Animal rights

Do animals have rights?

Most people agree we should be kind to animals. They might also agree that eating less meat is good for our health and the environment. But do we have any moral duties towards animals? Do animals have rights?

Doing good and vegetarianism

Peter Singer is a famous philosopher who has argued that we should stop eating meat. His 1975 book Animal Liberation is hugely influential.

Singer's argument against eating meat is based on the moral theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was first developed by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill. According to this theory, the right thing to do in any situation is to choose the action that will bring about the highest utility, which is the net balance of happiness over suffering. The general idea is that we should always maximize the greatest good in what we do.

Here is a video of Singer discussing utilitarianism:

Singer thinks if we become vegetarians, we would eliminate a huge amount of animal suffering, and better protect the environment. The land used for raising animals can produce more food for everyone. This will bring the greatest amount of utility compared with our present system. So the right thing to do is to give up meat.

Is this a convincing argument? Many objections have been raised. Here are some:

• How do we compare utility across species? Eating meat makes many people happy. It is an important part of the economy and human culture. How do we weigh these benefits against animal suffering?
• Is utilitarianism the correct moral theory? Maximizing utility seems to justify the oppression of minorities, if it benefits the majority of the population. This is surely not acceptable. But many utilitarians reject this criticism. They say that allowing such oppression does not benefit the society in the long run, and will fail to maximize utility.
• Even if utilitarianism is the correct moral theory, it might not follow that we should become vegetarians. It is true that the meat industry causes much animal suffering. But what if we eat less meat, and pay more attention to animal welfare? Animals can enjoy a happy life and die a painless death, and meat-eaters can still be happy. Wouldn't this produce even more utility? Of course, given the huge worldwide demand for meat, this might be unrealistic and economically infeasible.

Animal rights

Many vegetarians dislike the utilitarian argument for vegetarianism. They don’t think we should eat animals even if they have lived a happy life. They believe animals have rights, and eating them violate their rights.

One line of argument is that animals have sophisticated minds. They have awareness, emotions, and reasoning. This means we cannot treat them as mere instruments for making us happy. Their lives have an inherent value. To respect this value, animals should be granted the right to life just like humans. It is wrong to violate their rights by eating them.

Most people agree that we should treat animals humanely, but they might not agree that animals have the right to life. Here are some considerations:

• Where do we draw the line? Presumably if cows and pigs have rights, then all mammals should. But what about fish, crustaceans, insects, bacteria?
• If animals have rights, we should not use them to conduct medical research or scientific experiments. But isn't this going to impede scientific progress?
• When humans are attacked by wild animals, we should rescue them. If animals have rights, we should treat them in the same way. This means we should stop predation in nature, and find vegetarian food for carnivores such as tigers and lions. Is this the right thing to do?

Rights and mental capacities

Many people insist that only humans have rights, and animals don't. They argue that humans have special mental capacites that animals lack, eg. intelligence, rationality, morality, self-consciousness, etc. Is this correct?

• Are we sure animals do not have these capacities too? Many animals are quite intelligent. Some scientists believe that pigs are smarter than dogs. Crows can use tools and can recognize themselves in the mirror, so they can reason and might have self-consciousness as well.
• Some humans lack these capacities. Young babies might be less intelligent than many of the animals we eat.
• Some people say we should protect babies because they have the potential to develop into fully intelligent persons, and animals don't. However, many babies with incurable illnesses lack this potential. People suffering from dementia might be in the same situation. Does it mean we can use them as food? It is question-begging to say that they have rights because they are human beings.
• It is dangerous to assign rights based on intelligence and mental superiority. We might end up thinking that some humans should have more rights because they are superior to others. This way of thinking has led to racism, slavery, genocides, and totalitarianism.