Thinking Critically About Animal Rights

Animal Rights: What it is, What it isn’t
This is an important starting point, as the term doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. For instance, the mainstream media seems to think that anyone who cares at all about animals is an “animal rights activist,” and that all animal rights activists are members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). But these character-izations belie the spectrum of people interested in improving the lives of non-human animals and chang-ing our relationship with nonhuman animals, and how those interests manifest themselves. Let’s begin with two important definitions that are noticeably absent from (or unclear in) main-stream discussions about animal rights in America.

Animal Rights
No one is campaigning for their dog’s right to vote. For the purposes of this brochure, animal rights refers to one right only: the right to not be used by another. This is also known as “abolition,” a nonviolent approach to animal rights that: (1) requires the abolition of animal exploitation and rejects the notion that animal use is acceptable if we treat animals “humanely;” (2) requires only that nonhumans be sentient in order to be full members of the moral community and to have the right not to be treated as human resources; and (3) regards veganism as its moral baseline. (This definition comes from Professor Gary Francione, at www.abolitionistapproach.com.). Note that nonviolence includes both the way activism is conducted (harming people physically is never an objective), as well as the way animals are treated (i.e., healthy animals, such as cats, dogs, geese, alligators and raccoons, who are either experiencing an overpopulation crisis or deemed a nuisance for whatever reason, are not to be killed. “Euthanasia” is when you provide a painless death for someone who is terminally ill or suffering gravely. Ending the lives of healthy animals, no matter how it’s done, is called “killing.”).
        Both the theory and the goal of abolition profoundly differ from that of animal welfare/animal protection.

Animal welfare/Animal protection
Individuals and organizations interested in animal welfare and animal protection do not object to institutional uses of animals (i.e., using them for food, clothing, entertainment, sports or experimentation). Instead, their priority is to decrease the suffering of the animals being used. Animal welfarists seek to regulate the way we use animals, rather than campaign for people to stop using them. Welfarists may be vegans, but don’t see veganism as necessary, as they don’t object to killing animals for food, clothing, research or sport.

In order to responsibly decide how you feel about this topic and what you believe, you ought to first inform yourself of the facts, which may very well be different from what you currently think is true. Let’s deconstruct some of the most common beliefs about our relationship with nonhuman animals.

• Nonhuman animals aren’t people, after all, so what’s the big deal about using them?

Two concepts are operating here; let’s address them one at a time. Animals are like us in some ways, and unlike us in other, more obvious ways. For people interested in animal rights, one trait we share with nonhuman animals is of paramount importance: sentience. Until the 20th century, many suspected that dogs, cows, chickens, cats and even fish have the capacity to experience pain, but the fact that these nonhumans are indeed sentient was not accepted or addressed by mainstream scientists.
        It’s 2008, and we now know that, just like human animals, nonhuman animals express not only pain, but other feelings such as: pleasure, fear, boredom and frustration. They play, they grieve, they cuddle and they deceive. They have friendships, preferences, expectations and beliefs. Many demonstrate they have some degree of moral code. The fact is that animals lead lives rich in thought, emotion, culture and relationships. As such, they care about their well-being, and they have an interest in living their lives free from subjugation by others, just like you do.
        That last sentence addresses the second part of the original statement: the use of animals. Taking away someone’s freedom and using them for your gain (which includes using them for your palate) is unacceptable for animal rights advocates. It is a form of violence, and part of the foundation of animal rights is nonviolence. It is also unjust, and another part of the foundation of animal rights is social justice.

• I believe that as long as we don’t inflict unnecessary suffering, it’s okay to use animals.
  

Unnecessary suffering is cruel, you don’t want any part of cruelty, and that’s admirable. In order to make an informed decision about whether you’re inflicting unnecessary suffering, however, you’d first have to educate yourself about the current status of the suffering of animals, right? Let’s examine some common notions regarding how animals are treated.

• There is such a thing as “humane farming.”

What if I control everything about your life including: what you eat and when; if, and how you procreate (cows, chickens and pigs are not left to naturally mate--they are impregnated with the help of people who often use an apparatus known as a “rape rack”); when and how your life is to end; and I slaughter you when I want to. Would you characterize that process as humane? Is that  scenario acceptable   to you? When you uncover all of the aspects of farming deemed necessary (and that usually means “allegedly required in order to make a profit”), you quickly begin to see that though you may be able to decrease some suffering here and there, when the entire process is considered in toto, there’s simply no way to call it humane.

• But I know of a “free-range” farm where the animals run around, have wonderful lives and are very well cared for. I know this because I get my meat from them and I’ve visited their farm and seen it with my own eyes.

This brings up the topic of humane slaughter. At some smaller farms, such as family-run farms, the animals do indeed eat their natural diets, aren’t drugged or mutilated, and run free. Let’s talk about you again for a moment. Let’s say I treat you as well as I possibly can while you’re alive, yet you cannot escape me, I continue to use you the way I wish to use you, I decide when and how you will die, and I will eventually kill you when I feel the moment is right. Let’s say I shoot you in the head and you barely feel a thing. Is that okay with you? Of course not; I’ve just ended your life. Furthermore, is it okay that I’ve taken your freedom away from you and used your life for my purposes? Of course not. You have the right to your life free of use or enslavement by me. But nonhuman animals don’t have that right, and animal rights advocates think it’s time for that to change.

• But I believe in animal rights! I’m a vegetarian and I eat only cage-free eggs and drink only organic milk!

Many vegetarians like to think that eggs, milk and cheese somehow involve less subjugation and/or  suffering than other animal products, such as fur or meat. They like to think that eggs are about as cruelty-free an animal product as you can get, especially if they’re cage-free. And there’s a good reason for that: we’re surrounded by messages that tell us cage-free products are humane. Even the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals promote cage-free eggs.
        But did you know that no matter where the egg production facility is located, or what the visible-to-the-public conditions are, the egg-laying hens come from the same hatcheries that kill the baby rooster chicks at only one-day old? Did you know that hens are generally considered spent by egg-laying facilities at one to two years and are then killed? And did you know that dairy cows are artificially inseminated over and over, often via “rape rack,” are genetically manipulated to produce an unnaturally enormous amount of milk, and are killed by the time they’re six-years old, when their normal life span is over 20 years? And that while they’re alive, they are rarely permitted to nurse their babies (the males, as you may know, are taken away from them to be confined, perhaps elsewhere, and slaughtered as veal)? How do you feel about milk and eggs now?
        As for the farm near your home where you get your meat and eggs, ask that farmer what happens to the male chicks and the spent hens. Ask what happens to the newborn calves. Ask how the cows are impregnated and how often. Always question anyone who tells you that some process involving an animal is humane, and decide for yourself if it is acceptable to you.

• I’ve heard that people who advocate for animal rights don’t think we should be racing horses or dogs. But horses and dogs love to run! Aren’t they just doing what they love to do?

Thousands of horses and dogs are created each year for the purposes of racing, with the hope of making their owners a profit. Early in their lives, animals who don’t show promise are killed (this is what “culled” means), and as the training process progresses, there are further kills to narrow the group down to only the most competitive animals. Many injuries during train-ing result in further kills if the careers of the animals are no longer promising. When the few animals who do make it to competition are injured, they are often killed if their injuries are too expensive to fix, or if the injuries will be career ending even if they heal well. Some lucky animals end up in the hands of rescue groups, who will often pay for their treatment and get them adopted, as in the case of Greyhounds and mushing dogs (used most famously in the Iditarod and the Yukon Quest, both of which are over 1,000 miles long), or sent to a sanctuary, as is often the case with horses. As of this writing, horses are still transported out of the country to be slaughtered for human consumption overseas.

Stay tuned for Part 2: On Animal Experimentation

I welcome questions and comments.