Do Animals Have Rights?
(Do we love our animals? Here one of our roosters sleeps in my wife's lap.)
An AP article outlines a political movement to protect the "rights" of farm animals. An initiative on the California ballot, for example would (among other things) ban the caging of chickens for egg production and veal crates for calves. While I sympathize with these goals, I think the attribution of "rights" to farm animals has dangerous consequences.
Law.com defines "rights" as a "collection of entitlements." Tradionally these entitlements, for human beings, include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness— none of which can be said to apply to farm animals as long as they are raised for profit. But in liberal politics (in its traditional sense of post-monarchical politics), rights are based on a contract between citizens and government. Both gain rights through this contract, and both have responsibilities. In order for farm animals to have rights, we would have to suppose that they were capable of engaging in a contract and upholding certain responsibilities. Reductio ad absurdum.
As a farmer myself, and a small farmer at that, I support ethical treatment for farm animals. We love our animals— most of them we call by name. Our hens are not caged. Our goats roam freely. And when I have to put an animal down (as I did last night with a sick hen), I try do it as humanely as possible.
I also recognize that there are economic advantages to us, as small farmers, if corporate farms must treat their animals as humanely as we do. The AP article quotes an egg industry representative as saying that this legislation would drive egg producers out of California as soon as it's enacted. That's great news for small producers because prices will rise and we'll be more competitive. Go California. But that doesn't translate to rights for farm animals.
I look at our dogs and goats, and I see personalities and even human traits. But they are not humans, and they are not responsible for their behavior. If our dog bites someone, we get punished, not the dog— as it should be, since our dogs are incapable of either reading or understanding the law.
Rights can only be held by an entity capable of upholding a contract. That means we can legislate living conditions for farm animals, but it is the responsibility of the farmer, not the right of the animal, on which that legislation is based.
Rights are not granted by a government. Rights are inherent to a sentient being when they are born. They have a cognitive self-interest.
You quote "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", yet the original use of it is in the context that rights are not granted by a government but "endowed by a Creator". In face, the document says that governments "derive their power from the consent of the governed", and not the other way around. If you believe rights are granted by governments, then you are logically forced to admit that it was OK to deny slaves freedom. They were not, according to your argument, granted the right to freedom by their government. Or that it was OK for FDR to force Japanese Americans into concentration camps, as the government did not grant them the right to live outside of those boundaries.
You even wrestle with your own argument in the post. In one statement, you admit that you believe in treating your animals 'humanely', yet you say they have no claim to that interest. Whether you want to admit it or not, your actions point to the fact that sentient beings should not have to suffer, as it is in their self-interest.
In a hundred years, when they are writing updated versions of history, they'll look at the way today's society treats animals in disgust. Just as we look back at the way First Americans were treated in horror, the future will find our mistreatment of animals repulsive.
Reply to this
Kevin, please read my post again. I never said rights are granted by a government-- that's conservativism (monarchism). Rights are recognized by a government as part of its contract with the governed. As you quote governments, "derive their power from the consent of the governed"-- hence the social contract. That contract grants government certain rights, as well as requiring it to recognize certain rights. And the contract requires citizens to engage certain responsibilities in tandem with those rights. For example, the right of free speech says you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, as well as the responsibility not to do that unless truly warranted. It is the abdication of responsibility that necessitates societal infringement on those rights.
You suggest that there exists a "right" to not suffer. Do we as human beings have the "right" not to suffer? No, because that would require the government to become elevated to the level of Nature and God Himself. The nature of life is that suffering at some level is inevitable. Death cannot be banished without banishing birth as well. (Buddhism goes so far as to suggest that life is suffering.) Thus, avoidance of suffering is not one of the rights we have (though some Liberals woiuld have us believe otherwise). Do we have the right not to suffer at the hands of others? Yes, though in somewhat limited circumstances, because this right is not always enforcable. For example, if someone threatens to kill me, in practice they cannot be disciplined by society until they actually attempt (successfully or otherwise) to kill me. Thus my right to not suffer at the hands of others is largely dependent on others "buying in" to the social contract.
The question of whether an animal has "a claim" to be treated humanely operates on more than one level: on the governmental level, the answer is no. The premise that rights entail a contract and certain responsibilities must be upheld, else society collapses. Since animals are incapable of comprehending the social contract, they cannot have rights under the law. However, the law can and should regulate the treatment of animals-- not because they have an inherent right to it under the social contract but because society's interest demands that we treat our animals better. (For example, those who torture animals are more likely to murder people).
On the moral level, I believe I enter into a contract with my animals to protect them and treat them well. But that's not a legally enforcable contract-- that's between me and my animals and my God. If government begins to regulate that, we open a Pandora's box of inappropriate governmental behavior. And that brings up another issue entirely: just because something is legal does not make it right, and just becausde something is wrong does not mean it should be illegal. Government and morality cannot always coincide. The reason I behave as I do is not because I am legally required to, but because I believe it is right. The two aren't (and, God willing, never will be) the same.
Reply to this
DJ, I did read your post. How would you interpret the concept that individuals "gain" rights through a contract with a government (as you put it in the initial post)? The inference is that governments grant freedoms. But I'll try to focus on your take that animals cannot have them.
* "Rights can only be held by an entity capable of upholding a contract." *
Natural rights are inherent to beings because they exist. The mentally handicapped, unable to process the concept of contracts, are still afforded the same rights to liberty, life, and goals as you and me. In fact, we recognize rights in those who suffer from Alzheimer's, the very young, the illiterate... all of whom would fail your test. Comprehension does not limit their freedoms. Unalienable rights cannot be dependent upon contracts anyways. That would limit freedoms to language's shortcomings as man cannot perfectly describe experience through words.
The reason animals have rights is due to the fact that every sentient being has self-interests. By its very existence, it has an unalienable right to secure its well-being, because, in the end, all animals, including humans, are ultimately responsible for their own welfare. This is an inescapable fact whether we live in a communist state or in an anarchy.
Living beings commit acts not only due to a moral code and the legal system, as you stated, but also because of the circumstances that he faces. It's why people admit guilt for crimes they did not commit, only to guarantee a lighter sentence. The real reason why you behave as you do points to your self-interests.
You admit that animals, like humans, can experience suffering. They can also experience non-suffering, or moments without it. They don't have a right to not suffer, but rather, the ability to choose to act in a way that favors one type of experience, suffering or non-suffering. This is what is threatened by man.
To ignore animal rights is to ignore instinct and the natural order of the world. Stating that only humans have natural rights is to make a demarcation that reflects your paradigm, your place in time. And since all humans are animals, you are forced to draw a line of convention.
I hope the post is understandable. For some reason, my post did not clear yesterday, before it was lost.
Reply to this
Examining natural law, as you suggest, gives me an entirely new perspective. I now see that you're right: inalienable rights are equally applicable to humans and animals-- which is to say, you've convinced me that there are none.
Do we have the right to life? No. We will inevitably die. We have only the right not to be killed by society or any member therein. Do animals "naturally" have the right to life? No. They exist in nature to eat and be eaten-- as, ultimately, we do as well, though our various cultural views and post-death rituals do their best to hide that fact. Indeed, except in extremely rare cases, only humans have any consciousness of not killing another unlike being. Animals either don't kill at all (the vegetarians) or they kill whatever they like to eat. Some will even kill their own kind. And they do it quite brutally. There is no mercy in nature. (There is occasionally compassion, but that's another issue entirely.)
Take a walk in the mountains: a cougar will not recognize your right to life. Given the opportunity, it may even kill you for pleasure. Take a walk through the slums of Calcutta: cholera will not recognize your right to life. Tell your well-fed house cat that a mouse has the right to life: if he/she were able, he/she would laugh, and play with that mouse until it is dead regardless of what you tell it.
I would formerly have said that our rights arise from our essence and are recognized by government-- and a government that fails to recognize them is not worthy of governing and should rightfully be overthrown. However, you've helped me see that our rights arise neither from nature nor from government, but from the agreement of society that we have them. No other creature recognizes our supposed rights. That's a currency with value only among human beings.
I wonder how you can examine nature and come to any other conclusion. No creature respects the rights of any other creature, except when to do so creates some perceived benefit. And a right that isn't recognized is no right at all. All creatures have the desire for life, but that's very different. Wanting something does not make it so.
Reply to this
This thread has kept me up nights contemplating. I can't help but think of a tombstone I saw in a pioneer cemetary not long ago, which said simply, "Baby." The date of birth and death were the same. It gives one pause to think that all the inalienable rights in the world did nothing for this soul whose life was, in our reckoning, pitifully short.
"Inalienable" is really an inaccurate word with respect to the rights we've been discussing, as it simply means rights that cannot be transferred. "Unalienable" (the word used in the original text) is stronger, and refers to rights which cannot be taken away. But are there any rights at all that a sentient being could claim as unalienable? Are there any rights we gain simply by existing, that are not granted by any entity or agreement, and cannot be taken away?
After much reflection, I've come to the conclusion that there are two only: The right to search for Truth during the time we have, and the right to return from whence we came. Pessimists might refer to the latter as simply the right to die, but I prefer to think of it as the right to Salvation: if we come from the Creator, we shall (in the absence of our abdication of this right) eventually return to our Creator.
As to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," these are granted not by God or Nature or by the fact of our existence, but by the agreement of society that such rights exist. If they apply to animals, it will be by the agreement of society that such rights apply to them also. Because in nature, there are no such rights-- and indeed, Nature can make our societal agreement moot in the blink of an eye, taking any or all of these rights from any one of us as she sees fit.
As human beings, we tend to confuse desire with entitlement: I desire life, therefore I have a right to life. Taken to its extreme absurdity (as it is sometimes practiced these days), I desire a new pair of Nikes and a Gameboy, therefore I have a right to them. But what I wish to be true is not made so by my wishing it. Society grants me a right to life, but should God or Nature have other ideas, society has little to say about it. In this sense, Kevin is completely right: humans are not different from animals in what unalienable rights we have. We just like to think we are.
Reply to this
*".... our rights arise neither from nature nor from government, but from the agreement of society that we have them."*
Argument from convention forces you to defend institutions that were accepted by society in the past. For example, your argument would conclude that slavery in American colonies did not take away any rights. American society, back then, did not recognize the rights of non-whites. And you would be obligated to conclude that no injustice took place, as every person's rights were acknowledged by society in upholding the institution of slavery. You would probably not want to declare that opinion in public today, as your opponents would have a rational and, ironically, popular argument.
Natural rights do not have to be recognized to exist. Your cougar may not accept it, but I have an embedded right to self-defense if attacked. This cougar probably doesn't recognize natural laws, either. But gravity exists, just like my unalienable rights, no matter his opinion.
A cornered monkey/man has a natural right, whether it is successful or not, to self-defense that cannot be taken away. If you chain it down, they have a self-interested right to fight for existence. If you make them endure pain, they have an embedded right to escape it, whether it is through freeing themselves or meditation, successful or not. They also have a natural right to think. All of these cannot be taken away, as they are fundamental laws of the natural world, specific to sentient beings, upon which we view the struggle for existence.
This struggle for life is the 'inalienable right' to life that Jefferson and Mason referred to, although they only applied it to man, and referred to it being given by a creator. The experience of life cannot be taken away once a being exists and a sentient being 'wants' to live. Jefferson and Mason definitely didn't have your interpretation as they were both advocates of the death penalty (look at Jefferson's Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments).
'Agreement by society' is a concept that no one can agree on: 1.what the entity of society is and 2.how agreement is determined.
Is society the state of Mississippi, the U.S., or all of the world? Is agreement that which wins votes? In the end, don't you wind up leaving it to government to determine what is just and unjust? And then, ultimately, might is right?
The federal government we both live under declared its independence through the concept of natural rights and the public accepts it, through the Supreme Court. Also, the "inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is probably the most popular excerpt from the DoI, if not all of government documents, and not out of protest. So natural rights exist, according to your definition, by convention and because 'society agrees' on its concept.
Reply to this
The example of the baby's brief life is a sad one that brings doubt to many of life's concepts. Fairness, justice, suffering. But it also affirms unalienable rights. The baby had a right, though unsuccessful, to struggle for its existence.
The conclusion you arrived at about the baby's life could be used to deny the existence about any right. The right to vote does nothing for someone who was illegally prevented from casting a ballot. Guns were taken away from citizens during Hurrican Katrina, at a time when many needed them most, and no court has addressed the citizens' grievances for those actions. So a basic American right did nothing for them.
I would have to conclude that for someone who decides to value power above all else, there are no rights granted by a government or society. And if he gets away with it, no difference whether society deems him right or wrong. Might is Right trumps society and government from his victims' viewpoint.
The dystopian novels with the most impact are ones that describe a world that removes natural rights. The Thought Police in 1984 and the reconditioning of thought in A Clockwork Orange come to mind.
Back to the concept of animal rights... why not recognize them and what harm would it do? Would reducing animal abuse be that bad? Maybe we'll improve the lives of a few dogs in the process.
Reply to this
The inherent contradictions of your argument are plentiful. First, I would agree that every creature has the "right" to struggle for life-- that is not the same as the right to life. I put "right" in quotes here because I don't see the right to struggle as much of a right-- more of a responsibility. Still, if you argue the two rights are the same, then the struggle itself would be sufficient and one creatures imposition of its will (to kill) on another would not be a violation of its rights. So much for basing law on rights.
Second, the law of gravity can be observed in nature, whether or not we choose to acknowledge or understand it; the unalienable rights you speak of cannot.
Thus the existence of rights cannot be attributed to Nature, regardless of what Western Liberals argue. Rights must be attributed to society. We can argue about the scope and makeup of society for days, that really doesn't matter. The fact is, our concept of rights has changed through history. I abhor slavery, and American slavery was one of the worst such institutions, and was indeed a violation of the rights on which this nation was founded. But until our forefathers (and their political forebears) postulated those rights, they did not exist. Slavery is sanctioned in the Bible, though it looked more like what we would have called indentured servitude than like American slavery. And biblical slavery required certain commitments to justice that we still today fail to abide by.
BTW, slavery still exists in parts of the world, including the U.S. (primarily by certain groups of immigrants among their own people). That is a violation of the rights we postulate, the laws of the governments under which it occurs, and I find it abhorrent, but it violates no law of nature that I can find.
We cannot judge a historical society outside the morays of its historical context. That means that the ancient Hebrews cannot be faulted for their limited application of democracy because democracy did not exist yet. Likewise the Athenians, whose right to vote encompassed a very small percentage of exlusively male citizens, had taken a huge step forward in that process. To look back now and judge them harshly for their failure to grant universal sufferage is both unfair and disingenuous. The right to vote has developed among humankind slowly over millenia (and it does not exist in Nature at all). That suggests rights will continue to evolve over time, are not fixed, and can change in different historical circumstances.
So, I will grant you as unalienable and granted by Nature the right to struggle for existence along with the two rights I noted above, the right to seek Truth and the right to return from whence we came. All other rights that I can see are created by human thought in particular historical times and circumstances-- and some of them even conflict with our natural rights. The right to life springs to mind, as this human-created right is sometimes enforced against an individual's will over his or her natural right to die. We may not like that our so-called rights are on the whole merely mental contructions (I don't), but that's the truth and all the liberal thinkers in the world can't change it.
The Buddha said, "All beings fear death, and beings feel pain. Knowing this, one should neither kill nor cause to be killed." THAT is a life-changing statement. But it results not from the recognition of another being's rights, but from the recognition of his/her suffering. This awakening of compassion is one of the great (and essential) results of our right to seek Truth-- for this is an awareness we're not born with.
Reply to this
As to your other question: what would it harm to grant animals the same rights as humans? That's a slippery slope, as rights inevitably require responsibilities, and the detachment of one from the other leads to the breakdown of society (as we are now seeing in our own time as humans are granted more rights and required less responsibility). If we grant animals the right to life, but they have not the ability to logically limit their reproduction, we condemn them (and ultimately us) to lives of misery, disease, and starvation. That was one of the hardest things to see in Sri Lanka, where canine and feline birth control is unknown and euthanasia is against their religion. And how long will it be before someone claims animals have the right to hold property, sue, and even vote? Wages for working animals like draft horses and seeing eye dogs? The right not to be seperated from family? The legal absurdities that would result are astounding.
Recently, the State of Utah made animal torture a felony (it used to be a misdemeanor). There's little that can get me as angry as the torture of animals. But the problem is not that the crime was too small an offense, the problem was (and remains) that the existing statute was rarely enforced. Will the new statute be enforced with any more vigor?
I'm in 100% favor of reducing poverty, but not by postulating a right that everyone can be middle class. In the same way, I'm in favor of limiting animal abuse. But I'm not in favor of doing it through the legal recognition of rights. Rather, it's about time we started enforcing responsibilities.
Reply to this