TEXT SUPPLEMENT (Ch 1): Animal Rights

1 TEXT SUPPLEMENT (Ch 1): Animal Rights The use of animals as experimental subjects is dis- mize the suffering of animals arises in large measure cussed in chapter 1. What follows is more of a philo- from the examples we wish to set for other people, sophical exploration into the subject of animal not from the assumption that animals have ‘rights.’ rights. The preceding argument, or variants of it, can be The argument to restrict basic rights to humans found in the writings of many philosophers and the- only center on the premises that our rights derive ologians, including Immanuel Kant and St. Thomas from our ability to make moral decisions, to distin- Aquinas. guish right from wrong, or to enter into contractual agreements. According to Rollin, animals are wor- Speciesism thy of moral consideration because they have inter- Granting moral standing to animals is not the same ests, ‘needs that matter’ to the animals. Rollin as granting them equal moral standing. Some ani- argues that any living thing with interests deserves mal rights advocates equate the value of an animal to be treated as an end in itself. Rollin does not life with the value of a human life. If we follow this maintain that animals’ rights are always overriding. attitude to its logical conclusion, then testing a new He says that animals’ competing interests must be drug or some other substance on animals is no dif- calculated in cost–benefit terms, basing his ethic on ferent ethically from testing it on human volunteers. what he calls the “utilitarian principle:” the benefit Animal rights advocate Peter Singer coined the term to humans must outweigh the costs in pain and suf- speciesism (intentionally parallel to terms like fering to the animals (1992, p. 96). He qualifies this, racism and sexism) to refer to the attitude that however, with a “rights principle:” animals should humans are fundamentally different from all other be treated so as to maximize their ability to realize species in ethical standing. Various reasons have their ‘nature’ or ‘telos’ (their ‘goal’ in life), and the been given to justify the distinction between humans animal’s fundamental rights, including the right to and other species: only humans understand right live, should be preserved as far as possible, regard- and wrong; only humans are ‘rational’; only humans less of cost. can speak; only humans can enter into legal or Legal rights have generally been understood as a moral contracts; and so on. Animal rights advocates “protection for the individual against the general have challenged these distinctions by citing excep- welfare” (Rollin, 1992, p. 115), but such rights have tions—for example, animals that can reason well generally been denied to animals in most written enough to solve difficult puzzles, apes that commu- legal traditions. The “right” to moral consideration nicate using sign language, and infants and is but one of a series of rights that Rollin wishes to comatose patients who do not use any language. extend to animals. Most basic among these rights is Finally, Singer and his supporters simply argue that the right to live, and Rollin observes that our consis- none of these distinctions between humans and tent recognition of this right would lead us to give other species are relevant in moral arguments, and up animal foods altogether and adopt vegetarianism that animals deserve equal moral consideration with (Rollin, 1992, pp. 84–85). An equally obvious logical humans. A logical extension of this form of reason- consequence of this attitude, as we mentioned ing would cause us to consider meat eating as the above, would drive us all to vegetarianism. One moral equivalent of cannibalism. argument in this direction is that our kindness towards animals makes us (at least on the average) Human moral claims into better people. The other side of this same argument is that people who beat and torture animals Philosopher Carl Cohen proclaims that he believes are thereby more likely to act similarly toward other in speciesism and is proud to assert that animals people. Surely, kindness to animals (and to others have no rights. Rights, he argues, can only arise with less power than ourselves) instills a potent les- from claims or from potential claims: my right to son for future generations to follow. Would you hold you to the terms of a mutual agreement arises rather that children were made to witness kindness from the fact that I can make a claim against you to animals or cruelty to animals? The argument, you under the agreement. My right to walk the streets will notice, turns on the effect that it has on the chil- without being attacked arises from my possibility of dren, not on the animals. Our obligation to mini- making an accusation against my attacker. We can 2 extend these rights to infants, comatose patients, Toxicology testing and people unable to make claims for themselves Thanks in part to the animal rights movement, cer- because they are human, and we can thus assume tain forms of testing on animals are frequently criti- that they have had in the past, or will have in the cized and no longer receive the automatic support of future, the ability to make moral claims and moral the informed public. One of these is the lethal dose judgements. However, none of this applies to ani- (LD ) test. In a lethal dose test, animals are exposed mals because they lack the capacity, no matter what 50 to varying doses of a substance. From these data, the hypothetical circumstances, to make moral scientists calculate the amount that would kill half claims or judgements. In Cohen’s view, animals have of the animal subjects to which it was administered; no moral standing because they have no concept of this amount is called the 50% lethal dose, or LD . right and wrong and cannot be held responsible for 50 As several animal rights advocates have pointed out, their actions. We could not grant ‘rights’ to gazelles this number tells us very little by itself, making the unless we were prepared to criminally prosecute use of experimental animals to determine its value lions and other predators who chase them down, kill uninformative and therefore wasteful. In particular, them, and eat them. If animal predators like lions knowledge of the LD tells us very little if anything and wolves are not prosecuted, this indicates that 50 about the effects of chronic low levels of exposure, their prey have no recognized rights, not even the which is what most human consumers will eventu- right to life itself. Humans are predators too, and ally experience if they come in contact with the test almost every society on Earth recognizes that the substance. A cost–benefit approach must try to spec- killing of animals for food is a permissible and not ify what otherwise unobtainable benefit to society an immoral act. Most traditional philosophers, from will result from the knowledge of LD for a particu- St. Augustine to Kant, recognize the special moral 50 lar substance. Only if such a benefit can be identi- status of humans as distinct from animals. fied, and only if it can be judged to be more impor- tant than the lives of the animals that die and the Current debates regarding experimental suffering of those that do not die, can the use of the animals LD50 test be justified from a cost–benefit standpoint. Some animal rights activists wish to stop all experi- Some people would argue that people’s needs out- mentation using animals because they consider the weigh animals’ rights to avoid death and suffering. rights of animals to be equal to the rights Can other tests, using bacteria or laboratorygrown of humans. Milder reforms include reduction in the human cells, provide the same answers as the LD50 number of animals used, refinement of experiments test? We would then need to extend the above argu- to get maximum information from the use of ani- ment and ask if people’s needs outweigh the rights of mals, and replacement of animal testing by other the bacteria used in alternative tests. forms of testing wherever possible. One area in which animals generally have been Drug testing given legal and moral consideration is in freedom New drugs are being tested each year, and most of from whatever society regards as cruelty. Most legis- these tests use experimental animals. In fact, a good lation regarding animal welfare has been directed deal of the expense involved in bringing a new drug toward the prevention of cruelty, but criteria as to to market is the cost of animal testing. In addition to what constitutes cruelty vary from one society to the lives of the animals, the costs of the experimen- another. In most cases, they are vaguely defined, and tal testing of new drugs include the salaries of the even legal criteria regarding cruelty to animals are experimenters and animal handlers. On the other frequently vague. Rollin uses this fact to argue that side of the cost–benefit equation are the human lives anti-cruelty laws are generally weak or inadequate in saved or symptoms relieved. If the drug is success- safeguarding the rights of animals. Carl Cohen ful, its benefits may continue far into the future. argues that, even if animals do not have rights, we Of all the types of experiments to which animals still have a responsibility for those animals in our are subjected, none are as often justified in the eyes care, to treat them humanely and to minimize their of the public as the testing of medicines intended for suffering.

Load more