as you read the next few slides. Do animal rights vary for different types of animals? Can or should all animals have equal rights?

How are animals viewed in Industry? For thousands of years people have killed animals for their fur. Fashion Discoveries in technology have led to the development of synthetic fibres, increased production in other natural fibres which do not require the killing of animals. How does this change our understanding of animal rights? Do we still need to kill animals for their fur? Should we? Medical / Scientific Research The use of animals for medical research has led to the development of numerous vacinations and cures for deseases which have killed millions of people. But at what cost? How should vaccines be tested and developed? If animal testing didn't take place then people would still be dying from these diseases today.

How are animals viewed in Industry? Farming of animals In the last 30 years, our society has experienced a food revolution, which has transformed the lives of more than half a billion Australian farm animals who comprise the meat, milk and egg producing machines annually called on to satisfy our national appetite. The interests of farm animals have been largely disregarded in this relentless pursuit for profit. Most animals in factory farms live a life of confinement.

Loss and Destruction of Natural Habitats Does animal rights include the protection of animal habitats? Many natural habitats for animals are being lost through deforestation. Deforestation is the clearing of forests by logging and/or burning and occurs in many countries around the world for many reasons. Forests are cleared for many different reasons including, trees or derived charcoal being used as or sold for fuel, pasture for livestock, growing crops and expansion of communities who require more housing. This provides an income for many families. The removal of trees and destruction of these habitats has resulted in much devastation including biodiversity loss, aridity and the extinction of many species of animals.

Medical research � Animal used for vaccines, treatments, of human diseases, e. g. polio, malaria � But this research would not be allowed if animals had rights � Rights entail duties � Rights trump interests � absolutely

Do individuals have a role to play in defining / shaping the treatment of animals? Consumer Choices As consumers we are now becoming informed with regard to how animals are treated before being sold to us as consumer products. Consumer buying power can make a difference. 20 years ago consumers bought eggs without much consideration for where they came from. Today we expect to be informed with regard to where our eggs come from so that we can choose between free range and cage eggs. Consumer demands for these products is on the rise. Is it elitism or genuine concern for animal rights? What obligation if any do we have to buy We have the products which support the ethical and choice to buy humane treatment of animals? tuna which is harvested Should financial cost play a without role in our decision making? needlessly killing dolphins.

Do individuals have a role to play in defining / shaping the treatment of animals? Domestic Pets Domestication is a process whereby man has structurally, physiologically and behaviourally modified certain species of animals by maintaining them in or near human habitation and by breeding from those certain animals who seem best suited for various human objectives. As life becomes busier what does this mean for our pets? What obligation do we have to them? OR Home alone for over 12 hours a day? Is this taking animal rights too far?

Conservationist/Activist Many groups of conservationists and activists have taken up the cause of defending the animal rights. Some of the best known include: Green Peace: Probably the best known organisation around the globe for defending the rights of animals that started in 1971 WWF-World Wide Fund For Nature: Protecting the wildlife around the globe and saving animals from extinction RSPCA - Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Organisation that safeguards the way in which people treat animals in captivity. PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: American organisation that supports the universal declaration of animal rights (1972)

Direct vs. Indirect duties towards animals Direct duties: duties owed to the animals themselves (treating animals welfare as an intrinsic good) Indirect duties: duties to act in certain ways towards animals for the sake of ourselves, others or society (treating animal welfare as an instrumental good)

Examples of indirect duties towards animals: • Duty to respect private property (animals that belong to someone) • Duty to avoid cruelty because it encourages a cruel nature in us, which might then be expressed towards other people • Duty not to hurt the feelings of people who love animals by abusing animals • Duty to maintain the health of biosystems and nature in general, for our own good • Duty to preserve beautiful creatures, for the enjoyment of others and future generations • Duty to preserve species that may be sources of other instrumental goods, e. g. medicine

Ethical status for animals Animal welfare as an intrinsic good Kantian and utilitarian ethics traditionally extended to all people, but only people Kant: all rational beings are ends in themselves assumption: only humans are rational (or maybe humans, angels and extraterrestrials) Utilitarianism: the pleasures and pains of all conscious beings are of equal importance assumption (? ): only humans are conscious/have pleasure and pain But note: Jeremy Bentham, early utilitarian (pre-Mill): “The question is not, Can they reason? , nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? ” (Bentham 1789)

The argument from borderline cases Borderline cases: babies, the severely mentally retarded, psychopaths Argument from analogy: borderline cases are similar to (some) animals (in terms of abilities, sentience, capacity for pleasure and pain), so animals should be treated similarly We routinely grant importance to the interests to human borderline cases – not full rights (e. g. the right to vote), but the right to have their preferences treated as morally important and the right not to be mistreated Animals are not equal to normal adults, and therefore cannot have truly equal rights, but their preferences (e. g. the desire to avoid pain) should be given equal consideration

Equal consideration, not equal rights We don’t discriminate between people on the basis of intelligence or ability. So we should not discriminate against animals because they are less intelligent or lack certain abilities. We treat babies and the severely brain damaged better than we treat animals, but we shouldn’t. Animals have just as much right to consideration as babies (or more!) E. g. an adult ape is more aware, more self-directing and has at least as much capacity for suffering as a baby.

Moral Standing Distinguishes “moral agents” from “moral patients” Moral agents typified by competent human adults Moral patients include everything that has interests, e. g. babies, the mentally incompetent and animals. Both moral agents and moral patients have moral standing, i. e. are ends of themselves and are subject to rights What has interests? Subjects-of-a-life.

Subjects-of-a-life “To be the subject-of-a-life … involves more than merely being alive and more than merely being conscious. To be the subject-of-alife is to … have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference and welfare-interests; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, independent of their utility for others. ” Not all animals, but only animals that meet these criteria. Typically “mentally normal mammals of a year or more”, although potentially other animals with the relevant cognitive capacity.