Notificaciones sobre tratamiento de datos efectuado por el Operador del Sistema

In the nineteenth century reformers began urging the more humane treatment of animals and founded groups like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to improve the conditions first of working animals and then of domestic and farm animals as well. In the 1970s Australian philosopher Peter Singer became one of the first to argue that animals have rights. While most people agree that humans have an obligation to care for animals and treat them humanely, the idea that they have rights remains contentious.

PROS

Human beings are accorded rights on the basis that they are able to think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore nonhuman animals should also be accorded rights, e.g., to a free and healthy life.

Ever since the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 we have known that human beings are related by common ancestry to all other animals. We owe a duty of care to our animal cousins.

We should err on the side of caution in ascribing rights to human or nonhuman creatures. If we place high stan-

CONS

Human beings are infinitely more complex than any other living creatures. Their abilities to think and talk, to form social systems with rights and responsibilities, and to feel emotions are developed well beyond any other animals. Trying to prevent the most obvious cases of unnecessary suffering or torture of animals is reasonable, but beyond that, nonhuman animals do not deserve to be given “rights.”

That we are (incredibly distantly) related to other ani- mals does not mean that they have “rights.” This sort of thinking would lead to absurdities. Should we respect the “right” to life of bacteria? We might wish to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all crea- tures to which we are distantly related have rights. Only human beings who are members of society have rights. Rights are privileges that come with certain social

3|The Debatabase Book

dards (such as the ability to think, speak, or even to enter into a social contract) on the ascription of rights, there is a danger that not only animals but also human infants and mentally handicapped adults will be considered to have no rights.

Cruelty to animals is the sign of an uncivilized society; it encourages violence and barbarism in society more gen- erally. A society that respects animals and restrains base and violent instincts is a more civilized one.

That a small number of extremists and criminals have attached themselves to the animal rights movement does not invalidate the cause. Why shouldn’t animal rights supporters and activists take medicine? They are morally obligated to take care of themselves in the best way they can until more humane research methods are developed and implemented.

duties and moral responsibilities. Animals are not capa- ble of entering into this sort of “social contract”—they are neither moral nor immoral, they are amoral. They do not respect our “rights,” and they are irrational and entirely instinctual. Amoral and irrational creatures have neither rights nor duties—they are more like robots than people. All human beings or potential human beings (e.g., unborn children) can potentially be given rights, but nonhuman animals do not fall into that category. Using animals for our own nutrition and pleasure is completely natural. In the wild animals struggle to sur- vive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources. Human beings have been successful in this struggle for existence and do not need to feel ashamed of exploiting their position as a successful species in the evolutionary process.

Animal rights activists are hypocrites, extremists, and ter- rorists who don’t care about human life. Organizations like the Animal Liberation Front use terrorist tactics and death threats; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is also an extremist organization. These extrem- ists still avail themselves of modern medicine, however, which could not have been developed without experi- ments and tests on animals. Animal welfare is a reason- able concern, but talking of animal “rights” is a sign of extremism and irrationality.

Sample Motions:

This House believes that animals have rights too. This House would respect animals’ rights. This House condemns the exploitation of animals.

Web Links:

• Animal Rights FAQ. <http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm> Includes about 100 FAQs, biographies of animal rights activ- ists, lists of US and UK organizations, bibliography, and links to other animal rights groups.

• Ethics Update. <http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Applied/Animals/index.asp> Links to surveys and resources on the moral status of animals.

• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. <http://www.peta-online.org/> Home page for radical animal rights organization includes news stories on animals and animal rights.

Further Reading:

Scully, Matthew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2003. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Reprint. Harper Perennial, 2001.

Wise, Steven M., and Jane Goodall. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Perseus, 2000.

