Friday 23 March 2012

An answer to Tibor R Machan’s question ‘Should Animals have human rights?’


Of course not. They should have animal rights, right?

In his short article, entitled ‘Should Animals Have Human Rights?’ in this week’s The Big Issue (no. 992, March 19-25 2012) Tibor R Machan argues his case as to whether ‘human-style rights for animals should exist’ His main argument is that we humans have a moral dimension in our lives, whereas animals do not, and that because of this they are not entitled to rights (specifically, human-rights): ‘Any careful observation of the rest of nature will make it evident that applying moral criteria to how non-human animals live is an error... Ascribing rights to animals is misguided, just as it would be to ascribe guilt to them when they carry out their killings in the wild.’ Machan mixes his terms. Of course animals should not have human rights, they are not human, but animals still deserve rights.

            Machan suggests that because animals seem to have no sense of morality, human empathy for animals is not a sufficient reason to act in the interest of animal rights. He attacks the vegan lifestyle explaining that ‘vegans want everyone to act as vegans choose to, namely to refrain from killing and other wise using animals (exactly why it’s okay to kill fruits and vegetables is a complicated story told by them).’ His portrait of the militant vegan, as the slaughterers of carrots and apples, is misguided. The story is not a complicated one: vegans harvest and eat fruit and vegetables. No pain. No slavery.

 ‘Whatever may be wrong with the way some animals are treated by many human beings, it cannot be accounted for by reference to the rights of animals.’ What is wrong with the way that many animals are treated by many human beings can certainly be accounted for by reference to the rights of animals. Machan admits that humans have a sense of morality. We are capable of moral thought. Then why should we not exercise this sense of morality fully?

I implore Machan to reconsider his perception of animal rights not as based on human rights, but rather a legitimate form of empathy. 

Michael

11 comments:

  1. Well, to start with, the issues isn't whether animal rights SHOULD EXIST. They either do or they don't. But rights belong to the kind of beings that can make moral choices and since other than humans, animals cannot do that, they have no rights. But just as precious ruins or objects of art, they can have value and human beings ought to recognize this. That, however, has nothing to do with rights--rights of paintings or rights of cows!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Tibor, thank you for your response. Do you think that a human who 'values' animals has sufficient reason to follow a vegan lifestyle? I look forward to hearing back.

      Delete
    2. What about humans with considerable learning difficulties or brain damage or even babies, who might be of an intelligence no greater than animals, therefore unable to make their own moral choices? Do they have rights? Or should we enslave them?

      Delete
  2. I agree, animals don't have human rights because they don't have human responsibilities.

    But then having rights isn't binary – you can have some rights and not others. And some rights conflict with others, such as the right of free speech, so you even individual rights can be analogous.

    Children, for example, do not have the right to vote. They also have less responsibilities. It's true that there's a link between the two, but I don't think it's a direct one. Less responsibility does not necessarily entail less rights.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rights belong to humans because of their nature even if in some rare cases such a nature is not fully present, as with infants and damaged people. But such exceptions do not determine the general principle in play here or in any other context where such principles are relied upon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have just revisited the article you wrote for the big issue.
      I think there is a misunderstanding of 'animal rights'; the importance of applying rights to animals. It is not a matter of saying that humans and animals are equal, it is also not a matter of wishing that animals would change their nature. Those who believe that animals deserve rights do so in the hope that animals are not abused at the hands of humankind. Denying animals 'rights' but allowing them 'value' is just splitting hairs. In your conclusion you explain that ascribing 'rights' leads to intrusive public policy. At this point whether it's rights or value becomes irrelevant and we come to the actual nucleus of the issue. On one hand we have those who would like to exercise absolute power over animals, and on the other hand there are those who believe that human interference with animals should be restricted, tempered, or at least guided. Denying us the use of the words 'animal rights' does not debunk our logic, and it does not come to face with the key issues.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No one deserves rights, anymore than one deserves one's height or age! One either has rights or not. Abusing animals is morally objectionable, yes, but not because animals have rights; abusing ancient ruins, as I already noted, is also objectionable without their have any rights. This imperialism of rights talk is very dangerous, conceptually; animal rights is a category mistake, just as animal guilt or forgiveness would be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We could call it a fight for animal rights, or call it objection to the abuse of animals, they'd be the same thing to most vegans. Should a matter of language be the issue here? You admit that the abuse of animals is objectionable so why should it be an problem for people to follow a vegan lifestyle because they believe in upholding the rights of animals? We both know what they're referring to.

      Delete
    2. Talk of animal rights tends to politicize the issue of the treatment of animals. Rights is a political concept, introducing the need for legal enforcement, adjudication, etc.

      Delete
    3. It's partly a political issue; and why should that be a problem?

      Delete