| Flesh-eaters sometimes ask tricky questions to vegetarians, with the intention of proving that the animal rights philosophy is flawed. Since flesh-eating is traditionally held as morally acceptable, and since it is a common tendency in human beings to cling to age-old beliefs and traditions, many people do not consider vegetarianism an important issue and dismiss the valid arguments put forward by animal rights advocates without even taking the trouble of thinking about their valid issues. Unfortunately, most traditional major religions are many times a stumbling block for non-human animal liberation, since they always preach that non-human animals were created for human utility, even though the truth is that millions of life forms are known to have existed on Earth millions of years prior to the advent of humanity, and also the fact that humans are themselves animals. And since many people habitually let their leaders do the thinking for them, they blindly accept their conclusions, and take it for granted that there is no harm in killing other animals for a superfluous reason such as the taste of their body parts. Many flesh-eaters, either try not to think of the dead animal on their plate as having once been a living and conscious individual, or else seek excuses to justify their habit. Consequently, animal rights advocates are usually labelled as extremists, who drag compassion too far by being over-sentimental. The animal rights philosophy, if comprehensively understood, nullifies the charge of extremism by showing consistency in sound moral values; by respecting the basic rights of all sentient beings, irrespective of their utility. Thus I find that although the environmental and health implications are a great bonus to the vegetarian cause, the animal rights view is self-sufficient in showing that vegetarianism should be morally held as obligatory. Before going on, the reader must keep in mind that this introduction only scratches the surface of the animal rights philosophy. Several books have been written on the subject, and I only hope that my intro will encourage readers to a more comprehensive study. If so happens, I would have fulfilled my aim. All animals have basic rights. Of course, allowing rights to sentient non-human animals does not mean we grant any right which is applicable to humans. To say dogs have the right to free speech, for instance, is as farcical as it sounds. So where does the equality lie? It lies in our taking into consideration the fundamental necessities of any being, each according to its nature; and the most fundamental necessity for any sentient being, without which all other necessities become null, is life itself. So to deny any individual his life, is to deny him all his natural necessities. It so follows that it is not enough to say that a non-human animal is killed painlessly (modern intensive "farming" methods make this impossible anyway), but it is wrong in itself to take away a life, no matter what the utility from such a killing is. Non-human animals, like humans, are not objects or things. They are sentient individuals. Many non-human animals, like human beings, are capable of feeling pleasure, pain and anxiety. They are also conscious to the extent that they possibly try to avoid sources of pain and danger, since they are capable of memorizing things and happenings. Many may also feel affection or hate. These are all attributes that justify our granting of moral rights to non-human animals. While it is not necessary to possess all the above attributes to be granted moral rights (even some human beings may lack some of them), the more of the above one possesses, the more evident one's claim to moral rights. Thus, in not allowing moral rights to non-human animals, we would be engaging in arbitrary speciesist discrimination, unless we are prepared to deny rights to some human beings, like the severely mentally disabled persons, who certainly lack most of the above attributes. (Before anyone accuses me of claiming that disabled people have no rights, I feel I must make it clear that I'm not saying this. I'm saying that both non-human animals and humans have rights.) The most fundamental rule for justice is impartiality. What do animal rights involve? This question is prone to various conflicting answers when treating human rights, let alone animal rights! But to explain animal rights simply, one could say that they involve the treatment of individuals with respect to their inherent value, and not as mere commodities, tools, utilities or things. Thus, every sentient being should be treated according to her natural needs, irrespective of species, age, sex, beliefs, race, species or intellect. This implies that we are to allow and possibly assist any individual to live her full life according to her nature, free from artificially induced suffering and premature death, regardless of the benefits one could accrue from the suffering or death of that individual. Of course, there may be some exceptional cases where this right to life as nature intended may be overridden, like in cases of self-defense, or if one's life really depends upon the death of another. But, knowing it is very possible to live a healthy life as a vegetarian, to kill non-human animals for their pleasant taste or financial gain is not morally justified and should be legally prohibited. A common question directed to vegetarians is: "But don't some non-human animals kill other animals?"; "Isn't this the law of nature?". This question has two simple, straight-forward answers. First of all, it is a fact that unfortunately, some non-human animals need to eat other animals to live. We do not! Secondly, non-human animals, like human infants or mentally unstable people, lack the ability to fully recognize good from evil. It is for this reason that no such person can be held fully accountable for his actions, even if they result in injury or death. Of course, it may be necessary to use force to prevent the said person from causing injury or death to others, but killing him should only be taken as a last resort, and only to prevent further killings, and never as a sort of punishment or vindication. The same rule also applies to any non-human animal, who, like the human in question, lacks the ability to fully recognize good from evil actions. Other frequently asked questions are: "But don't plants also possess life?"; "Don't you kill plants?"; "And if you kill plants, why not non-human animals?". Plants have no central nervous system, and so, it is highly dubious, if not impossible, that they are capable of feeling pleasure or pain, and certainly have no concept of self. Secondly, plants do not possess any of the attributes mentioned earlier, being the ability to feel anxiety, to have the will and ability to avoid sources fo danger because of memory, etc. And anyway, even if we were to allow plants some rights, to opt to "kill" plants and not non-human animals would be to choose the necessary and lesser evil, if we are to live. If we breed non-human animals so that we murder them for food, we are killing both the animals and the plants that these animals eat. One problem people might bring upon ethical vegetarianism could be where to draw the line as far as animal rights are concerned. Do mollusks, for instance, possess any attributes to be considered as right-holders? The case for mammals is obvious due to their similarities with us. As regards to other animals, like molluscs, sentience should be the only necessary requirement for rights. To claim otherwise, would deny rights even to some human beings, as explained above. Several times, people ask me: "O.K. So you are vegetarian, but why should you impose your views on us "meat"-eaters?". My answer is simple. As every human being has the duty to see that, whenever possible, the rights of children, the disabled and the like are respected, (even though they cannot demand respect for their rights themselves), likewise, we also have the duty to see that the rights of other animal species are also respected. To expect vegetarians to be silent towards the daily unnecessary abuse, suffering and slaughter of millions of innocent and sentient non-human individuals is to expect too much from rational human beings who act morally and respect all sentient beings. It is our primary duty, whenever possible, to defend the rights of those who cannot fight for their own welfare, be they humans or other animals! Kenneth Cassar. |
 |
 |