Should Animals Have Rights?

I suppose when an animal becomes vocal enough that we can distinguish it’s specific and exact needs and reason well (I’m really saying speak English in my case) then I probably should worry about whether or not I can boss it around, make it sit, and stay, or eat it.

Until then, I don’t think there’s any dilemma in not allowing them to be a part of the justice system.

Mel, Ok, so you’re arguing that the morally relevant feature is language–specifically, the ability to communicate with humans, since that capacity is necessary to communicate one’s needs, desires, dislikes, etc. And I’m taking it that you don’t think there’s anything intrinsically valuable about language, but it’s just a practical matter–if they can’t talk, they can’t sue, right?

Kevin (thanks for joining the conversation, by the way), I think I can answer your question and reply to Mel’s argument simultaneously.

The Swiss apparently passed a law a couple years ago that laid out pretty specific guidelines as to how non-human animals should be treated. Cages must be at least x square feet, animals must be medically treated for conditions x, y and z–that sort of stuff. The recent referendum (for which I STILL can’t find a result) concerns the state’s burden to represent mistreated animals in court.

If it passed, local attorney general offices would be obligated to represent non-human animals in court whose owners violated the regulations. Perhaps they could sue for damages to be awarded a new owner who could then give the mistreated animal proper (according to the law) care? I’m not sure, but I’m assuming that’s how it would work. (Otherwise, what’s the point of suing the owner if the damages are paid the owner?)

So Mel, I’d say that if it were up the the animals to do the suing, you’d have an excellent point. However, in this case, it would work like Kevin suggests it works in the US for children, via proxies.

And last, the Swiss may be a little eccentric, but hopefully psychic revelations will not be admissible in court

Wear it out, Mike! I actually went into higher apes in a draft, but decided it was getting too far off topic–turning into a human rights post. But feel free to take us in that direction!

Well put, Mike. One more solution is to admit that rationality is the proper criterion on which we should base rights, and admit that some humans fall below the requisite threshold, but then go ahead and grant all humans rights anyway because the transaction costs in trying to figure out who’s rational enough and who’s not would outweigh absorbing borderline cases. Sounds kinda like cheating, but hey–have that cake, eat that cake, smear that cake on your belly if you can!

Of course, if you buy it, that much solves the human side, but if we’re consistent we might have to also grant all higher apes rights too. I’m fine with that. Many seem rational enough, and even seem to engage in fairly high level moral behavior–conforming to norms, displaying guilt, and punishing transgressors.

But actually, a recent conversation with a student (you da man, Kyle Motts!) has me reconsidering whether dogs can behave morally. What degree of abstract reflection should we require before considering a creature a moral agent? Dogs self-sacrifice, conform to norms even when lacking immediate threat of reprisal, and possess virtue (gentleness, bravery, loyalty). You could say they’re conditioned to behave as they do, but so too are many nonreflective humans, who just abide by whatever ethical system they inherit. Humans have a deeper capacity to revise their moral judgments, but given how few actually exercise that capacity, I dunno.

I’m suspending judgment for the moment. There’s something special about Peter Singer’s moral reflection, but what about Joe Sixpack’s? Or mine a decade ago? Are our moral capacities significantly superior in kind? In degree? And if we don’t exercise them, why are they still morally relevant?

Matt,
As I vegetarian and a strong believer for animal rights, I’ve always considered an animals intellectuality and rationality the most important reason for giving them moral value. The way I see it, if a group of genius aliens ever happened to come to earth and wanted to eat humans on the basis that they’re a lot more smarter than us, we’d find it object to it and the same goes to animals. We can’t mistreat them because they may seem less rational than us because we wouldn’t want to be put in that position. Pigs are as smart as 3 year old infants but we don’t go around eating babies. You could say that the baby has more moral worth because it has the capacity to become a rational human being but it also has the capacity to create harm or become more of a burden than an animal ever would.

I think the Swiss have it right by giving animals rights even if they can’t fight for themselves, someone else now has that chance to represent them.
As for pain, I don’t think I would eat meat even if there was a way to kill animals without causing them pain. At this point, I would feel to convicted about ending its life.
Thank you for addressing this issue, but I feel that it was necessary for you to address the issue of rationality and it would also help to know which philosopher you would agree the most with, Peter Singer or Tom Regan?
Cheers,
Maria

I missed the conversation about rationality. I just want to point out my theories of a rational decision vs. a moral decision. 1st up o’rational. a rational decision is made by considering what pertains directly to the being making the decision. I am hungry, I will eat. Any living thing will make that sort of rational decision. OW! Fire burns, I will run away from it. You get the point. A moral decision takes complex and abstract thought. Taking in all that the consequence, good or bad, will effect. Think of the recent murder trials of the people that killed that young Knoxville couple a few years ago. Now consider giving them the death penalty. I bet a lot of people said, “kill those monsters!” Now is that so immoral? Those murders are people who have the God given right to life, but consider if we were to allow them to go through the correctional system and maybe get released, would they hurt someone else? Chances are, if they are incapable of making moral decisions, they would. Now consider, was it a morally correct decision to make if you said not to give them the death penalty? Not if they end up killing again. We, as a society, treat these “sub-human” beings like animals all the time. Maybe not with the death penalty as often as just taking away their freedom. If humans thought like crocodiles, we would probably farm them without a second thought. The only reason we don’t is because we consider cannibalism to be discusting.
Now try and think of an animal that is capable of making a decision that does not just concern the well being of itself. A dog might seem like it will protect it’s owner out of love, but more likely out of self concern. If something happens to my master who will feed me? Sadly, neither theory of this nature can be proven. We don’t know what animals are thinking, but my theory seems more logical.
Rational decision: I have some trash around my house that attracts dangerous verman and flies. I must get rid of it by throwing it over the hill side.
Moral decision: If I throw this trash over the hill side, it will contaminate the water supply and sicken the people up stream who depend on it for survival. I cannot throw it over the hill side, so I will burn it.

I am speaking of the animals that humans breed specifically for consumption. Cattle were my main idea. When you look into a pasture of live stock, you are looking at animals that would not exist had the farmer not breed them for the purpose of being eaten. I could even take it a step farther and talk about the selective and mixed breeding of the species for optimal meat output, but that point could be spread beyond cattle. Think of how dog breeders started to mix species for the purposes of function, guarding, herding, etc. Now think of how breeders mix species for aesthetic reasons alone. Just to win a dog show. These animals, more than likely, would not exist in nature had man not interrupted.
Now, as for the question of why shouldn’t they be treated any different from people. I should think that most farm animals live a good life. I really don’t see anything wrong with letting an animal live it’s life in comfort and not suffering throughout old age. I am not saying that leaves room for torture to be morally permissible. Torture, of anything for any reason, is just morally irrational. It is just something a morally rational being would not or could not do. Human beings who lack out “gift” of moral rationality are sub-human, they suffer from what I like to call the “human defect.” They could be the missing link to our primitive ancestors.

Well, in another sense, they are treated they same way, but should not be given the same rights as humans (this goes the same for any other animal). They live out their purpose for us just as all domesticated animals do. What I was getting at, is the idea that farming any certain animal for consumption is not morally wrong. Animals should be considered for their value to us (the domesticated) and their ecosystems (the wild). The more valuable the animal, the more respect or protection it should be given. This does not mean giving animals the same rights as humans, but respecting their right to live. Here in AMERICA, we do just that. We allow domesticated animals to live out their purposes with respect to their values, and we allow ,and protect, wild animals to “do their thing.” I understand that people who do mistreat any animal, be it wild or domesticated, are usually punished accordingly (again here in AMERICA).

Thank you, Matteson, for pointing out my inconsistency and giving me a chance to clarify.

So to reiterate, I do not believe it to be in the best interest of our society to give any animal the same rights as humans. I do believe animals should be treated with respect to their right to live out their lives in order to fulfill their purposes to us or nature. To sum it up, treat animals well and basically the same, but not the same as people.

Thank you again, Matteson, for pointing this out to me. I do not like to sound as “flip-flopish” as a politician during an election.