| Why you should avoid using the term "Animal lover" The term “animal lover” should be best avoided as a term describing individuals who campaign or work for the better treatment of non-human animals, or for animal rights. The main reason is that generally speaking, people who describe themselves as "animal lovers" usually enjoy the company of some or most animals, but this does not necessarily mean that the “animal lover” holds that animals have rights, or “loves” all animals. This makes the term “animal lover” a misnomer. Such people are correctly termed as dog lovers, or cat lovers, or collectively, if this is the case, “pet” lovers, but not animal lovers. To be an animal lover would necessarily imply that one loves all animals, which is usually not the case. Strictly speaking, the only animal lover is the vegetarian or vegan who enjoys the company of (loves) all animals. This also leaves out most vegetarians or vegans as people who may be properly called "animal lovers", since, to stress the point once more, to be an "animal lover" requires one to love or enjoy the company of all animals. The correct term for non-vegetarian people who enjoy the company of “pet” animals and possibly work for better treatment of these or other animals, is “animal welfarist”. The animal welfarist may believe that non-human animals should be treated kindly, but does not believe that non-human animals have rights, and thus may accept practices which use animals or kill them. The animal welfarist cannot hold that dogs or cats have rights, otherwise he would be required to explain why he believes dogs and cats have rights, while cows and pigs do not have the same rights. The only way out of this problem for the welfarist, is to claim that he is for legal rights only, and does not believe that non-human animals have natural or moral rights. But this cuts both ways. It would mean that it would be morally justified to treat dogs cruelly if the law permits one to do so, or alternatively, that it would be ok to be cruel to some animals in one country, but not in another, since it is only the law which matters, according to this view. Moral rights, on the other hand, are universal. Finally, the vegetarian or vegan who holds that all animals have rights, may not necessarily be an “animal lover”. He may not particularly enjoy the company of non-human animals, for instance, but still holds that all animals have rights. People who are for animal rights, and campaign for the recognition of animal rights, which preclude the use and abuse of all animals, should avoid using the term "animal lovers", since to be for animal rights is a matter of justice, and not charity or love. If the above holds true, it should be clear that the term “animal lover” is too vague, strictly speaking applies only to a few individuals (leaving out even most vegetarians or vegans), and does not benefit the campaign for the recognition of animal rights, since animal rights should be recognized as a matter of justice, and not passion or emotion. Otherwise, they would be no rights at all. |
 |