* Why 'Animal Rights'?
Why Animal Rights?
by Annette White
When vegans are asked that proverbial question ‘why are you vegan?’, the answer often heard is ‘animal rights’.
That response might well be met with a puzzled look, or possibly downright derision. Partly due to the term being associated with certain stereotypes of behaviour based on heavily publicised media distortion, there seems to be a lack of general understanding and a great deal of confusion as to what the term means.
So the first problem is that of definition. This is not helped by the fact that the term ‘animal rights’ is often used interchangeably with that of ‘animal welfare’. So sometimes when people are asked for their reasons for going vegetarian or vegan they will say, ‘concern for animal welfare’, either because they are wary of using the term ‘animal rights’ or because they want to give the impression of being reasonable, sensible people and not ‘extreme’. The implication of what they say might, therefore, be that there are many vegetarians and vegans, who, were animals to be treated more kindly and reared in a more welfare-friendly way, would be perfectly happy to eat them. Is that really the case? - and, if so, what improvements in welfare standards would have to be made in order to make meat-eating acceptable? How many vegetarians, and especially vegans, would return to a life of meat-eating if animal welfare standards improved? I suspect that very few would do so. So when someone gives give ‘animal welfare’ as their reason for dietary change, they don’t really mean that. What they really mean is ‘animal rights’, whether they like the term or not. The issue is clouded still further in that some individuals are happy to accept certain types of animal exploitation but not others, eg zoos (for their supposed conservation value) but not circuses, medical experiments (for the benefit of humans) but not the testing of cosmetics, cleaning products or weapons. Others would argue that such distinctions are arbitrary and based on convenience rather than logic.
A generally acceptable definition seems to be that the term ‘animal rights’ indicates a moral or ethical position which has moved on further from that of simply opposing outright deliberate cruelty to animals. Whereas ‘animal welfare’ accepts human exploitation of animals, as long as certain minimum standards of care and consideration are adhered to, ‘animal rights’ implies the complete abolition of all forms of animal exploitation, whether in food production, entertainment or scientific experiments. To use an example in the food-production industry – bigger battery cages would constitute animal welfare, as would free-range egg production. But, using the same example of egg production, the ‘animal rights’ position would demand that humans stopped eating eggs altogether and no longer reared or exploited animals for food at all. This is why veganism and animal rights go hand in hand.
Most people find the idea of a world without any form of animal exploitation quite impossible to grasp, and for many of them it is a disturbing prospect. They probably don’t need to worry too much at the moment because, for the time being, it doesn’t look as though it’s going to happen any time soon. Moreover, when we talk about animals being given ‘rights’, what we might find ourselves actually meaning is ‘limited rights’, for example, the right to a pain-free death in the case of animals in the food-production industry. This is another misuse of the term and risks further confusing ‘rights’ with ‘welfare’. ‘Humane slaughter’ is a perfect example – there can be no such thing from a ‘rights’ point of view, since the very act of killing another being deprives them of any rights they might have.
So should we dispense with the term ‘animal rights’ altogether? Has it become so vilified that we daren’t use it? Does it have any meaning anyway, when it doesn’t seem to be an achievable goal? Can animals ever have rights anyway? – when, in our terms, they cannot have responsibilities and have no concept of morality.
This is why I think we should hold on to the term, and use it. Animals are sentient – they may not share our self-awareness, but they certainly suffer pain, discomfort and distress in a similar way to ourselves. The fact that they may be less ‘intelligent’ (whatever ‘intelligent’ means) and not self-aware bears no relationship to whether we, as humans, are entitled to slaughter, eat, wear or experiment on them or otherwise exploit them for our own gain. There are human beings with limited intelligence and also those - such as very young babies or people with disabilities - who have little awareness of themselves as individuals and no sense of responsibility, and yet no civilised society would allow these humans to be eaten or vivisected. The sole reason, then, for using animals as we do would seem to be that they are of a different species to ourselves – is this a good enough reason? Aren’t we just guilty of the same kind of discrimination in our dealings with animals, as were slave owners? They held the belief that their black slaves were of a different species, ie sub-human and therefore incapable of having any rights.
The pioneers of vegetarianism in this country in the 19th century had one main reason for not eating animals and it had little to do with modern farming methods, environmental destruction or world poverty. Of course, these are valid reasons in this century, but they were unheard-of then Those brave early campaigners had no undercover filming of horrific factory farms, they only had their moral outrage and rhetoric to persuade their audiences of the horror and immorality of slaughter and how it was just ‘wrong’ to kill sentient living creatures for food. I am convinced that this is still the core of vegetarian thinking today, and is more to do with ‘animal rights’ than welfare considerations.
Regardless of whether it is possible to exploit animals in the food-production industry without causing some degree of suffering, and that seems unlikely, the fact that they are of a different species cannot morally justify our exploitation of them for food or any other reason. There cannot be a moral case for one group of beings being enslaved to another, whether of the same species, as in the case of human slavery, or different species, as with animals. Clearly there are some ‘rights’ that are only meaningful to some species. For example, a human might argue that he/she has a right to work or a right to an education and rights such as these are of no relevance to an animal. But there are ‘rights’ that could be applicable to animals, eg in the case of wild animals, the right to live in their natural habitat and not be disturbed by humans for their pleasure in the dubious cause of ‘sport’. And whilst animals kill and eat each other, they do so because they need to survive, and also because they have no concept of the moral outcome of their actions, whereas humans are capable of empathy, logic and moral reasoning and have no biological need to consume animal products. This would seem to be the main reason why humans might give animals ‘rights’, in so far as this would afford them respect as animals, not as pseudo- human beings, in any anthropomorphic sense.
The use and abuse of animals by the food industry is on a vast scale, far in excess of any other area of exploitation. Vegans are proving that humans can live without exploiting animals, showing what is possible. This is precisely why the hugely powerful vested interests and their supporters either ignore us, laugh at us or increasingly go on the attack. Imagine how they might react if something happened that caused vast numbers of people to stop eating meat, never mind the rest of the animal abuse industries. Supporting animal welfare campaigns are important as well – any improvements make a difference to the animals that are suffering now, and you are also drawing attention to the cruelty and exploitation that is going on, and your reasons for being vegan.
The term ‘animal rights’ needs to come out of the closet and be up there on the list of discussion topics together with the big issues such as global injustice, poverty, human rights and climate change. Suffering is suffering, whether it is human or animal. If you are already vegan, then, whether you are aware of it or not, you’re taking steps on the path to animal liberation. If you’re thinking about it, stop thinking about it, and do it – someone once said that animal rights begin in the kitchen. It has never been easier.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win - Mahatma Gandhi
by Annette White
When vegans are asked that proverbial question ‘why are you vegan?’, the answer often heard is ‘animal rights’.
That response might well be met with a puzzled look, or possibly downright derision. Partly due to the term being associated with certain stereotypes of behaviour based on heavily publicised media distortion, there seems to be a lack of general understanding and a great deal of confusion as to what the term means.
So the first problem is that of definition. This is not helped by the fact that the term ‘animal rights’ is often used interchangeably with that of ‘animal welfare’. So sometimes when people are asked for their reasons for going vegetarian or vegan they will say, ‘concern for animal welfare’, either because they are wary of using the term ‘animal rights’ or because they want to give the impression of being reasonable, sensible people and not ‘extreme’. The implication of what they say might, therefore, be that there are many vegetarians and vegans, who, were animals to be treated more kindly and reared in a more welfare-friendly way, would be perfectly happy to eat them. Is that really the case? - and, if so, what improvements in welfare standards would have to be made in order to make meat-eating acceptable? How many vegetarians, and especially vegans, would return to a life of meat-eating if animal welfare standards improved? I suspect that very few would do so. So when someone gives give ‘animal welfare’ as their reason for dietary change, they don’t really mean that. What they really mean is ‘animal rights’, whether they like the term or not. The issue is clouded still further in that some individuals are happy to accept certain types of animal exploitation but not others, eg zoos (for their supposed conservation value) but not circuses, medical experiments (for the benefit of humans) but not the testing of cosmetics, cleaning products or weapons. Others would argue that such distinctions are arbitrary and based on convenience rather than logic.
A generally acceptable definition seems to be that the term ‘animal rights’ indicates a moral or ethical position which has moved on further from that of simply opposing outright deliberate cruelty to animals. Whereas ‘animal welfare’ accepts human exploitation of animals, as long as certain minimum standards of care and consideration are adhered to, ‘animal rights’ implies the complete abolition of all forms of animal exploitation, whether in food production, entertainment or scientific experiments. To use an example in the food-production industry – bigger battery cages would constitute animal welfare, as would free-range egg production. But, using the same example of egg production, the ‘animal rights’ position would demand that humans stopped eating eggs altogether and no longer reared or exploited animals for food at all. This is why veganism and animal rights go hand in hand.
Most people find the idea of a world without any form of animal exploitation quite impossible to grasp, and for many of them it is a disturbing prospect. They probably don’t need to worry too much at the moment because, for the time being, it doesn’t look as though it’s going to happen any time soon. Moreover, when we talk about animals being given ‘rights’, what we might find ourselves actually meaning is ‘limited rights’, for example, the right to a pain-free death in the case of animals in the food-production industry. This is another misuse of the term and risks further confusing ‘rights’ with ‘welfare’. ‘Humane slaughter’ is a perfect example – there can be no such thing from a ‘rights’ point of view, since the very act of killing another being deprives them of any rights they might have.
So should we dispense with the term ‘animal rights’ altogether? Has it become so vilified that we daren’t use it? Does it have any meaning anyway, when it doesn’t seem to be an achievable goal? Can animals ever have rights anyway? – when, in our terms, they cannot have responsibilities and have no concept of morality.
This is why I think we should hold on to the term, and use it. Animals are sentient – they may not share our self-awareness, but they certainly suffer pain, discomfort and distress in a similar way to ourselves. The fact that they may be less ‘intelligent’ (whatever ‘intelligent’ means) and not self-aware bears no relationship to whether we, as humans, are entitled to slaughter, eat, wear or experiment on them or otherwise exploit them for our own gain. There are human beings with limited intelligence and also those - such as very young babies or people with disabilities - who have little awareness of themselves as individuals and no sense of responsibility, and yet no civilised society would allow these humans to be eaten or vivisected. The sole reason, then, for using animals as we do would seem to be that they are of a different species to ourselves – is this a good enough reason? Aren’t we just guilty of the same kind of discrimination in our dealings with animals, as were slave owners? They held the belief that their black slaves were of a different species, ie sub-human and therefore incapable of having any rights.
The pioneers of vegetarianism in this country in the 19th century had one main reason for not eating animals and it had little to do with modern farming methods, environmental destruction or world poverty. Of course, these are valid reasons in this century, but they were unheard-of then Those brave early campaigners had no undercover filming of horrific factory farms, they only had their moral outrage and rhetoric to persuade their audiences of the horror and immorality of slaughter and how it was just ‘wrong’ to kill sentient living creatures for food. I am convinced that this is still the core of vegetarian thinking today, and is more to do with ‘animal rights’ than welfare considerations.
Regardless of whether it is possible to exploit animals in the food-production industry without causing some degree of suffering, and that seems unlikely, the fact that they are of a different species cannot morally justify our exploitation of them for food or any other reason. There cannot be a moral case for one group of beings being enslaved to another, whether of the same species, as in the case of human slavery, or different species, as with animals. Clearly there are some ‘rights’ that are only meaningful to some species. For example, a human might argue that he/she has a right to work or a right to an education and rights such as these are of no relevance to an animal. But there are ‘rights’ that could be applicable to animals, eg in the case of wild animals, the right to live in their natural habitat and not be disturbed by humans for their pleasure in the dubious cause of ‘sport’. And whilst animals kill and eat each other, they do so because they need to survive, and also because they have no concept of the moral outcome of their actions, whereas humans are capable of empathy, logic and moral reasoning and have no biological need to consume animal products. This would seem to be the main reason why humans might give animals ‘rights’, in so far as this would afford them respect as animals, not as pseudo- human beings, in any anthropomorphic sense.
The use and abuse of animals by the food industry is on a vast scale, far in excess of any other area of exploitation. Vegans are proving that humans can live without exploiting animals, showing what is possible. This is precisely why the hugely powerful vested interests and their supporters either ignore us, laugh at us or increasingly go on the attack. Imagine how they might react if something happened that caused vast numbers of people to stop eating meat, never mind the rest of the animal abuse industries. Supporting animal welfare campaigns are important as well – any improvements make a difference to the animals that are suffering now, and you are also drawing attention to the cruelty and exploitation that is going on, and your reasons for being vegan.
The term ‘animal rights’ needs to come out of the closet and be up there on the list of discussion topics together with the big issues such as global injustice, poverty, human rights and climate change. Suffering is suffering, whether it is human or animal. If you are already vegan, then, whether you are aware of it or not, you’re taking steps on the path to animal liberation. If you’re thinking about it, stop thinking about it, and do it – someone once said that animal rights begin in the kitchen. It has never been easier.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win - Mahatma Gandhi