Do non-human animals have rights?
The claim that animals have ‘rights’ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of ‘animal rights’ comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the same organisations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details.
Pros
Side Score: 5
Winning Side! |
 |
Cons
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Human beings are complex evolved creatures who 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 non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life. Side: Pros
1
point
1
point
We should err on the side of caution in ascribing rights to human or non-human creatures. If we place high standards (such as the ability to think, speak, or even to enter into a social contract) on the ascription of rights there is a danger than not only animals, but also human infants and mentally handicapped adults will be excluded from basic rights. Side: Pros
1
point
Cruelty to animals (e.g. bull fighting, fox hunting, battery hen farming) is the sign of an uncivilised society – it encourages violence and barbarism in society more generally. A society that respects animals and restrains base and violent instincts is a more civilised one. Side: Pros
1
point
The basic cause of preventing exploitation of animals is not undermined by the fact that a small number of extremists and criminals attach themselves to it. And it is not reasonable to expect AR campaigners not to take medicine – they must look after their own health whatever way they can until a more humane sort of medicine is developed. Side: Pros
|
1
point
It's arrogant to think that nature is something that we are above, something that can be conquered. It isn't. We and everything we do is apart of nature. All of our creations are apart of nature and all of our damage is apart of nature. If nature did not intend for us to do things they way we have, we wouldn't have done them and we wouldn't continue doing them. So let me ask you... do lions treat their prey as equals to lions? No. It's natural to put your own species above all others in priorities. Animals did not evolve and get ahead in the way we have; why should we insult them by pitying them and treating them as we'd treat ourselves? That's arrogant. We are not above them. So if we want to eat them and treat them with less priority then us, why shouldn't we? Evolution put us above them. We shouldn't be unsympathetic to their pain and agony; we shouldn't be barbaric. But we shouldn't treat them as equals. Nature takes what it needs to perpetuate and grow. So do we. So if we want to eat some meat and use some animal labor, why not? There's no reason to make them suffer, but there's no reason to not subject them to mutual symbiosis either. Side: Cons
1
point
One of the Seven Laws of Noah is to 'never tear the limb off a living animal'. In short, cruelty against animals is commanded rather early on in Bible history. The Bible also says to subdue and control the earth. These commandments can be made compatible through Christian kindness and decency towards all God's creatures, especially your fellow man! Side: Cons
1
point
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 uniquely developed well beyond any other animals. It is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals, but beyond that, non-human animals do not deserve to be given ‘rights’. Side: Cons
|
