Top comment
Posted by Liberal (who has been, incidentally, a vegetarian for many years):
Whether non-human animals have rights or not is debatable, and a lot has been written by moral philosophers about this. Having rights does not necessarily require having duties, otherwise infants would have no rights.
That said, if dogs have rights, then so would cows and chickens. So the popular belief that many people in Malta are campaigning for animal rights is clearly absurd.
What I find most amazing is people who say they care more about animals (they usually mean cats and dogs) than they do about humans, and then claim they are for animal rights.
The main premise of the animal rights philosophy (irrespective of whether one subscribes to it or not) is that humans are animals. So one cannot logically be for animal rights and then say he cares less about the rights of people.
That said, non-human animals have no legal rights. The laws on “animal protection” were made either for environmental reasons or to cater for human sensibilities. Otherwise, the law would protect all animals equally, and killing a chicken would be murder.
24 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
@Liberal: there are efforts to ascribe ‘legal personhood’ to any sentient being (a moral/ethical morass, if you ask me):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10490128/US-lawsuit-demands-legal-personhood-for-chimpanzees.html
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6163/1154.summary
Yes, B. I already know that, both through keeping updated from news websites, and directly from the several books in my library that contain the groundwork on which some of these campaigns are based.
I have also followed the debate between those who argue for giving legal rights to some species (those most like us), and those who argue that this actually reinforces speciesism and is counter-productive in the long-term.
The leaders in both camps respectively would be Peter Singer and Gary Francione.
Unfortunately 90% (or more) of Malta’s population would not understand your reasoning.
Maybe more so in Malta, but this problem is not unique to our country.
…or catching a fish.
From: D. Grimm, “Lawsuits Seek ‘Personhood’ for Chimpanzees,” Science, vol. 342, no. 6163, pp. 1154–1155, Dec. 2013.
[These animal rights groups are] already preparing litigation for other states and other animals. ”Gorillas, orangutans, elephants, whales, dolphins - any animal that has these sorts of cognitive capabilities, we would be comfortable bringing suit on behalf of,” […] some would be research animals; others would be creatures that simply live in confined spaces, like zoos and aquariums. “No matter how these first cases turn out were going to file as many lawsuits as we can over the next 10 or 20 years.”
[Daphne – And there’s the flaw in the argument right there: rights do not derive from cognitive ability, which is why human beings of subnormal intelligence and even those who are in a coma have the same rights as all other human beings, though not the same obligations.]
Excellent reply, Daphne, and it is precisely the reason why some animal rights people and groups (described as abolitionists) believe such campaigns are counter-productive.
Essentially, if animal activists themselves distinguish between species for arbitrary reasons such as cognitive abilities, can they blame anyone else for arbitrarily elevating humans above all other animal species in matters of rights?
The animal rights view deals on individual rights, and not species rights (which would be arbitrary and speciesist). Basically animal rights philosophers conclude that all individual animals (that enjoy an experiential welfare) have moral rights on matters that can make a difference to their personal welfare.
Thank you. If only Maltese animal rights campaigners could muster enough intelligence between them to understand this.
I can assure you that you can count Maltese animal rights campaigners on your fingers. The rest are what I would describe as “animal fetishists”.
This is what got me disillusioned with the whole scene. How can one convince people to take one’s ideas seriously when one is associated with all sorts of cranks.
In some homes the cat comes first, gourmet meals and all trimmings.
Liberal, thank you for this well-written observation.
I’m not certain but I’m taking it that this post is related to the earlier one concerning the killing of a giraffe. Humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom have always has an uneasy relationship.
Throughout history, animals have been subjected to unspeakable horrors, the vast bulk of which can safely be ascribed to mindless cruelty. Modern animal rights organisations largely arose as a consequence of this historical and present-day fact.
However, and this is where it gets interesting, humanity today is being subjected to a particularly malignant form of dehumanisation, to which ever increasing numbers subscribe daily.
Unwittingly, the species is turning on itself, arguing for the extermination of its own kind by ascribing randomly applied criteria eg too young, too old, too infirm of body, too infirm of mind, etc.
If you combine the two classes, there is bound to emerge a sector that aligns itself with both camps and this where the human being who cares more about other species than his own is born.
“Unwittingly, the species is turning on itself, arguing for the extermination of its own kind by ascribing randomly applied criteria eg too young, too old, too infirm of body, too infirm of mind, etc.”
If anyone is arguing for the extermination of people for the reasons you mention, then surely these must be an insignificantly crazy minority. Unless, of course you have in mind abortion and euthanasia, that have nothing to do with being too old, too young, too infirm of body and too infirm of mind.
(apologies for the several typos but texting from a mobile device while stuck in traffic is extremely awkward :-(
[Daphne – No problem at all.]
Au contraire (apologies to Del Boy), they have everything to do with it. A human species that attempts to rationalise the killing of its young, that supports the culling of its old, that solemnly approves the doctrine of the unsuitability of the infirm, is on the path to wiping out that very characteristic that uniquely distinguishes them from the rest of the animal kingdom – and, such bitter irony, we will have then truly earned the privilege of pleading for our own rights alongside those of animals generally.
Abortion (whether one agrees with it or not) is not about killing the young. The rationale behind those who agree with the option of abortion is that an early foetus neither has a sufficiently developed brain nor a sufficiently developed nervous system to have an experiential welfare, which is what distinguishes beings to objects.
Euthanasia, on the other hand, is not about killing the old and infirm, but about ending the suffering (with the consent of the individual in question) of someone who is terminally ill in any case.
One cannot have a rational debate if one doesn’t even get the facts right.
Neither can one have a rational debate if one insists on aping the baseless rationale of the inexcusable. The so-called rationale behind those who agree with the the option of abortion is based on hiding the actual reasons for wanting an abortion behind a smokescreen of distorted arguments attempting to re-classify a sector of the human population as non-human.
Similarly, euthanasia is not about compassion for the sick and suffering, as the pseudo-rationalists would have us believe but about disposing of those whose presence makes us uncomfortable as quickly as possible so that we can get on with other stuff. It is not so much about elevated empathy as about base convenience.
No, David C, you got it all wrong. The rationale behind those who agree with the option of (early) abortion, is that there is no issue at all if there is no person who by definition must have an experiential welfare. I await non-religious arguments rebutting this claim.
Regarding your views on euthanasia (which is rare and practised in very few countries), you are letting your own prejudices distort your views. Euthanasia is either requested by the patient himself, or else the decision is taken on the patient’s behalf when he is in a vegetative state, cannot respond to stimuli, and there is no foreseeable chance that he ever will. If the killing does not meet these criteria, it is simply murder, no matter how much you wish to call it euthanasia.
Incidentally, do you consider doctors who switch off life-support machines to be murderers?
Dear Liberal – you haven’t had a great deal of experience with abortion, have you? And is the dropping of the criterion ‘being human, being alive and capable of being harmed’ a recent amendment to the definition of an experiential welfare?
No, david C, I haven’t had a great deal of experience with abortion. This is due to three reasons: I am not a woman, so I can’t have one; my wife has never had one; and I am not a doctor and so cannot perform one.
Regarding your second question, first of all I never made the claim that “dropping the criterion of being human is a recent amendment to the definition of an experiential welfare” (whatever that means). In fact I have always asserted that both human and non-human animals can have an experiential welfare.
Similarly, I have never claimed that “dropping the criterion of being alive is a recent amendment to the definition of an experiential welfare (again, whatever that means), although it is obvious to any rational being that although all beings that have an experiential welfare must necessarily be alive, it doesn’t follow that all living things have an experiential welfare.
Finally, I never claimed that “dropping the criterion of the capability of being harmed is a recent amendment to the definition of an experiential welfare” (once again, whatever that means). But again, it is obvious to all thinking people that experiential welfare by definition includes the possibility of being harmed.
Please avoid discussing topics you don’t understand. Stick to religion.
Let me give you a spot of advice, Liberal. When you lay down a challenge on a subject, make sure you know what you are talking about first. Intellectual vanity alone will not get you very far. It may impress a few but eventually you will come unstuck. I am not about to get into the merits and demerits of the abortion debate with you, as you clearly barely even have a passing acquaintance with the matter. When you are prepared to get your hands dirty, you’ll have taken the first step towards earning the right to lecture others. Until then, migrate to the comments section of the Malta Times where you’ll find an audience more suited to your posturing
[with apologies to our esteemed hostess for taking up so much unnecessary time and space].
[Daphne – Well, I was about to tell you that this discussion is now closed. To quote the prime minister and Henley & Partners: let’s move on.]
Ah, dear david. You will find that the Times comments board is more receptive to your kind of thinking. Good bye.
Rights are a matter of natural law and positive law can give rights to animals if it wants to. Slaves were as human as any human can be. Yet, the law considered them chattels “res”, thing (as against persona), in Roman law. Consequently, the master could do with his slaves as he pleased. Human rights do not derive from cognitive ability. A person’s rights derive exclusively from the fact that he/she is human and nothing else. A person’s value is incalculable, inestimable.
Animals have been reduced to slavery by man since ancient times. They are made to do man’s work such as carrying huge burdens and they have been subjected to untold suffering on the strength of the argument that, though they are sentient, they are not humans.
Minors cannot exercise certain rights and neither can persons with certain disabilities. For this purpose, courts can appoint curators to take care of the rights of persons who cannot do so themselves. Laws may come into effect so that curators (by whatever name called) may be appointed to take care of the rights of animals, collectively not individually. Such rights would include, for instance, that whenever an animal is required to be put down or transported or neutered etc, this would be done in a humane manner. This does not mean that animal rights will be the same as human rights but they will be based on human compassion with all sentient beings.
The basis of animal rights is human compassion (unfortunately a diminishing commodity in our times). Said Einstein: “Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
http://www.nycanimalrights.com/excuses.htm
I agree with what you wrote, except the bit where you said that the basis of animal rights is compassion. If natural (or moral) rights depended on compassion, they would not be rights, but privileges.
If moral rights exist at all (and I believe they do), they must exist in the bearer of the rights prior to anyone else feeling compassion about him or her.