The Morality of Animal Rights

The concept of human rights has been the foundation of Western civilization for centuries. Just who was owed these rights has been debated since the ancient Greek philosophers. The right to life, liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness as outlined by the framers of the United States Constitution have been extended over the years from being primarily the rights owed to white male land owners to include women, African Americans, children, the physically handicapped, minorities, native Americans, the mentally impaired, and other groups which for centuries were considered inferior and undeserving of moral rights. Today the debate continues as groups lobby for rights for the unborn and question the morality of legalized euthanasia and the death penalty. As the idea of inherent moral rights continues to grow it is only logical to go to the next step and ask, do moral rights only pertain to humans?

Only humans have inherent value.

This question has been asked in the past and the answer has been yes, only humans are worthy of moral concern. For centuries the Catholic Church has denied that animals have immortal souls so therefore they are not worthy of moral concern. But who is to say that animals have no soul? Certainly not man, which has used this agreement in the past to justify the denial of basic rights to other humans based on physical and mental differences. The centuries old doctrine of the Great Chain of Being in which man has rated God's creational intent on a scale in which man is above woman and humans are above animals still pervades the underlying foundation of the definition of moral rights. God intended humans to be superior to other species on this planet thus it is morally just to use other living creatures for our benefit and pleasure. If animals lack an immortal soul, does it justify their abuse at the hands of humans? If humans are indeed superior in the eyes of God, don't humans have a moral obligation to treat other living creatures with the same dignity and respect that we treat fellow humans?

Speciesism

For centuries, philosophers have contended that the human species is superior to other species on this planet which thus gives them the God given right to deny them moral rights. Since Plato and Aristotle, philosophers have argued that humans are superior based on their ability to rationalize and reason. René Descartes saw language as what sets humans apart from animals and concluded that if animals are incapable of communicating they are also incapable of possessing rational thought, emotions, and feelings. The idea that humans are a superior brand of species is referred to today as speciesism. Speciesists believe that animal pain and suffering have less or no moral weight as compared to human pain and suffering based on the concept that animals are incapable of rational thought and feelings. Descartes basic premise is still being used today as a rationale for human superiority. Professor Carl Cohen, a philosophy professor at the University of Michigan writes,

Among the species of animal life - between humans and rats, between dogs and sea urchins - the morally relevant differences are enormous and almost universally appreciated. Sea urchins have no brains whatever, while dogs have very powerful brains. Humans engage in moral reflection, while rats are somewhat foreign to this enterprise. Humans are morally autonomous, the lower animals are not. Humans are members of moral communities, recognizing just claims even when those claims work against their own best interests. Human beings have rights by nature; and those rights do give humans a moral status very different from that of sea-urchins, rats or dogs. (p. 63)

This premise is flawed based on numerous scientific studies which have found that many species of animals develop complex communities which serve to protect their members and aid in the propagation of their own. To infer that these communities may be less morally righteous then human communities begs to question just what is considered morally just.

Moral Perspective

To explore the justification that speciesism is morally just, we need to explore the moral perspective of the human race. Humans have used moral superiority to justify the denial of what is now considered universal basic human rights for centuries. Two recent forms of discrimination that have been justified through the use of the ideal of moral superiority in recent history are racism and sexism. Humans have been enslaved, exterminated, murdered, incarcerated, and chased from their homelands for centuries based on the premise that they are morally inferior based on their race. Often they are equated to animals in propaganda in which to justify the actions of a racist government to its populist. Sexism, another form of discrimination which has its current rationale linked back to the Great Chain of Being, is still being practiced today in many cultures, most notably in the Middle East. Many males in these cultures justify the discrimination against females based on the religious philosophy that men are morally superior. As Western moral philosophy turns away from these forms of discrimination as being intrinsically immoral with the reasoning that one race or sex has no more nor no less a right to basic human rights, it is only a matter of time until society takes the next step in recognizing the basic rights of all living creatures. Professor Tom Reagan writes,

From the point of view of elementary justice ... the interests of some human beings cannot be ignored, and cannot count for less than, the like interest of other human beings simply because they do not belong to the "right" race or gender. The same is true when it comes to species membership. From the point of view of elementary justice, the interests of animals cannot be ignored, and cannot count for less than, the like interests of human beings simply because animals do not belong to the "right" species. And just as it is true that assigning a privileged moral status to some people and, implicitly, assigning a lower status to others, solely on the basis of race or gender, are classic examples of racism and sexism, so it is true that assigning a privileged moral status to human beings and, implicitly, assigning a lower status to every other animal, solely on the basis of species membership, is a classic expression of an analogous prejudice: speciesism. (p. 170)

If it is agreed that there are no moral differences between humans of different races and sexuality, that all human suffering is equal no matter the inherent differences of the individuals then it should also follow that the suffering of all living creatures falls under the definition of universal moral rights. If there is a moral difference between species, then there should also be moral differences between the different categories found within each species. One cannot justify the moral superiority of man with the belief that all men are created equal without extending the concept to all living creatures.

Our society draws a clear distinction between animals and humans. Just because this is the prevailing belief does not make it justified, just as the distinction between men and women, Jews and Aryans, Blacks and Whites, and other forms of morally justified discrimination in our recent past is not considered just. There are no moral grounds for placing one type of living creature above another. Looking past the religious justification as we have on so many moral questions in the our recent past, such as the question of equality of the sexes in which fundamental religious doctrine greatly diverges from popular social practice, it leaves us with the basic question as to whether other species are worthy of moral rights based on their ability to have a rational thought process. In a society which recognizes the basic rights of infants and the mentally impaired, the concept of alternative thought processes being morally relevant, is not farfetched. Who is to say that just because other species cannot communicate with humans, that they incapable of rational thought? We don't raise small children for food or test cosmetic products on the handicapped just because their rational thought level is not considered within the norm. We justify the abuse of animals by believing that the human species is simply more valuable then animal life.

Value

Humans have debated the question of the value of certain populations within society since Aristotle, who believed that women and slaves had less human value then men because of their diminished ability to engage in the rational thought process. Western civilization has now come to the conclusion that all human beings are inherently valuable regardless of their intellectual capacity. Humans are valued based on the fact that they have a life. Don't animals then qualify for the same rights as humans since they too have a life? They are born, they procreate, they protect their young, they gather food, and they die; just like humans. If they are just like humans in this respect, should they not be giving the same respect as humans? To give one species inherent moral value based on the criteria of life, than it stands to reason that all species that have a life should also be given the same moral consideration. If we are willing to give animals less value based on their lack of reason or rationality then we must be willing to assign less value on humans who lack these characteristics. People are slowly coming to terms with the inconsistency in the moral value placed on animal life. It is no longer fashionable to wear fur and vegetarianism is a growing trend in our society. Please consider the moral obligation that we have toward our fellow living creatures.

Cohen, Carl and Tom Regan. The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, 2001.