Arguments Against Animal Rights Part V

14.   If animal rights activists prevail, domestic animals would be extinct.

 If we stop breeding domesticated animals, some will survive and some will not.  It would be left up to them to reproduce naturally as opposed to artificial human intervention.    Feral chickens, pigs, and other farm animals have the ability to survive off the farm.  they forage, graze, mate, raise their young, and socialize without human intervention.

15.  If we ceased to use animals, we would have to make dramatic changes in our lifestyles.

This is a meager excuse for the use of animals.  Change can be scary, but society has survived and evolved from other social movements and lifestyle changes.  The computer replaced the typewriter, the automobile replaced the horse and carriage, the self-checkout stand replaced the checkout clerk, live telephone operators have been replaced by automated telephone services, salespeople replaced by online shopping, bank tellers replaced by online banking and ATM machines, etc.

16.  Eating meat is natural.

Many opponents of animal rights assert their opinion under the notion that human beings are naturally carnivores or omnivores.  Many scientists and medical doctors point out that a plant-based diet is more suitable for humans and proclaim that humans are natural herbivores. 

According to Dr. William C, Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology:

Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not  natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing  us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores.[1]

According to Milton R. Mills, M.D.:

 In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a “committed” herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores we must conclude  that humankind’s GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.[2]

17.  God put animals on earth for us to use. God gave humans dominion over animals.

Religious beliefs are an inappropriate argument against animal laws.  Religious beliefs are highly subjective and personal.  Even within a religion, people will wrangle over God’s commands and intentions with regard to animals.

Not all religions believe that humans have “dominion” over animals. Among those that do, the notion of “dominion” should be interpreted to mean compassionate guardianship, not greed, violence, and indifference.  The Garden of Eden did not include circuses, factory farms, rodeos, bullfighting, dog fighting, a fur industry, and barbaric animal experiments.

18.  Only humans have immortal souls. This gives us the right to treat  animals as we wish.

Many religions teach that all animals, not just humans, have immortal souls.  If only humans are immortal and the lives of animals are finite, our obligations towards animals increase, rather than decrease, since this is the only life they have.

When one religion attempts to prevail over another, wars begin and lives are ruined:

1. The Crusades.
2. The Thirty Year War.
3. The Taiping Rebellion.
4. World War II.
5. Lord’s Resistance Army.
6. Lebanese Civil War.
7. Algerian War of Independence.
8. Islamic Revolution.

With great power comes great responsibility.” – Voltaire

[1] See Kathy Freston, “Shattering the Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians” (11.17.2011), available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html.

[2] http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html

Arguments Against Animal Rights Part IV

7.  If animals have rights, what about apples and cucumbers.

This often-sarcastic argument suggests that the killing of plants is synonymous to the killing of animals.  Fruits and vegetables lack a brain or central nervous system. Therefore, they are not considered to be psychological beings.  Whether plants feel pain is debatable, but if plants do feel pain, that is not a reason to deny rights to animals. If plants were sentient, that would put humans in the same position as lions. Since we cannot live without consuming plants, we would be morally justified in eating them.

Eating plants and eating animals are not morally equivalent because it takes many more plants to feed an omnivore compared to a vegan.  Feeding grains and other plant foods to animals so that we can eat these animals destroys many more plants than if we followed a plant-based diet.

8.  Where do you draw the line? If mammals and birds have rights, so do ladybugs, and flowers.

A 5000 square foot house is a big house. A 500 square foot apartment is a small apartment.  A person with assets of 5 million dollars is wealthy.  A homeless person is poor.  An adult weighing 90 pounds is underweight.  An adult weighing 300 pounds is overweight.  We can at least start by making distinctions on scientific grounds; mammals, birds, and invertebrates like the octopus are on one side of the psychological /sentient spectrum, whereas snails, insects, and plants are on the other side. Their rights would differ depending on their scientific rank.  We have a moral obligation to all living things, depending on their nature.  This can be clearly established in law and.

“In the relations of humans with the animals, with the flowers, with all the objects of creation, there is a whole great ethic scarcely seen as yet.” – Victor Hugo

9.  Animal rights are extreme.

Extreme compared to what? The word “extreme” is defined as “of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average.  Circus animals suffer from lives of confinement, social deprivation, and violent training methods. For almost their entire life, pregnant pigs (sows) are housed in gestation crates measuring 6.6 ft. X 2ft with metal bars and concrete floors.  They cannot turnaround. Animals raised for fur are anally electrocuted [industry practice].  Rodeo horses are subjected to painful constriction of their genital region with leather straps to liven up the show. Many tigers, classified as an endangered species, are poached for their body parts (used in traditional Chinese medicine), and their skins.

If Animal Rights is extreme, it pales in comparison to the extreme suffering of animals.

10.  Even if other animals do have rights, there are more important things that need our attention such as the slave trade, the homeless, child abuse.                                                

Are Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) attacked because their cause is not directed at battered women or abused children or some other issue?  Choosing a particular issue does not mean that one is indifferent to other concerns.   Additionally, animal abuse, like child abuse and spouse abuse, is a human problem. The quality of life of animals impacts humans in many ways.

There is no choice to make between helping humans and helping animals. One can do both simply by making lifestyle changes.  People do not need to go to the rodeo or to a bullfight to help the homeless.  They do not need to use animal –tested cosmetics to help find a cure for cancer.  You can advance the cause for animals just by not eating meat, not buying fur, not going to the circus, not hunting, etc.

11.  The way we consider and treat animals is a personal choice.Many anti-animal rights proponents view animal rights as a personal choice or decision, rather than a question of law or what is undeniably morally right.  The argument is that those who support animal rights and those against, should agree to disagree, respect one another’s viewpoints and not pursue it any further.  Animal advocates will argue that animal rights are, by default, grounded in morality and social justice, rather than personal preference.  We are not justified to commit or permit injustices to others for our benefit.  Most forms of social injustice such as slavery and child labor allow this.  No one has the right to benefit personally, financially or otherwise, by violating another’s rights, both human and non-human.

12.  Animals eat each other, so we can eat them.

Certain animals need to eat meat to survive, while humans do not.  These animals do not have a choice, while people do.  We can decide not to eat meat.  Countless studies show that the human consumption of animal products is bad for our health. For example, “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”[1]

13.  If we respect the rights of animals, and do not eat or use them in other ways, there will be a surplus of these animals.

Approximately 4 to 5 billion animals are raised and slaughtered for food every year, just in the United States.  In Canada, over 696 million animals are slaughtered for food every year.  The reason is a healthy consumer demand for meat.  Farm animals are  artificially inseminated, forced to reproduce in aberrantly  large numbers.

The supply of animals meets the demand of buyers.    Once the financial incentive for raising these animals begins to decline, animal production will decline and eventually be discontinued.

This inflated population will fade as people stop eating animal products.  Farm animals would be left to fend for themselves; some would perish, others would survive.

“The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them.  That is the essence of inhumanity”- George Bernard Shaw

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

Arguments Against Animal Rights Part III

5.   Although some animals can experience pain, they lack a psychological identity.

Some animals like shellfish, may be capable of experiencing pain but appear to lack other psychological faculties.  In this case, their rights might differ from the rights of humans or other non-humans.  The issue is whether there is a moral justification to cause pain to these psychologically deficient beings.

Most people agree that we should not engage in activities that cause pain and suffering to other people.  Inherent in that recognition is the knowledge that other people are capable of pain and suffering.  If an activity causes undue suffering to someone, the activity is morally unacceptable.  If we accept that animals are capable of suffering, is it not therefore morally unacceptable to cause them to suffer.  To treat animal suffering differently from human suffering is tantamount to Speciesism.

“The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?” – Jeremy Bentham

6.  Reciprocity of moral rights and duties.

The basis for this argument is that rights belong to moral agents, and animals lack moral agency.  With rights comes the responsibility to respect the rights of others. Conferment of rights implies reciprocation.

Animals cannot reciprocate.  They cannot distinguish between good or bad; they have no mens rea or requisite intent.  A tiger does not believe it is wrong to hunt and eat a human baby.  If the tiger kills a human baby, she is not guilty. She cannot make a choice on a moral basis.  Only humans understand rights.  Therefore, only humans are entitled to rights.

The philosopher best known for criticizing the animal rights view is Carl Cohen. Cohen argues against animal rights by stating, “animals cannot be the bearers of rights, because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in the human moral world and has force and applicability only within that world.”  He admits that animals are sentient – that they have a consciousness and can experience suffering, but adds that these common traits do not make animals morally equal to humans.[1]

Cohen explains that just because humans have obligations to animals, does not imply that animals have rights.  Cohen writes that an obligation is what “we ought to do,” whereas a right is “what others can justly demand that we do.”  Some obligations do not flow from rights.  Humans have an obligation to act humanely towards animals although animals have no rights.  Cohen states that humans have a moral duty not to inflict “gratuitous” pain and suffering on animals.  However, this does not mean that humans must stop every activity that is harmful to these animals.[2]

Cohen and many others opposed to the Animal Rights movement claim that only humans have the unique ability to lay down moral laws –animals do not do this.  Consequently, the status of a human baby for example, is different than that of a baby bear.  Individual persons do not qualify for rights– rights are universally human.  Rights are not tied to individual abilities.  Individuals are in a community of moral beings.  Hence, they inevitably have rights.  For example, although mentally impaired humans, humans in a coma and infants cannot make a moral claim, they have rights on the sole basis that they are homo- sapiens.  All humans as a moral species, not as individual humans, have rights.The contrary view is that having moral duties is an inappropriate criterion for rights holding.  The sole fact that one is homo-sapien is a narrow-minded justification for the establishment of rights.  We respect the rights of certain humans who do not have moral duties – babies, the severely mentally ill, the criminally insane, or otherwise deranged humans. We respect their rights and they cannot reciprocate.  These humans like non-humans do not have a duty to respect our rights. We recognize that we have a moral duty towards them, even though they cannot reciprocate.  What is true of cases involving these humans is no less true of cases involving other animals,

Jim Jones, the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple, set up a compound in Guyana, which he dubbed Jonestown.  U.S officials had been informed that Jones ruled his community with a ruthless attitude and did not permit anyone to leave.  On November 18, 1978, California Congressman Leo J. Ryan paid a visit to Jonestown.  After touring the facility, Ryan left the compound with a number of defectors.  In seeking revenge, Jones sent some of his men to the airstrip in Port Kaituma, where they gunned down Ryan and four others.  Later that same day, 909 of Jones’ followers, 303 of which were children, died of apparent cyanide poisoning. Jones died from a gunshot wound to the head consistent with suicide.

On June 10, 1991, Jaycee Lee Dugard (“Jaycee”) was kidnapped in South Lake Tahoe, California, while she was walking from home to a school bus stop. She remained missing for more than 18 years.  Immediately after Phillip Garrido (“Garrido”) kidnapped Jaycee, he forced her into a shower with him. The first time he raped her, she was still in handcuffs, in which she remained during her first week in captivity.  Almost 2 months later, Garrido moved her to another room, where she was handcuffed to the bed.  He explained that the “demon angels” let him take her and that she would help him with his sexual problems. Jaycee was kept in a hidden area behind the Garridos’ house in Antioch for 18 years. During this time, she bore two daughters who were ages 11 and 15 at the time of her reappearance.  On June 2, 2011, Garrido was sentenced to 431 years imprisonment; his wife Nancy Garrido received 36 years to life.

Does it make sense to say that these individuals are entitled to more rights and protections than a horse or a lamb solely on the basis that the species they belong to has the ability to make moral choices?

Since humans have the ability to make moral choices, we have a moral duty to ensure the protection of non-humans despite their moral deficiency as we do with humans lacking the ability to make moral decisions and those who despite their ability to make moral choices, commit utterly evil crimes.

“The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.” – Leonardo Da Vinci

[1] Carl Cohen and Tom Regan, The Animal Rights Debate (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001)

[2] Op.cit.

Arguments Against Animal Rights Part II

3.  Humans are physically, biologically superior.

The cheetah, can race up to 75 mph.  Grasshoppers can jump 20 times their own body length.  Can you run that fast or jump that high?

The Ninja Slug (Ibycus rachelae) can shoot calcium carbonate ‘love-darts’ into potential mates.  These darts fortified with hormones specifically designed to get their targets into the mood for love, increasing the chances for successful reproduction.

Opossums were created with a protein called LTNF (Lethal Toxin-Neutralizing Factor).  This protein makes them immune to the venom of snakes, bees, and scorpions. As soon as the protein detects the venom within the opossum’s body, it neutralizes the poison.

Flying Snakes are snakes that are able to flatten out their bodies, suck in their stomachs, and make daredevil leaps from treetops in order to travel faster when threatened by predators.  They can glide up to 328 feet without wings or even wing-like protrusions.

The Bombardier Beetle separately stores two chemical compounds in his body.  When in jeopardy, he pushes both chemicals through separate tubes and into an inner ‘mixing pot’ containing water and catalytic enzymes. This causes a violent chemical reaction: the liquid’s temperature rises almost to the boiling point of water.  The hot, potentially fatal substance is then ejected toward the beetle’s target.

The Mimic Octopus can actually impersonate other creatures.  Depending on the nature of the attacker, the mimic octopus intelligently decides which predator to impersonate. Mimic octopuses can copy the appearances and behaviors of lionfish, flatfish, jellyfish, stingrays, and shrimp, among others.

The Self-Healing Axolotl is a salamander.  It has the healing powers of a superhero. When one of these creatures is injured, coagulation begins immediately, and new cells start to grow.  In the case of a missing limb, a layer of skin cells begins to form at the location of the injury and new tissues begin to develop.  It just takes a few months to grow a brand new limb. The axolotl can generate new blood vessels, muscle, bone, and nerves.  The same regeneration occurs with non-vital organs, and even parts of the brain.

The Immortal Jellyfish (Turritopsis nutricula) is a species of jellyfish that never dies.  It is renowned for its ability to continually revert into the undeveloped polyp stage after reaching sexual maturity.  It does this through a process called ‘transdifferentiation’.  During this process, the jellyfish physically regresses back into the beginnings of a polyp colony, absorbs its own tentacles and bell, then rests on the sea floor and once again starts growing – it reverts into a baby after becoming an adult.  It can do this forever – it is the only known creature that is biologically immortal.

In many cases, animals have cognitive and physical abilities superior to humans.  Obviously, physical abilities cannot be used to defend speciesism.

4.   Animals do not suffer.

 A 17th century philosopher, Rene Descartes, argued that animals operated like clocks — intricate machines that have instincts, but do not suffer or feel pain.

According to Merriam-Webster.com, sentience is defined as “feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought.”  Webster’s Online Dictionary defines the word as, “state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness” and “the readiness to perceive sensations.

Most people who have lived with a companion animal would probably disagree with Descartes’ assertions in this area, having observed the animal’s reaction to pain, fear, a “treat”, or a much-loved toy.

Because a dog is capable of suffering, a dog is worthy of our moral consideration. A toaster, on the other hand, is incapable of suffering, and is therefore not worthy of our moral consideration. Although causing damage to the toaster may be morally objectionable, we have no moral duty to the toaster per se. Yet, the laws in place equate a dog to a toaster, a lamp, a cup, a bicycle, etc.

The reason people have legal rights is to prevent unjust suffering.  Similarly, the reason animals should have legal rights is to protect them from unjust suffering.

On July 7, 2012, an international panel of neuroscientists at the Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non-Human Animals signed the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which states that animals have consciousness and that humans are not unique in having consciousness.[1]

The Declaration was written by Philip Low, a researcher with dual appointments at Stanford School of Medicine and the MIT Media Lab.  The signing was done in the presence of physicist Stephen Hawking, with whom Low is working to develop a device that reads brain waves that would help Hawking communicate better. Hawking suffers from Lou Gehrig’s disease. Low stated, “Stephen was not physically able to sign it,  but I read the last two lines of the Declaration on his behalf.”[2]

The main part of the Declaration reads:

 The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states.  Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and           neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors.  Consequently, the weight of evidence  indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological     substrates that generate consciousness.  Nonhuman animals, including all  mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.[3]

When the Declaration was read at the conference, Low prefaced the reading by saying:

We all came to this consensus that in fact now was perhaps the time to make   a statement for the public, for people who are not neuroscientists but who in  fact have an interest in this topic.  Because as our tools are evolving very quickly, some of the conclusions we have are changing. Some of the  assumptions we have made are being discarded.  It might be obvious to everybody in this room that animals have consciousness.  It’s not obvious to the rest of the world.[4]

After the signing, Joseph Dial, former executive director of the Mind Science Foundation, stated:

This was a very historic evening.  What I observed happening tonight over the dinner was Stephen Hawking with you, Philip, having put this dinner together, is that people finally came to the realization that the way in which  we have understood animal consciousness was very primitive and very  backward.  And everyone tonight said what they’ve always thought, but they’ve said it now and signed it in a declaration for the public and in front  of the 60 Minutes camera saying that animal consciousness and human consciousness are of such similarity that we have to ask ourselves how    we treat animals and why we treat them the way that we do. It was  historic.   It was groundbreaking.[5]

The science underlying the Declaration was based on animal experimentation.  This was not an animal rights conference.  According to the Declaration, magpies, humans, great apes, dolphins and elephants exhibit mirror self-recognition.  The kind of consciousness required for decision-making has been observed in many more species, including invertebrates such as insects and octopi.[6]  The Declaration makes it unequivocally clear that animals are sentient beings and deserving of moral consideration.

[1] http://www.fcmconference.org

[2] Op.cit.

[3] Op.cit.

[4] Op.cit.

[5] Op.cit.

[6] Op.cit.

Arguments Against Animal Rights Part I

 1.  The fact that we are human makes us superior to animals.  Therefore, we have the fundamental right to use them unconditionally.

Speciesism is prejudice or discrimination based on species, particularly against animals.

Speciesism is an arbitrary distinction based on the belief that humans are the only species deserving of moral consideration.  Animals are denied rights solely based on their species.

Speciesism is often compared to racism or sexism.  Racists contend that the members of their race are superior to the members of other races, race being the sole reason. Sexists believe that their gender is superior to the other, gender being the sole reason.  Is George W. Bush more valuable than Martin Luther King, Jr.?  Is your mother less important than your father?  Both racism and sexism are pathetic models of bigotry.  There is no “superior” or “inferior” gender or race. Racial and gender differences are biological, not moral differences.

Like racism or sexism, the simple distinction between the human and non-human species, used to deprive the latter of rights, does not have a rational foundation.

Al Qaeda and Isis are terrorist groups consisting of homo -sapiens who perform heinous crimes such as beheadings and random bombings against innocent people, proudly murdering them by the most violent means.

John Wayne Gacy was convicted of murdering 33 young men and boys between 1972 and 1978.   Most of the bodies were found buried underneath the crawl space of his Chicago-area home. At the time of his arrest, Gacy confessed to at least 45 murders. He was ultimately sentenced to death and executed in 1994. His notorious last words: “Kiss my ass.”

On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  The attack, commonly referred to as the Oklahoma City bombing, claimed the lives of 168 people, including 19 children. McVeigh was sentenced to death and was executed on June 11, 2001.

Should these criminals be preferred over your pet dog, cat, or rabbit simply because they are technically human?

 2.  Animals lack cognitive competence: they cannot speak, have no  thoughts, feelings, desires, emotions, or interests.    Therefore, we should  dismiss animal rights.

Many individuals opposed to animal rights, regard animals as inferior to humans on the basis that they are incapable of thought, understanding, or expression.  It is common knowledge that many animals have ideas, means of communication, and feelings.  In Charles Darwin’s words, humans differ from many other animals “in degree,” not in kind.”  “There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties”.[1]  Animals are our psychological kin.  This is proven by our best science.

Traits that were once believed to be exclusive to humans can be observed in animals.

Pigs are quick learners.  They are highly intelligent, curious animals who engage in complex tasks and form elaborate and cooperative social groups.  They have behavioral similarities to humans.  “Cats look down on you; dogs look up to you; but pigs look you in the eye as equals.”  – Sir Winston Churchill

Elephants are skilled tool users and problem solvers; they are highly empathic and are self-aware.  Related elephant mothers and their children remain together during their lifetime, caring for one another’s children and forming protective circles around calves when threatened by predators. Elephant clan members talk to one another with chirps, trumpets, and rumbles.  They also communicate by nudging, kicking, tilting their heads or flapping their ears. They deliberate among themselves, make group decisions, and applaud their achievements.

Octopi are capable of storing both short and long-term memory.  In laboratory experiments, they can be trained to distinguish between different shapes and patterns.  Additionally, they have been shown to practice observational learning.[2] Dolphins have high levels of linguistic understanding, being able to comprehend sign languages, able to ‘lie’, and able to recognize themselves in mirrors.  Human toddlers are unable to do this.  Dolphins display levels of cognitive understanding and awareness equivalent to a human kindergartener.[3]

Many homo-sapiens such as profoundly mentally challenged persons or very young children do not meet the level of reasoning capabilities of many animals. We do not use or abuse human babies or other humans who are mentally challenged or in a vegetative state.  We afford them rights and have laws in place to protect those rights.  Many animals have mental abilities that rank higher than those of humans.  If we follow this argument, depending on their cognitive level, certain animals should be entitled to more rights than humans.  We would be obligated to administer cognitive ability tests to determine who would be entitled to rights.  This would mean that certain humans would have no rights and certain animals would have rights.

In this twisted reality, the dispensation of rights would depend on the individual’s (human and non-human) ability to have thoughts, expressions.  Who would decide the level of thought or communication required to have rights?  How would cognition be measured?

The simple lack of thought or communication is not an adequate argument for the use of animals. It is an arbitrary criterion for the establishment of rights.  Cognitive abilities cannot be used to defend speciesism.

[1] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 105 (Princeton Univ. Press 1981)

[2] Jennifer. A. Mather, “Navigation by Spatial Memory and Use of Visual Landmarks in Octopuses,” Journal of Comparative Physiology A 168, (1991), pp.491-497

[3] Chris Parsons, Marine Mammal Biology and Conservation (Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012)