Animals Rights U Ndoubtedly If T Men Have
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
P RE FACE AS a memorial of work done on behalf of the rights of a nima ls th ou ht fittin , it has been g g , by members of and friends the late H umanitarian Leag ue, that a new edition of this little book should be published in ’ ” the year that brings the centenary of Martin s Act, the fi rst legislation for the prevention of cruelty to - n the non huma races . Of of the progress m ade in this branch ethics , since 1 8 2 2 o , some account is incidentally given in the bo k ; and during the last fe w years the advance has been n . w steadily conti ued A ttention has been dra n , for o m instance , to the antiquated meth ds e ployed in the slaughter of animals for food ; and this has corres ponded w ith an increase in the practice of veg etarian The of m ism . treatment other domestic ani als, such w -ou t as pit ponies, an d the orn horses exported to o n the Continent , has stirred the public c nscie ce ; and at the s ame time the cruelty a nd folly of what is technically know n as “ the w ild animal industry —the “ ” kidnappi ng of specimens for exhibiti on in zoological “ ” or o n o n gardens , as perf rmi g animals the stage are becoming better understood . A gain , the disgust caused by the ravages of murderous millinery ” (a term first used as a chapter heading in this book) h as taken visible shape in the recent A ct for the regulation of the plumage trade ; “ ” and eve n sport, the last and dearest stronghold of not the savage , has been seriously menaced , only by v vi PREFACE 1 0 1 the discontinuance of the Royal B uckhounds in 9 , but also lately by the emphatic co nd emnation of - o n pigeon sh oti g . The core of the contention for a recognition of the rights of animals will be found in the following passage f Th o a letter addressed by M r. omas Hardy to the Humanitarian League in 1 9 1 0 : Few people seem to perce ive fully as yet that the most far-reaching consequence ofthe establishment ofthe common origi n of all species is ethical ; that it logically involved a d m n f m n n n rea just e t o altruistic orals, by e largi g, as a ecessity of ti htness on of w n The g , the applicati hat has bee called ’ Golden Rule from the area of mere mankind to that of the w n man was me hole a imal kingdom. While dee d to be on f o n n or a creati apart r m all other creatio s, a seco dary tertiary morality was considered good enough to practise ‘ ’ towards the inferior races ; but no person who reasons nowadays can escape the trying conclusion that this is not " m n a n ai t i able . as of I t may be taken , perhaps, a sign the extension its 1 8 2 of humane ideas that , since first appearance in 9 , ’ this essay on A nimals Rights h as passed through n numerous editions , and has bee translated into G D h S w E French, erman , utc , edish , and other uropean o u t ng es . Valuable suggestions concern ing the book have reached me from several friends : in p a rtic ula r l am to S i r G G w wh o indebted eorge reen ood , has been d actively associate , both in Parliament and elsewhere , with the cause of j ustice to animals . S . H . S . / ja w my 1 92 2 . CONTE NT S . CHAP . ’ I THE PRI N I LE NIM L RI . C P OF A A S GHTS H E OF D ME 2 I I . T E CAS O STIC ANI MALS 3 I THE E OF WILD NI L I I . CAS A MA S 34 THE L TER NIM LS F R F D r IV. S AUGH OF A A O OO 4 . S RT R M TE U R UT E RY 0 V PO , O A A B CH 5 RDER I L INERY VI . M U OU S M L 5 9 E X ERI MENT L T RT RE . VI I . P A O U I I NES RE RM VI I . L OF FO 77 APPE NDI CES 9 S BIBLI OGRAPH Y I I 7 I NDEX 1 2 3 ANI MALS ’ RIGHTS . T E R C H A P I . ’ THE RI N I LE NI M LS RI T P C P OF A A GH S . HAVE the lower animals rights U ndoubtedly if T men have . hat is the point I wish to make evident in this Opening chapter. But have men rights ? Let it be stated at the outset that I have no intention of of w discussing the abstract theory rights , hich at the present time is looked upon with suspicion a nd dis n not u n favour by ma y social reformers , since it has frequently been made to cover the most extravagant and contradictory assertions . But though its phrase n u n Ology is vague, there is evertheless a solid truth — d e r lying it a truth which has always been clearly ow ffi apprehended by the moral faculty, h ever di cult it may be to establish it on an unassailable logical me n —w an basis . I f have not rights ell , they have unmistakable intimation Of something very similar ; a sense of justice w hich marks the boundary-line where acquiescence ceases and resistance begins a demand own for freedom to live their lives , subject to the necessity of respecting the equal freedom Of other people . S uch is the doctri ne O f rights as formulated by B ’ 2 ANIMALS RIGHTS . Herbert S pencer . Every man , he says, is free to n not do that which he wills, provided he i fringes the Wh o man. n equal liberty of a ny other A nd agai , ever admits that each man must have a certain re s tric te d freedom asserts that it is fi ght he should have And n this restricted freedom . he ce the several ma fitl particular freedoms deducible y y be called , as ‘ o n his r /23s they c mmo l y are called , ig 6 pp . 4 , Th e fitness of this nomenclature is disputed , but the existence Of some real principle of the ki nd can hardly be called in question ; s o that the controversy “ concerning rights is little else than an academic w w no con battle over ords , hich leads to practical clu s ion. I shall assume, therefore , that men are “ ” of n S e n possessed rights, in the se se of Herbert p ’ cer s definition ; and if any of my readers object to n s a 1 this qualified use of the term , I can o ly y that shall be perfectly willing to change the word as soon 2 n h e im as a more appropriate o e is forthcoming . T 1 R M m e e n t on of t en r . G. An ad irabl d fi i i igh s is g iv by W . “ “ F oote in h is contribution to Th e New Charter Rights — Of t ee o e mo and n t . Th e e me n n are hr s rts l gal, ral, a ural l gal a i g ‘ of Rights is undoubtedly th e pr imary one and this is th e on d e ni te en e in w th e wor can be e Mo ly fi s s , hich d us d ral R t ar e w e e ne w e n men em n n n o igh s id spr ad s ti ts, d a di g i c rpora tion i nto Legal Rights and Natural Rights a re still ne wer se n timents r n to e o n t on Mo R t w , aspi i g r c g i i as ral igh s , ith a vi ew t n or on Le R t T to u ltima e i corp ati as gal igh s . hey are r e s ectivel o f t ene em n and ow n s p y, a s lid ac , a g ral d a d, a gr i g a pir ” ation . 2 “ This re mark impli es not th e disparagement of logic and ” of ef u se of n u e w t w ofe o D all car ul la g ag , i h hich Pr ss r . G. ’ THE RINCI LE or NIM LS RIG T P P A A H S . 3 mediate qu estion that claims our attention is this—ii men have rights , have animals their rights also From the earliest times there have been thinkers wh o or w , directly indirectly, ans ered this question wi f h th an a firmative . T e B uddhist and Pythagorean o canons , d minated perhaps by the creed of reincarna not to or a n tion , included the maxim kill injure y ” innocent animal . The humanitarian philosophers of R w S the oman empire, among hom eneca, Plutarch, a nd w Porphyry ere the most conspicuous, took still higher ground in preaching humanity on the broadest “ O principle f universal benevolence .