The Rights of Animals Rights of Animals Frontmatter 2/25/04 2:26 PM Page 2

Rights of Animals Frontmatter 2/25/04 2:26 PM Page 1 The Rights of Animals Rights of Animals Frontmatter 2/25/04 2:26 PM Page 2 Other Books in the Current Controversies Series: The Abortion Controversy The Information Highway Alcoholism Interventionism Assisted Suicide Iraq Computers and Society Marriage and Divorce Conserving the Environment Mental Health Crime Minorities The Disabled Nationalism and Ethnic Drug Trafficking Conflict Energy Alternatives Native American Rights Ethics Police Brutality Europe Politicians and Ethics Family Violence Pollution Free Speech Racism Gambling Reproductive Technologies Garbage and Waste Sexual Harassment Gay Rights Smoking Genetics and Intelligence Teen Addiction Gun Control Urban Terrorism Guns and Violence Violence Against Women Hate Crimes Violence in the Media Hunger Women in the Military Illegal Drugs Youth Violence Illegal Immigration Rights of Animals Frontmatter 2/25/04 2:26 PM Page 3 The Rights of Animals Tamara L. Roleff, Book Editor Jennifer A. Hurley, Assistant Editor David Bender, Publisher Bruno Leone,Executive Editor Bonnie Szumski, Editorial Director David M. Haugen, Managing Editor CURRENT CONTROVERSIES Rights of Animals Frontmatter 2/25/04 2:26 PM Page 4 No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means, electrical, mechanical, or otherwise, including, but not limited to, photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Cover photo: D. Vo Trung/Eurelios/Science Photo Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The rights of animals / Tamara L. Roleff, book editor, Jennifer A. Hurley, assistant editor. p. cm. — (Current controversies) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7377-0069-6 (lib. : alk. paper). — ISBN 0-7377-0068-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Animal rights. 2. Animal welfare—Moral and ethical aspects. I. Roleff, Tamara L., 1959– . II. Hurley, Jennifer A., 1973– . III. Series. HV4708.R54 1999 179'.3—dc21 98-45934 CIP0 ©1999 by Greenhaven Press, Inc., PO Box 289009, San Diego, CA 92198-9009 Printed in the U.S.A. Every effort has been made to trace the owners of copyrighted material. Rights of Animals Frontmatter 2/25/04 2:26 PM Page 5 Contents Foreword 11 Introduction 13 Chapter 1: Do Animals Have Rights? Chapter Preface 17 Yes: Animals Have Rights Animals Have the Right to Live Free of Suffering by Peter Wilson 18 Because animals suffer in the same way that humans do, it is impossible to justify actions that inflict pain on animals. Animals, like humans, are entitled to the basic right to live free of suffering. Discrimination on the Basis of Species Is Unjust by Richard Ryder 24 The mistreatment of animals is currently justified on the grounds of speciesism—the idea that humans and animals belong to different species and are therefore entitled to different rights. Like other forms of discrimination, speciesism is unjust. It is wrong to inflict pain on any sentient being, regardless of that being’s species. Humans Are Not Superior to Animals by Gary L. Francione 27 Opponents of animal rights often insist that the inherent superiority of humankind entitles people to complete dominion over animals. However, although humans are superior to animals in some respects, animals are superior to humans in others. The myth of human superiority is used as an excuse for people to exploit animals for their own needs. No: Animals Do Not Have Rights Animal Life Is Less Valuable than Human Life by R.G. Frey 30 Because animals are unable to engage in most of the activities that make human life meaningful, animal life lacks the same value as human life. Therefore, it is morally acceptable to sacrifice animals to improve the lives of humans. Only Humans Can Possess Rights by Edwin Locke 35 The principle of rights is predicated on the capacity to make choices based on reason and morality—a characteristic that is limited to humans. Because animals lack the ability to act intellectually or morally, they cannot possess rights. Animals Are the Property of Humans by L. Neil Smith 37 Animals are the property of humans and exist to fulfill human needs. By Rights of Animals Frontmatter 2/25/04 2:26 PM Page 6 comparing the moral status of animals to that of humans, the philosophy of animal rights renders the concept of rights meaningless. Chapter 2: Is Animal Experimentation Justified? Animal Experimentation: An Overview by Joy Mench 41 The issue of animal experimentation continues to be controversial. Advocates argue that using animals for research and experimentation is necessary to protect consumer health. Critics contend that alternatives to animal testing and experimentation produce the same results without the cruel use of animals. Yes: Animal Experimentation Is Justified Animal Medical Experimentation Is Justified by American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 50 All Americans have benefited somehow from animal medical experimentation and research. Animals have been essential in the development of vaccines, antibiotics, and other medications for both human and animal diseases. Animals used in research are treated humanely. Some research simply cannot yield accurate results without animal testing. Animal Research Is Vital to Medicine by Jack H. Botting and Adrian R. Morrison 55 Animals have played an important role in medical research since the 1800s. Many drugs and surgical procedures would not have been devel- oped if they had not first been tested and perfected on animals. If researchers had been prohibited from experimenting on animals, many treatments would have been substantially delayed. Animal research will continue to play an important part in developing new medical technology. Animal-to-Human Organ Transplants Could Benefit Humans by Rebecca D. Williams 61 Xenotransplantation, the transplanting of animal organs into humans, is a procedure that could become a reality in the near future and would save the lives of thousands of people who are waiting for organ transplants. Although there are some risks involved in xenotransplants, the Food and Drug Administration could regulate and monitor the transplants, minimiz- ing any threat to the public health. Animal Cloning Experiments Will Benefit Humans by Ian Wilmut, interviewed by Andrew Ross 67 Cloning research performed on animals will allow researchers to develop biomedical drug treatments for life-threatening human diseases. Using ge- netic engineering and cloning, scientists will also be able to produce animals whose organs can be used for human transplants and to create livestock that are healthier and more resistant to disease. No: Animal Experimentation Is Not Justified Animal Medical Experimentation Is Unjustified by Peggy Carlson 72 Using animal models in medical experiments yields unreliable results. Furthermore, these results often cannot be applied to human patients. Many medical advances have been made without the use of animals and Rights of Animals Frontmatter 2/25/04 2:26 PM Page 7 the money spent on animal experimentation could be better spent on other aspects of health care. Product Testing on Animals Is Unjustified by Animal Alliance of Canada 77 Testing consumer products on animals results in needless pain and suffering for the animals involved and has little benefit for consumers. Many new methods that do not rely on animal testing are available for determin- ing the safety of substances for consumer use. Animal-to-Human Organ Transplants Could Threaten Human Health by John F. McArdle 80 The transplantation of animal organs into humans (xenotransplantation) presents a serious health threat, including the possible transmission of animal diseases to humans. Moreover, such transplants are unnecessary; human organs for transplant would be plentiful if they were not routinely destroyed. Cloning Animals for Human Benefit Has Limited Justification by Donald Bruce 90 Cloning genetically engineered animals may produce animals with highly desirable characteristics, but it also entails ethical considerations. Cloning animals for research is acceptable; however, cloning farm animals risks turning them into a commodity to be used with no regard for their place in the natural order. Chapter 3: Is Hunting Ethical? The Ethics of Hunting: An Overview by Ann S. Causey 97 The ethical debate over hunting centers around the issue of respect for life versus the desire to extinguish it. Animal rights advocates who question the ethics of hunting are often answered by hunters who do not address the morals of hunting, but cite data supporting wildlife management. Some hunting situations are legal but immoral. Hunters should condemn such unacceptable acts, not blindly defend them. Yes: Hunting Is Ethical Hunting Is Ethical by Lark Ritchie and Brian Douglas Ritchie 105 Hunting is ethical when it is done to obtain food. Humans are omnivores and domesticated livestock is currently slaughtered for food; hunting one’s own food should therefore be morally unquestionable. However, hunters should behave responsibly; they should respect the animals they are hunting and should not view the hunting experience as a means to achieve personal recognition or status. Hunting Keeps the Wildlife Population in Check by Geoffrey Norman 110 Deer are attracted to and thrive in suburban areas close to humans. Deer threaten human health and safety by spreading disease and ruining land- scapes, and are also a traffic hazard. Areas that encourage deer hunting do not experience increasing deer populations or the problems caused by deer. Limited Hunting Will Preserve Endangered Species by Economist 117 For many indigenous peoples, endangered or threatened species such as elephants or tigers are a dangerous nuisance that threatens their liveli- Rights of Animals Frontmatter 2/25/04 2:26 PM Page 8 hoods. If these peoples are allowed to sell ivory from the elephants or permits to hunt the animals, the people will have an incentive to put up with the animals’ depredations and to protect the animals and their habitat from poachers.

Load more