ANIMAL RIGHTS

It is only recently, and in response to their perceived mistreatment by humans, especially in processes of industrial agricultural production and scientific research, that rights have been ascribed to animals. The concept remains contentious, especially insofar as in radical forms it would severely restrict the use of animals in scientific research and elsewhere, but has been defended on a number of grounds.

Historical Developments

The debate over whether animals possess rights must be viewed against the background of the ubiquitous use of animals to meet human needs and desires throughout history. Although interpreted in various ways, the status of animals is a significant economic and cultural category in every human society. Because the human connection to animals runs so deep, our shared history may amount to a form of coevolution: The selective breeding of domestic species has rendered them substantially different from their wild counterparts, and the effects of domestication on human social evolution have been profound, perhaps defining. At a minimum, because the benefits of this relationship are mutual (although rarely equal), domestication invites comparison to symbiosis.

However, because of the uniquely powerful effect of this symbiotic relationship, technological models contribute to the understanding of domestication. The environmental ethicist J. Baird Callicott (1980) argues that domesticated animals are essentially human inventions and should be viewed as technologies in their own right, to be evaluated in terms of their environmental impact. To a very different effect, the critic Donna J. Haraway (2003) uses the image of the cyborg to capture the complex layers of culture, nature, and technology that define both human and animal reality. This complexity is not limited to the special cases of genetically modified lab mice and artificial heart recipients: Haraway argues that humans and the "companion species" they have bred to work and live with them are equally significant others in an ecosystem that straddles the technological and the biological.

This multilayered, ambiguous relationship between humans and animals has both insulated animal exploitation from moral assessment, and made the assessment maddeningly complex. Any complacency over the possible rights of animals has been shaken over the last three centuries in light of some of the troubling effects of industrialization, including the physical and psychological pressures placed on domesticated animals in technologically intensive economies, and threats to the very survival of wild animal species. It is no coincidence that arguments on behalf of the moral claims of animals have risen in proportion to the distance that industrialization has placed between humans and the natural world.

The idea that animals deserve moral attention is not exclusively modern, however, but has been explored throughout European intellectual history; Pythagoras and Porphyry provided early philosophical arguments that using animals for food is morally problematic. Nonetheless, much of the tradition followed Aristotle in rejecting such arguments. His contention that non-human animals categorically lack reason and intellect was used for centuries to justify a moral divide between humans and animals: Irrational animals are natural slaves, and no positive human moral or political categories can govern humankind's relations with them.

Because it harmonized with the Judeo-Christian contention that God gave humans dominion over animals, this model of human/animal relations held sway through much of medieval Christendom. Despite the force of this tradition, a vocal minority argued that Western monotheism can and should accommodate moral concern for animals. (A contemporary example is Andrew Linzey (1994), who argues that animals possess theos-rights, and are owed justice simply in virtue of being creatures of the Creator.) This is noteworthy because the roots of the modern analysis of animal rights precede the Industrial Revolution, beginning in England with a sixteenth-century theological debate over whether animals are restored through the Incarnation. This debate expanded over the centuries that followed, inducing various English theologians, literary figures, political scholars, and philosophers to offer new analyses of the moral status of animals.

The result of these efforts was a sustained attempt to rethink the traditional Aristotelian position, and an intellectual climate ripe for the concept of animal rights. By the nineteenth century, the first animal advocacy groups were formed to speak out against the abuse of draft animals and to oppose vivisection, and the first modern legal protections of animals were established.

Basic Theories

The philosophical development in this period that had the greatest influence on subsequent discussion of animal rights is the advent of utilitarianism. Unlike other ethical theories that argue moral goods are the exclusive products of humans' rational nature, the early utilitarians held that the highest moral good is the happiness that results from maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Given the legacy of Aristotle, the claim that non-humans possess anything comparable to the higher cognitive faculties of humans is unavoidably controversial; in comparison, the claim that animals seek comfort and shun suffering is an easy sell. Thus animal advocates found in utilitarianism a fitting ethical theory to make their case. As Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), the father of utilitarianism, famously asserted, "The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. ... [T]he question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"(Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapter 17 1789).

Despite these bold words, Bentham was unopposed to using animals in science and agriculture. It would fall to later thinkers to argue that utilitarianism should force us to rethink these institutions. The most important figure to do so is the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, whose Animal Liberation, originally published in 1975, inspired much of the subsequent attention the issue has received. Making use of graphic depictions of how livestock are treated in intensive feeding operations, and the painful effects of product testing and medical and psychological research on primates and other mammals, Singer argues that the equal consideration of a sentient animal's interest in avoiding suffering renders these common practices seriously immoral. To defend this conclusion, he offers the following analogy: Racism and sexism are immoral positions because they give undue importance to the morally irrelevant properties of race and gender; likewise, those who fail to extend moral consideration to other animals simply because of their species membership are guilty of a heretofore unrecognized offense: speciesism. Because modern science and industry routinely exploit animals in ways we would be loath to treat humans of comparable sentience (such as those with severe mental impairment), there are few citizens of modern industrialized societies whose lives are unaffected by speciesist practices.

While Singer's argument is the most famous in the contemporary debates, he makes clear that his conclusions do not hinge on the concept of animal rights per se, of which he is dubious. Those who try to make the explicit case for rights have generally followed Singer's lead by attempting to extend moral concepts traditionally reserved for humans to cover our treatment of animals as well. Callicott has termed this general approach extensionism. For example, Aristotelian ethics holds that the moral good for humans (virtue) is related to our final cause, the natural end or function that defines us (rationality). Bernard E. Rollin (1992) argues that this model can be extended to provide the basis for a theory of animal rights: He claims that moral concepts apply to our treatment of animals not simply because they can experience pleasure and pain, but because they, like us, have natural ends or functions that they have an interest in fulfilling. He concludes the most effective way of solidifying this concern is the establishment of legal and political rights for animals. Mark Rowlands (1998) forms an analogous argument to those of Singer and Rollin by extending social contract theory to articulate the rights of animals.

Some extensionists and many laypersons use the term animal rights as shorthand for the moral consideration humans owe animals, but they do not all envision the moral claims of animals as fully comparable to the natural rights that modern liberalism has ascribed to humans. Such a vision has been articulated by Tom Regan (2004). Rejecting the utilitarianism of Singer, Regan's argument extends the deontological theory of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), which holds that all humans have an inherent right to moral respect in virtue of their rational nature. Regan argues that it is arbitrary to limit such respect to those who possess rationality; many humans cannot be described as fully rational, yet we do not therefore subject them to painful experiments or use them for food. Regan argues that all animals to which we can ascribe preferences qualify as subjects of a life; he claims this will include most mature mammals. All such beings, he concludes, have an inherent value that grounds natural rights to life and autonomy comparable to those of humans.

Critical Assessment

If any of these extensionist arguments are sound, it will require serious reappraisal of the place of domestic animals in society, and of human behavior toward wild animals. In its strongest forms, the claim that animals have rights implies that all forms of animal exploitation are seriously immoral: Vegetarianism is morally obligatory, all animal testing should be proscribed, and wild animals have a right to be left free of all human interference. At a minimum, granting that animals have some claim to direct moral attention would not only allow us to condemn overt acts of animal cruelty, but also raise serious doubts about the use of intensive industrial techniques in animal husbandry (factory farming), the use of animals to test medical technologies from which they will not benefit, and the genetic modification of animals to enhance their usefulness to humans. Although it is not clear where the moral limits to animal exploitation lie, there is a growing consensus that such limits do exist and that it is important that they be clarified.

But is the case for animal rights sound? Critics fall into two camps. First, those who uphold the traditional position argue that extending rights theory to animals goes too far. The category of rights emerged for the kinds of beings that only humans are: free, rational, autonomous agents who can form agreements, respect each other's interests, and operate politically. These critics argue that to apply the concept of rights to animals that do not have these attributes is to extend it beyond coherence. For some in this camp, the ground of their objections is metaethical: Their concern is the nature of moral language and whether it can have any meaning when extended to nonhumans. Others dispute the empirical bases of extensionist arguments, namely that animals possess psychological attributes—consciousness, capacity to suffer, subjectivity, personhood—that are morally relevant. Because the sciences of ethology, animal psychology, and animal welfare are relatively young, there is at present no consensus on which animals possess such attributes, or whether any nonhumans possess them to a degree that is morally significant. Thus, the status of debate on this point is ambiguous: Extensionists can muster enough empirical evidence to give their conclusions some rational support, but not enough to prove that the traditional position is unsustainable.

Second, other critics have argued that the concept of animal rights does not go far enough in expressing the value that animals possess and the challenge that it poses to humans. Some environmental ethicists (including deep ecologists and ecofeminists) have argued that because our moral categories are purely human creations, products of the same cultural tradition that sanctioned animal exploitation for millennia, they cannot simply be extended to cover animals, but must be radically rethought. Extensionism implies that animals are valuable to the extent that they can be assimilated to human moral reasoning, but there is another, more radical possibility: that animals should be valued for their differences from humans, and for those aspects of animal reality that lie beyond the reach of the traditional moral and political categories of humankind. Perhaps respecting animals is not simply a matter of protecting them from the effects of humankind's dependence on technology; by inviting us to appreciate the type of reality they occupy, a space where both technological and moral devices are unnecessary, animals may help us develop a critical perspective on the ends of human civilization.

MARC R. FELLENZ

SEE ALSO Agricultural Ethics;Animal Experimentation;Animal Welfare;Consequentialism;Deontology;Pets.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Callicott, J. Baird. (1980). "Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair." Environmental Ethics 2(4). Offers a criticism of animal rights arguments from the perspective of environmental ethics.

Cohen, Carl, and Tom Regan. (2001). The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. A clear synopsis of the core arguments on both sides of the animal rights debate.

Fellenz, Marc R. (2006). The Moral Menagerie: Philosophy and Animal Rights. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Surveys and assesses major arguments in the contemporary debate, and analyzes the importance of the debate for philosophy.

Haraway, Donna J. (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.

Linzey, Andrew. (1994). Animal Theology. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Develops the case for animal rights in the context of Christian theology.

Linzey, Andrew, and Dorothy Yamamoto, eds. (1998). Animals on the Agenda: Questions about Animals for Theology and Ethics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Essays by various authors exploring the implications of animal rights for ethics, theology, and human culture.

Miller, Harlan B., and William H. Williams, eds. (1983). Ethics and Animals. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press. A valuable selection of philosophically sophisticated essays on the possible rights of animals, the meaning of human/animal relations, and various forms of animal exploitation.

Regan, Tom. (2004). The Case for Animal Rights, 2nd edition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. The clearest articulation of the strong animal rights position.

Rollin, Bernard E. (1992). Animal Rights and Human Morality, rev. edition. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Argues that the telic nature of animals requires any adequate moral theory to address their interests, and makes the case for the legal rights of animals.

Rowland, Mark. (1998). Animal Rights: A Philosophical Defence. St. Martin's Press. Uses contract theory as the basis for understanding the rights of animals.

Singer, Peter. (1990). Animal Liberation, 2nd edition. New York: Random House. The foundational work of the recent debate (originally published in 1975), provides details on the nature of modern animal exploitation, and argues that the failure to give equal consideration to the interests of animals is as morally suspect as racism and sexism.