Animal Rights: The Social Justice Movement of the 21st Century (original) (raw)

Animal Welfare and Animal Rights: an Examination of some Ethical Problems

Journal of Academic Ethics, 2017

The spectacle of the relentless use and abuse of animals in various human enterprises led some human beings to formulate animal welfare policies and to offer philosophical arguments on the basis of which the humane treatment of animals could be defended rationally. According to the animal welfare concept, animals should be provided some comfort and freedom of movement in the period prior to the moment when they are killed. This concept emphasizes the physiological, psychological, and natural aspects of animal life with the focus on freedom. Ironically, however it is not concerned with the rights of animals; nor is it interested in their remaining alive. So, animals are least benefitted by such provisions, which is the major concern for those who defend animal rights. It seems dubious to demand comfort for a being in life, but not security for its actual life, since rights and freedom are essential for the maintenance of a normal life. This paper aims to (a) critically analyze the animal welfare system, which prioritizes only freedom; (b) to demonstrate how animal welfare is incomplete without animal rights and how they are closely related to each other; and (c) to bridge the gap between animal welfare and animal rights. The underlying principle of animal welfare concept is restricted by its anthropocentric framework with the result that the ethical element is missing. Mere 'freedom' is not sufficient for constituting an ideal animal welfare domain. In order to achieve real animal well-being, it is necessary to consider both the rights as well as the welfare of animals.

A discussion on the philosophy of rights and interests of animals

Theories of rights are many and engaging in a detailed discussion of those theories is beyond the scope of this essay. However, here we shall start with the views of the 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes, which informed attitudes towards animals well into the 20th century. Descartes based his rights arguments on cogito, ergo sum: I think, therefore I am 1. Therefore consciousness and thought were central to his views on humans and animals. In part five of Discourse on Method published in 1637, he examined the nature of animals and how they were distinguished from humans. Mind, for Descartes, was not part of the physical universe; it was a separate substance and a link between humans and the mind of God. This link to God i.e. mind was unique to humans and non-humans had no mind and therefore no link to the mind of God. 2 His views suggest that the use of language is a sign of rationality and only beings that possess minds and souls are rational and argues that animals do not have immaterial minds or souls and are therefore not rational. It therefore follows that animals do not have sensations like pain, thirst or hunger. Animals for Descartes, were therefore nothing more than a "complex automata" and the squeals of pain, were mechanical reactions of the animal to external stimuli and not evidence of any sensation of pain. Humans on the other hand have minds or rational souls hence their capacity to use language and feel sensations like hunger, thirst and pain and this justifies their entitlement to holding rights. Furthermore, philosophers such as Locke and Grotius attached great emphasis on the ability of humans to reason, which for them justified their equal access to rights. However, the basis proposed by Descartes, Locke, and Grotius and defended by modern philosophers such as Georodie Duckler is being increasingly questioned. Questions are being asked about the moral standing of animals and whether their interests should also be considered. Amongst the commentators who have increasingly questioned the justification for focusing exclusively on human interests to the exclusion of all other species is Peter Singer who has attacked the basis of the theories of natural law. Singer is an advocate of utilitarianism and in Animal Liberation Movement, he refers to the proposals of equality of consideration by many philosophers, but points to their failure to recognize that this principle also applies to members of other species and not only humans. 3

Animal rights - a philosophical inquiry

Ethics in Progress, 2014

Review of: Dorota Probucka (2013). Filozoficzne podstawy idei praw zwierząt [Philosophical foundations of the animal rights concept], pp. 352, Cracow: Universitas

Justification of Animal Rights Claim

2009

The objective of the paper is to justify the claim for animals" rights. For years, it is one of the most debated questions in the field of applied ethics whether animals" have rights or not. There are a number of philosophers who hold that animals are neither moral agent nor rational being and hence animals have no rights because the concept of rights is applicable only to the rational beings. On the other hand the proponents of animals" rights contend that the standard for having rights is not active rationality but sentience and animals have sentience as they feel pain. So they are also subject to have rights. The main questions to be justified in this essay are, what is it to say that animals have rights? Can animals have any rights at all, if yes, how far? Is it the moral obligation of the human being to ensure animals rights? Considering the questions, in this essay, it will be shown that animals have limited rights and not all animals are subject to having the same rights. It depends on the proportion of their having capacity and capability for the same. It will be tried to make a consensus between the two groups by the way that there are some aspects where we are to acknowledge the rights of animal. It will be shown that not all animals are subject to equal rights.

Animal Rights

Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (Sellers M., Kirste S. eds.)), 2020

On rights based approaches to justice for animals (draft work in progress)

In the following paper I critically review and compare Robert Garner's recent rights-based approach to justice for animals with competing accounts by Martha Nussbaum focused on individual capabilities and species norms, and by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka focused on citizenship theory. What does it mean to say that the status and treatment of animals is an issue of justice and why must this feature in a theory of (global) justice that is meant to contribute to the solution of urgent practical problems? I take the question of whether animals place significant moral demands on us as settled in the affirmative. I argue that animal rights are a matter of justice that must be covered by any substantive theory of global justice. In light of my critical survey of these innovative new political theories of animal rights I ask how animals might be included in global justice theory and how their inclusion might significantly enrich and inform global politics.

An Universal Struggle: Advocating the Animals’ Ignored Rights

European Journal of Sustainable Development, 2018

The concept of "right" differs from country to country in terms of its limitations; however, there are several rights which have the characteristics of immunity all over the world. When assessed in this context, there are fundamental rights of which violation are considered to be crimes against humanity such as the right to life and the right not to be tortured. Nevertheless, it is seen that universal principles in crime have not become valid since the victim of violations in question are the animal but not the people. Considering this reality, approaches proposed to animals which form one of the weakest rings of life and their rights need to be examined within the context of the birth and development of the animal rights movement. But, it is still known that some countries and sectors should cover a lot of ground in protection of animal rights, although a tough struggle has been given in the historical process. In the matter of improving this though processes by which animal have had unrecoverable damage, policymakers and individuals have great responsibility. This article, which details the major areas in which animal rights have been violated, was written in order to raise awareness of the animal's living conditions, its impact on ecology and the sanctity of its right to life.

“From Human Rights to Animal Rights" (2015)

Religion and Public Policy: Human Rights, Conflict, and Ethics, edited by Sumner B. Twiss, Marian Gh. Simion, Rodney L. Petersen, 2015

I draw upon the work of David Little in this essay and contend that insofar as his "logic of pain" grounds a conception of universal human rights, so it can be extended to ground a conception of nonhuman animal rights. Note: this chapter appears in a festschrift honoring David Little

The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2002

Do animals have rights? Almost everyone believes in animal rights, at least in some minimal sense; the real question is what that phrase actually means. By exploring that question, it is possible to give a clear sense of the lay of the land-to show the range of possible positions, and to explore what issues, of theory or fact, separate reasonable people. On reflection, the spotlight should be placed squarely on the issue of suffering and well-being. This position requires rejection of some of the most radical claims by animal rights advocates, especially those that stress the "autonomy" of animals, or that object to any human control and use of animals. But this position has radical implications of its own. It strongly suggests, for example, that there should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture. It also suggests that there is a strong argument, in principle, for bans on many current uses of animals.