| Which comes first - human or animal rights? I've heard this question asked so many times:- "How can you waste time on animal rights when human rights are still being trampled on today?". A simple answer would be that someone has to do it, and the fact that there is human misery all around us is no excuse to do nothing on behalf of non-human animals. But this is a complex question and demands a similar complex answer. I shall hereby treat the main issues in defence of animal rights campaigning. There is no direct competition between non-human animal rights and human rights issues. They go hand in hand. It's not a question of who comes first. Both are important. The above question would seem like the question of whether to struggle and do your bit against the exploitation of workers in sweatshops or working against child abuse. Should we choose? Or should we do our bit to stop them both? I think you will figure out the answer for yourself. There are many reasons why campaigning or acting for animal rights is important, many of which are explained in detail on other pages in this website. But other reasons might be missed by the inexperienced potential rights activist. First of all, humans are animals. Humans may be more intelligent (though not all humans are); may have developed higher emotional feelings (though this is probably untrue, and several other species may have higher emotions); religious creeds might ascribe a soul to humans and not to other animals; but this does not change the fact that biologically speaking, humans are mammals. Secondly, there are many ways in which human and non-human animal rights are interconnected. The mass-breeding and murder of non-human animals for their flesh, besides the direct cruelty to the animals, produces waste, pollution, and helps produce a culture where it is ok to abuse sentient creatures for the overall good - a utilitarian philosophy which animal rights activists certainly do not ascribe to. Please note that "animal rights" campaigners like Peter Singer - a utilitarian philosopher - are not animal rights adherents. Peter Singer himself admits that he used the term "animal rights" for convenience's sake. But it is a benefit that his utilitarian philosophy also may leads to better treatment of non-human animals and the end of the killing of animals in slaughterhouses and laboratories, to name just two examples. Thirdly, it should also be noted that where human rights are abused, animal rights will also necessarily be abused and vice-versa. Let's take war and poverty for two examples. In war, no one is spared, be they humans or other animals. So does povery, where starvation effects both humans and non-human animals. It so follows that if one works to stop either or both afflictions, one would be helping both humans and other animals. It is also believed by many, that cruelty to non-human animals leads to cruelty to human beings. Also, if one is cruel to human beings, one most probably would not care about other animals either. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. Finally, I believe that people who choose to campaign for human rights could still be part of the animal rights movement, and that people campaigning for animal rights could still be part of the human rights movement. One of the "weapons" of a rights activist is his purchasing power. Most abuses are backed or driven by financial interests. So the least one could do is to boycott products which involve any kind of cruelty, be they clothing made in sweatshops or by child-labour (human rights abuse), or be they clothing and food or other products which involve the abuse, suffering and killing of non-human animals (animal rights abuse). One does not have to choose between human or animal rights. One can respect and work for both, even with minimal effort. The final goal should be a better world for all, and this woud be possible if everyone did his bit. Until this happens, there will be human rights and animal rights campaigners who will work together for a common aim - a better world for all. |
 |