| Animal Rights and Racism Why do people ascribe rights to non-human animals? The reason is simple. Animals, 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 non-human animals may also feel affection or hate. All animals are sentient. 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. The most fundamental rule for justice is impartiality. Rights should not be respected simply because we choose to. Otherwise this would be irrational, not to mention that this would not be ascribing rights but only privileges. Rights imply that others have duties towards the right holder. Rights are universal...we do not choose who has rights and who has not. And what do animal rights involve? They involve the treatment of individuals with respect to their inherent value, and not as mere commodities, tools or utilities. Thus, every sentient being should be treated according to his natural needs, irrespective of biological, intellectual, or other differences. This implies that we are to allow and possibly assist any individual to live his full life according to his 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-defence, or if one's life really depends upon the death of another. But generally this is not the case. So every sentient animal has rights, according to the animal rights view. All animals have rights because all animals are sentient, and they all have a welfare which may fare better or worse according to our treatment of them. The right to life and the right against unnecessary suffering imply that we are not to treat individuals as utilities, or kill individuals unless in self-defence. If an individual is a right holder, the individual's rights should not be ignored for any other's benefits. If this is true for non-human animals, (and to be for animal rights necessarily means to agree), then the same should apply to humans, since humans are also sentient and have an individual welfare. It is highly irrational and contradictory to ascribe rights to non-human animals and not to ascribe at least the same rights to humans! And where does racism come into the picture? Humans are biologically speaking, animals; moral animals, but animals none the less. So, all the reasons which demand that we acknowledge animal rights similarly demand that we acknowledge human rights. A theory that ascribes rights to non-humananimals, necessarily ascribes rights to human beings. To be for animal rights is to believe the following: All animals have the right to life and may be killed only in self-defence or if they are suffering from an incurable illness (euthanasia). All animals have the right not to be treated as things or property. All animals have the right to be protected from any human imposed abuse. If you believe the above, that is, you believe in animal rights, then you must believe all humans have at least the same rights, simply because all animals (including humans) are sentient individuals. Thus, all human beings, irrespective of race or social status, should be treated according to their natural needs, and all human beings have rights. And as with animal rights, this implies that we are to allow and possibly assist any individual to live his full life according to his nature, free from artificially induced suffering and premature death, regardless of the benefits one could accrue from the suffering or death of that individual, or the benefits one would enjoy if the plight of other human beings is ignored. Human rights, like animal rights, always override human benefits. Thus, for instance, if a person is to lose some superfluous goods so that another may live, the rights philosophy demands that this is what should be done. This implies that all civilized society should involve itself in assisting asylum seekers and people seeking refuge from poverty, war, tyranny, and other man-made hardships. Furthermore, the people who believe that basic rights do not exist, and that the only legitimate rights are those which people choose to make, are what one would define as moral relativists. Moral relativists believe that rights are not universal, and should depend on one's culture, beliefs or residence. It follows that relativists cannot complain if a country tortures either humans or other animals, unless they deny moral relativism. It also follows that moral relativists cannot be for animal rights, since to them, what's immoral depends on where the act happens and what the majority believe is just action. Therefore, the claim that "animals have rights" and asylum seekers, for instance, do not, is relativist. So, unless one is morally inconsistent and therefore irrational, to deny basic rights to asylum seekers is to deny basic rights to all non-human animals also. Although it is a fact that some racists (including the infamous Hitler) approved of policies that may have benefited some non-human animals, this does not necessarily mean that racists are for animal rights. Quite the opposite, actually. Since humans are animals, to deny equal rights to other humans would necessarily imply denying all that the animal rights philosophy stands for. Human rights are animal rights, and to be for animal rights necessarily implies that one has to be for human rights also. Fascism, which is not necessarily racist, also does not recognize animal rights, since it considers individuals as subservient to the nation, and thus, does not even recognize inalienable human rights, let alone non-human animal rights. At this point, I should stress that there is a difference between animal rightists and animal "welfarists". To be for animal rights is to be for the rights of all animals. "Welfarists” deny that any non-human animal has rights. Therefore, it is logical as well as a fact that every animal rights organisation, and every animal rights book of philosophy, all oppose racism, and in every animal rights book, the author compares speciesism with racism. And how can it be otherwise? How can one respect animals when one does not even respect people? The same reasons which demand respecting animal rights apply equally to human rights as well. To deny rights to some animals would necessitate a justification. And the reason cannot be "because I choose so". Rights are not a matter of choice. And if all animals have rights, which is what one must believe if one says dogs or cats have rights (otherwise one would have to explain why dogs have rights and cows not), then all humans must have rights for exactly the same reasons. To deny any human his rights is to deny all animals their rights. It is simply irrational to give protection from persecution to non-human animals and deny it to humans. The reality is that both human and non-human animals suffer because both are sentient. If one denies rights and protection to asylum seekers, for instance, to be consistent, one must deny them to non-human animals also, if it's a question of rights and not charity. Animal rights is about rights and not charity. So is human rights. So once again, to be for animal rights necessarily implies to be for human rights. Otherwise one would be using the term "animal rights" simply as a meaningless slogan. |
 |