DO ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS?

1. Federal University, Oye-Ekiti
Faculty: Humanities and Social Sciences
Department: Economics and Development Studies
Name: ADELEKE SAHEED IDOWU
Matric Number: EDS/12/0641
Course Title: Philosophical Issues in Development
Course Code: EDS 207
Essay Topic: Do Animals Have Rights?
Lecturer: Dr. Rufus B. Akindola
March, 2014

2. Do Animals Have Rights?
INTRODUCTION
Animals have played a role in human society since civilization began. At first, animals were hunted
for food, and their skins and bones were used for clothing, shelter and tools. Later, animals were
domesticated and used as beasts of burden, for food and clothing, and eventually for many other
purposes. Today most people accept that farmers, pet owners, animal breeders, zoo keepers and
research scientists may use animals but are obliged to treat them decently. However, some other
people think that we should change the relationship between humans and animals. They do not
accept the notion that it is appropriate for humans to interfere with the lives of animals. This is the
guiding philosophy behind what is called the "animal rights movement" (http://www.the-aps.org).
Should animals have rights? This question seems absurd, the real question is what that
phrase actually means. To answer this question, we need to step back a bit. By exploring it that 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. Many people think that the very
idea of animal rights is implausible. Suggesting that animals are neither rational nor self-aware,
Immanuel Kant thought of animals as “man’s instruments,” deserving protection only to help
human beings in their relation to one another: Some others believes in animal rights, at least in
some minimal sense; to provide suitable housing, to provide adequate food, to offer protection from
pain, and to offer the opportunity of expressing normal behaviour. The Animal Welfare Act, which
came into effect in England and Wales in April 2007, has imposed upon the owners and keepers of
animals a ‘duty of care’ to ensure that the interests of their animals are met (eprints.lse.ac.uk). The
focus of the Act is thus animals and their interests, rather than humans and their cruel behaviour.
Some philosophers have argued that because animals are not autonomous agents, we have no
directed obligations to them whatsoever and awarding full rights to them makes no sense (Cohen,
1986; Fox, 1978). The Animal Welfare Act says that we do have direct obligations to them, and
thus that we must take great care in determining what the interests of animals are (Leahy, 1991, pp.
187-188).

3. Keywords: Animals, Right.
MEANINGS:
ANIMALS
It is the plural of Animal, meaning living organism with independent movement and responsive
sense organs. A land mammal other than a human being (Microsoft® Encarta 2009). Any living
creature or thing that is not a plant or a human (Oxford Advanced Dictionary).
RIGHT
To have a right is to have a claim to something and against someone (Joel Feinberg 1980).
According to L. Neil Smith 1996, the freedom to see, hear, smell, taste, feel, assess, and act without
any impediment other than those imposed by the nature of reality is what we refer to when we say
“rights”. A right, properly understood, is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise
against another one. The target against whom such a claim may be registered can be a single person,
a group, a community, or (perhaps) all humankind such as human being (Carl Cohen’s 2004).
A right is a claim that one can exercise against another. For instance, I might have a right to life, or
a right not to be harmed. These give rise to moral obligations (for instance, you are obligated not to
kill or harm me). Note: Rights give rise to duties, but not vice versa. If I have a right not to be
harmed, then you automatically have a moral duty (obligation) not to harm me. On the other hand,
if we have a moral duty to benefit, this does not give you a right to be benefited by others (Cohen).
If we understand “rights” to be legal protection against harm, then many animals already do
have rights, and the idea of animal rights is not at all controversial. And if we take “rights” to mean
a moral claim to such protection, there is general agreement that animals have rights of certain
kinds. Of course, some people have argued that animals are like robots and lack emotions and that
people should be allowed to treat them however they choose. But to most people, including sharp
critics of the animal rights movement, this position seems unacceptable. Almost everyone agrees
that people should not be able to torture animals or to engage in acts of cruelty against them. And
indeed, state law contains a wide range of protections against cruelty and neglect. We can build on
existing law to define a simple, minimal position in favour of animal rights: The law should prevent
acts of cruelty to animals (Cass R. Sunstein; JOHN M.).

4. CONCEPT ON ANIMALS RIGHT
It is clear that the development of the idea of rights has indeed been tied up with the story of the
human. It starts with the Greeks (Plato; Aristotle; Epictectus), picks up some Roman pedigree on its
way (Cicero) via the Catholic Church (from St Paul through Plotinus to Saint Thomas Aquinas) to
northern Europe, where it settles down in England (Hobbes; Locke) and France (Rousseau), before
setting up further outposts in the United States (J Mahoney; M R Ishay, 2007). Until the early
1800s, animals were viewed mostly as unfeeling property whose sole purpose in life was to benefit
humans by providing needed food, labor, and clothing. At the end of the twentieth century, many
have come to believe that animals are capable of experiencing pain and suffering and that humans
should do all they can to protect them, whether that means not eating or hunting them, wearing their
fur, using or exploiting them in experiments (David Bender 1999). This change in thinking was a
very gradual process that began in the eighteenth century when a few noted philosophers began
writing treatises on the rights of animals. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) considered the question of
animal rights and concluded, “The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can
they suffer?” Bentham and others believed the answer was “yes,” and therefore, animals had the
right to be treated humanely and to be free from pain and suffering (David Bender 1999 PG 14).
Most people reject that analogy of Animal and Human right. But in the last ten years, the
animal rights question has move from the periphery and toward the center of political and legal
debate. The debate is international. In 2002, Germany became the first European nation to vote to
guarantee animal rights in its constitution, adding the words "and animals" to a clause that obliges
the state to respect and protect the dignity of human beings. The European Union has done a great
deal to reduce animal suffering. Within the United States, consumer pressures have been leading to
improved conditions for animals used as food. Notwithstanding its growing appeal, the idea of
animal rights has been disputed with extraordinary intensity. Some advocates of animal rights think
that their adversaries are selfish, unthinking, cruel, and even morally blind. Some of those who
oppose animal rights think that the advocates are fanatical and even bizarre, willing to trample on
important human interests.

5. How to Decide Whether Animals Have Rights and Which Rights, If Any, They Have
MAIN ARGUMENT FOR ANIMAL’S RIGHT
Despite numerous efforts, scientists have not been able to find any fundamental difference between
humans and animals. By all measures, the differences between humans and animals amount to
differences of degree, not of kind. It seems quite illogical, this does not mean, they must now grant
every animal every human right simply because they cannot draw an absolute line between humans
and animals. They don’t even grant every human every human right. Among other rights, children
are denied the right to vote and criminals are denied their right to freedom (Peter Wilson 1997). It
goes without saying that the rights dealing with living in our society, constitutional type protections
are not applicable to animals. The rights we really need to consider are the rights to life, liberty, and
freedom from torture.
THE RIGHT TO LIFE: Who are we to take our own man-made Religious beliefs and apply it to a
species which was here on Earth a long time before us? Animals should be given rights simply
because they are living things. They are like us in many ways. Human beings, too, would not like it
if they were treated badly by others of a higher power than them. Living things have the bodily
autonomy to do what they please because they have ownership of their body. They have life and
hence right to be treated well. I believe that animals are intelligent, caring, loving, and do deserve
the same kind of respect and rights that humans also receive. My right to life is mine, I possess it.
THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY: The right to liberty has been among the most human rights in all the
great liberal manifestos of history, the Declaration of Independence of United States (1776), French
Declaration of Rights of Man (1789), and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948). But this line of reasoning applies equally well to the members of other species. It is
parallel to the right not to be tortured. Any animal that has the capacity for suffering pain has a right
not to be tortured, and the reason is connected to the fact that suffering pain is intrinsically bad.
Similarly, using and keeping animals might be considered analogous to human slavery (Francione,
1996, p. 127). For human slavery causes harm not just because of the pain and suffering it inflicts,
but because it violates the intrinsic human interest in liberty.

6. FREEDOM FROM TORTUE AND VIRTUE: Animals can suffer; therefore we should not cause
them to suffer unnecessarily. The distinction comes down to the meaning of “unnecessary.” If we
are going to care about the suffering of other humans, then logically we should care about the
suffering of nonhumans too. Indeed, kindness towards animals is a praised virtue in our society.
According to a 1995 survey, two-thirds of Americans agree with the statement, “An animal’s right
to live free of suffering should be just as important as a person’s” (Adrian R. Morrison 1997). No
one likes to see an animal suffer. Other reasons are moral consideration, ecological balance, etc.
"To spread the concept of animal rights beyond our species is to jeopardize our dignity as
moral beings, which live in judgement of one another and of themselves" (Roger Scruton 2000).
Animals are not in need of equality before the law, or freedom of speech and religion, or of fair
taxation. Nor do animals have an interest in voting or being literate. Hence, it would be meaningless
and silly to give animals rights to these affairs. There are ‘five freedoms’, which were originally
developed by the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), provide valuable guidance on
animal welfare. They are now internationally recognised as Animal’s right, and current forms are:
Freedom from hunger and thirst, Freedom from discomfort, Freedom from pain, injury and disease,
Freedom to express normal behaviour and Freedom from fear and distress (www.ufaw.org.uk).
How to Decide Whether Animals Do not Have Rights, If Any
AGAINST ANIMAL’S RIGHT
Many philosophers, however, say that animals cannot have rights. In the heyday of “philosophical
analysis,” when some thinkers believed that philosophical questions could be answered by
examining the meanings of words, it was suggested that attributing rights to animals involves a
conceptual mistake. H. J. McCloskey observed that it would seem an illegitimate invasion of animal
rights to kill and eat them, if, as seems to be the case, we can sustain ourselves without killing
animals. The difference between humans and animals that explains this difference in moral status is
that humans are “self-conscious,” whereas animals are not. Thus, on Kant’s view only self-conscious
beings can have rights (James Rachels 1997). But, if animals have no right not, then it is
morally permissible to eat them, experiment on them, etc.

7. THE PURPOSE OF ANIMALS: More to the point in this context, purpose, another product of
sapience, is a phenomenon as unique to humanity as rights. People are the only thing in the universe
with purpose. And purpose regarding themselves or anything else they lay their hands on in the
environment they dominate is whatever people say it is. Robert LeFevre observed that, in moral
terms, there are just two kinds of entity in the universe, people and property. Animals are not
people. Some wild animals are unclaimed property that would be better off with owners. Animals
are groceries. They’re leather and fur coats. They’re for medical experiments and galloping to
hounds. That’s their purpose. I, a human being, declare it. Do what you like with your animals (L.
Neil Smith 1996).
INTELLIGENCE AND RIGHTS: Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of
reason and choice (www.aynrand.org). The most common difference put forth to justify denying
animals these basic rights is our intelligence. Cohen claims that, since a right is a claim that one can
exercise against another, the only individuals who HAVE rights are those who CAN exercise claims
against one another. He writes, “The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules
of duty, governing all including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must
recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just” involving
intelligence (Peter Wilson 1997 Pg 21).
NECESSITY NEEDS: “The use of research animals has been and will continue to be essential to
finding the causes and cures for many diseases”. Experiments using animals have played a crucial
role in the development of modern medical treatments, and they will continue to be necessary as
researchers seek to alleviate existing ailments and respond to the emergence of new disease (Jack H.
Botting and Adrian R. Morrison). Until the early 1800s, animals were viewed mostly as unfeeling
property whose sole purpose in life was to benefit humans by providing needed food, labor, and
clothing which are necessity of life.

8. CONCLUSION
An animal right is the belief that animals have a right to be free of human use and exploitation, but
there is a great deal of confusion about what that means. Animal rights is not about putting animals
above humans, or giving animals the same rights as humans. Also, an animal right is very different
from animal welfare. There is no good reason to permit the level of suffering that is now being
experienced by millions, or even billions of living creatures (Cass R. Sunstein 2002). Every
reasonable person believes in animal rights. To acknowledge their rights is the very least we can do
for members of endangered species, but that is something (Joel Feinberg 1980). Tom Regan think
animals have rights, nonetheless? Because they ascribe rights not on the basis of moral agency but
because of a certain level of intelligence. After all, as many philosophers have said, pain is pain, no
matter what or who feels it. Some people say that animals are different because they cannot think.
But that is simply not true. But animals communicate in their own ways, and besides, some people
are unable to talk. “Precisely what characteristic is it that animals have that justifies our treatment of
them as our slaves?” “There is no ‘defect’ that is possessed by animals that is not possessed by
some group of humans.” (Gary L. Francione).
“He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.” Jeremy Bentham
took a different approach, suggesting that mistreatment of animals was akin to slavery and racial
discrimination. Eric Mills, an animal rights activist with Action for Animals, argued that even
animals destined to be killed for food have the right to be housed and killed in humane conditions
(David Bender 1999). So, in short, the claim is that it is good for animals to be free. Criminal
penalties should be imposed on anyone who transports an animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, or
in such a way as to subject it to torture or suffering, conditions that can come about through neglect
(Cass R. Sunstein). If taken seriously, provisions of this kind would do a great deal to protect
animals from suffering, injury, and premature death. Enforcement can occur only through public
prosecution and the anticruelty provisions of state law contain extraordinarily large exceptions such
as not ban hunting, use of animals for medical or scientific purposes and to a large degree, do not
apply to the production and use of animals as food.

9. REFERENCES
Alasdair Cochrane; Animal Rights and Animal Experiment: An Interest-Based Approach; 2007, Pg 293–318
Carl Cohen’s; ‘Kind’ Arguments For Animal Rights and Against Human Rights; Journal of Applied
Philosophy, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2004, PG 1-17
Cass R. Sunstein; John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157 (2d Series) The Rights of
Animals: A Very Short Primer
David Bender; The Rights of Animals; 1999
Edwin Locke, “Animal ‘Rights’ and the New Man Haters,” 1997, at www.aynrand.org
Francione, G. L. (1996) Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, Philadelphia,
Temple University Press
From Jack H. Botting and Adrian R. Morrison, “Animal Research Is Vital to Medicine,” Scientific
American, February 1997; ©1997 by Scientific American, Inc
Gary L. Francione, “Animal Rights Commentary: Human Superiority,” February 15, ©1996
J Mahoney, The Challenge of Human Rights (Basil Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2007); M R Ishay, The
Human Rights Reader 2nd Ed (Routledge, London, 2007)
James Rachels (1997) Do Animals Have Rights? ; Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 1-16
Joel Feinberg; Rights, justice, and the bounds of Liberty; Priceton University Press, 1980, pp.159
L. Neil Smith, “Animals Are the Property of Human,” The Libertarian Enterprise, March 1996
Mary Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Woman Vindication of the Rights of Brutes.
Microsoft® Encarta® 2009; 1993-2008© Microsoft Corporation
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 8th Edition, OXFORD University Press
Peter Wilson, “Animal Rights: A Revolution of Compassion,” A speech given at the Rotary Club of
Cortland, N.Y., April 8, 1997
Roger Scruton; Animal Rights; City Journal; 2000
Tom Regan; The Case for Animals Rights; University of California Press (1991)
www.animalethics.org.uk; Roger Panaman (Ben Isacat); How to Do Animal Rights; April 2008
www.the-aps.org; American Physiological Society (Animals have the right to be treated humanely by
everyone) 2014
www.ufaw.org.uk; UFAW: University Links; Animal Welfare in Context; World Animal net.