The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit
in a variety of ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to
them apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they
are aware of it. What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life
that fares better or worse for the one whose life it is.
That life includes a variety of biological, individual, and social
needs. The satisfaction of these needs is a source of pleasure, their
frustration or abuse, a source of pain. In these fundamental ways, the
nonhuman animals in labs and on farms, for example, are the same as
human beings. And so it is that the ethics of our dealings with them,
and with one another, must acknowledge the same fundamental moral principles.
At its deepest level, human ethics is based on the independent value
of the individual: The moral worth of any one human being is not to
be measured by how useful that person is in advancing the interest of
other human beings. To treat human beings in ways that do not honor
their independent value is to violate that most basic of human rights:
the right of each person to be treated with respect.
The philosophy of animal rights demands only that logic be respected.
For any argument that plausibly explains the independent value of human
beings implies that other animals have this same value, and have it
equally. And any argument that plausibly explains the right of humans
to be treated with respect, also implies that these other animals have
this same right, and have it equally, too.
It is true, therefore, that women do not exist to serve men, blacks
to serve whites, the poor to serve the rich, or the weak to serve the
strong. The philosophy of animal rights not only accepts these truths,
it insists upon and justifies them.
But this philosophy goes further. By insisting upon and justifying
the independent value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically
informed and morally impartial reasons for denying that these animals
exist to serve us.
Once this truth is acknowledged, it is easy to understand why the philosophy
of animal rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every
injustice other animals are made to suffer.
It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of
animals used in science, for example, but empty cages: not "traditional"
animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the flesh
of dead animals; not "more humane" hunting and trapping, but
the total eradication of these barbarous practices.
For when an injustice is absolute, one must oppose it absolutely. It
was not "reformed" slavery that justice demanded, not "re-
formed" child labor, not "reformed" subjugation of women.
In each of these cases, abolition was the only moral answer. Merely
to reform injustice is to prolong injustice.
The philosophy of animal rights demands this same answer-- abolition--in
response to the unjust exploitation of other animals. It is not the
details of unjust exploitation that must be changed. It is the unjust
exploitation itself that must be ended, whether on the farm, in the
lab, or among the wild, for example. The philosophy of animal rights
asks for nothing more, but neither will it be satisfied with anything
10 Reasons FOR Animal Rights and
1. The philosophy of animal rights is rational
Explanation: It is not rational to discriminate arbitrarily. And discrimination against nonhuman
animals is arbitrary. It is wrong to treat weaker human beings, especially those who are lacking in normal human
intelligence, as "tools" or "renewable resources" or "models" or "commodities."
It cannot be right, therefore, to treat other animals as if they were "tools," "models and the like,
if their psychology is as rich as (or richer than) these humans. To think otherwise is irrational.
"To describe an animal as a physico-chemical system of extreme complexity is no doubt perfectly correct,
except that it misses out on the 'animalness' of the animal."
-- E.F. Schumacher
2. The philosophy of animal rights is scientific
Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general
and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other
animals "in degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the
animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are
our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science.
"There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"
-- Charles Darwin
3. The philosophy of animal rights is unprejudiced
Explanation: Racists are people who think that the members of their race are superior
to the members of other races simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") race. Sexists
believe that the members of their sex are superior to the members of the opposite sex simply because the former
belong to their (the "superior") sex. Both racism and sexism are paradigms of unsupportable bigotry.
There is no "superior" or "inferior" sex or race. Racial and sexual differences are biological,
not moral, differences.
The same is true of speciesism -- the view that members of the species Homo sapiens are superior to members
of every other species simply because human beings belong to one's own (the "superior") species. For
there is no "superior" species. To think otherwise is to be no less predjudiced than racists or sexists.
"If you can justify killing to eat meat, you can justify the conditions of the ghetto. I cannot justify
-- Dick Gregory
4. The philosophy of animal rights is just
Explanation: Justice is the highest principle of ethics. We are not to commit or permit injustice
so that good may come, not to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit. Slavery allowed this.
Child labor allowed this. Most examples of social injustice allow this. But not the philosophy of animal rights,
whose highest principle is that of justice: No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights,
whether that "other" is a human being or some other animal.
"The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those
unfortunate slaves -- the (other) animals"
- John Stuart Mill
5. The philosophy of animal rights is compassionate
Explanation: A full human life demands feelings of empathy and sympathy -- in a word, compassion
-- for the victims of injustice -- whether the victims are humans or other animals. The philosophy of animal rights
calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, the virtue of compassion. This philosophy is, in Lincoln's
workds, "the way of a whole human being."
"Compassion in action may be the glorious possibility that could protect our crowded, polluted planet
-- Victoria Moran
6. The philosophy of animal rights is unselfish
Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights demands a commitment to serve those who are
weak and vulnerable -- those who, whether they are humans or other animals, lack the ability to speak for or defend
themselves, and who are in need of protection against human greed and callousness. This philosophy requires this
commitment, not because it is in our self-interest to give it, but because it is right to do so. This philosophy
therefore calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, unselfish service.
"We need a moral philosophy in which the concept of love, so rarely mentioned now by philosophers, can
once again be made central."
-- Iris Murdoch
7. The philosophy of animal rights is individually fulfilling
Explanation: All the great traditions in ethics, both secular and religious, emphasize the
importance of four things: knowledge, justice, compassion, and autonomy. The philosophy of animal rights is no
exception. This philosophy teaches that our choices should be based on knowledge, should be expressive of compassion
and justice, and should be freely made. It is not easy to achieve these virtues, or to control the human inclinations
toward greed and indifference. But a whole human life is imposssible without them. The philosophy of animal rights
both calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, individual self-fulfillment.
"Humaneness is not a dead external precept, but a living impulse from within; not self-sacrifice, but
-- Henry Salt
8. The philosophy of animal rights is socially progressive.
Explanation: The greatest impediment to the flourishing of human society is the exploitation
of other animals at human hands. This is true in the case of unhealthy diets, of the habitual reliance on the "whole
animal model" in science, and of the many other forms animal exploitation takes. And it is no less true of
education and advertising, for example, which help deaden the human psyche to the demands of reason, impartiality,
compassion, and justice. In all these ways (and more), nations remain profoundly backward because they fail to
serve the true interests of their citizens.
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
9. The philosophy of animal rights is environmentally
Explanation: The major cause of environmental degradation, including the greenhouse effect,
water pollution, and the loss both of arable land and top soil, for example, can be traced to the exploitation
of animals. This same pattern exists throughout the broad range of environmental problems, from acid rain and ocean
dumping of toxic wastes, to air pollution and the destruction of natural habitat. In all these cases, to act to
protect the affected animals (who are, after all, the first to suffer and die from these environmental ills), is
to act to protect the earth.
"Until we establish a felt sense of kinship between our own species and those fellow mortals who share
with us the sun and shadow of life on this agonized planet, there is no hope for other species, there is no hope
for the environment, and there is no hope for ourselves."
-- Jon Wynne-Tyson
10. The philosophy of animal rights is peace-loving.
Explanation: The fundamental demand of the philosophy of animal rights is to treat humans
and other animals with respect. To do this requires that we not harm anyone just so that we ourselves or others
might benefit. This philosophy therefore is totally opposed to military aggression. It is a philosophy of peace.
But it is a philosophy that extends the demand for peace beyond the boundaries of our species. For there is a war
being waged, every day, against countless millions of nonhuman animals. To stand truly for peace is to stand firmly
against speciesism. It is wishful thinking to believe that there can be "peace in the world" if we fail
to bring peace to our dealings with other animals.
"If by some miracle in all our struggle the earth is spared from nuclear holocaust, only justice to
every living thing will save humankind."
-- Alice Walker
10 Reasons AGAINST
Animal Rights and
1. You are equating animals and humans, when,
in fact, humans and animals differ greatly.
Reply: We are not saying that
humans and other animals are equal in every way. For example, we
are not saying that dogs and cats can do calculus, or that pigs
and cows enjoy poetry. What we are saying is that, like humans,
many other animals are psychological beings, with an experiential
welfare of their own. In this sense, we and they are the same. In
this sense, therefore, despite our many differences, we and they
"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter
this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals."
-- Peter Singer
2. You are saying that every human and every
other animal has the same rights, which is absurd. Chickens cannot have
the right to vote, nor can pigs have a right to higher education.
Reply: We are not saying that
humans and other animals always have the same rights. Not even all
human beings have the same rights. For example, people with serious
mental disadvantages do not have a right to higher education. What
we are saying is that these and other humans share a basic moral
right with other animals -- namely, the right to be treated with
"It is the fate of every truth to be an object of ridicule
when it is first acclaimed."
-- Albert Schweitzer
3. If animals have rights, then so do vegetables,
which is absurd.
Reply: Many animals are like
us: they have a psychological welfare of their own. Like us, therefore,
these animals have a right to be treated with respect. On the other
hand, we have no reason, and certainly no scientific one, to believe
that carrots and tomatoes, for example, bring a psychological presence
to the world. Like all other vegetables, carrots and tomatoes lack
anything resembling a brain or central nervous system. Because they
are deficient in these respects, there is no reason to think of
vegetables as psychological beings, with the capacity to experience
pleasure and pain, for example. It is for these reasons that one
can rationally affirm rights in the case of animals and deny them
in the case of vegetables.
"The case for animal rights depends only on the need for sentiency."
-- Andrew Linzey
4. Where do you draw the line? If primates and
rodents have rights, then so do slugs and amoebas, which is absurd.
Reply: It often is not easy
to know exactly where to "draw the line." For example,
we cannot say exactly how old someone must be to be old, or how
tall someone must be to be tall. However, we can say, with certainty,
that someone who is eighty-eight is old, and that another person
who is 7'1" is tall. Similarly, we cannot say exactly where
to draw the line when it comes to those animals who have a psychology.
But we can say with absolute certainty that, wherever one draws
the line on scientific grounds, primates and rodents are on one
side of it (the psychological side), whereas slugs and amoebas are
on the other -- which does not mean that we may destroy them unthinkingly.
"In the relations of humans with the animals, with the flowers,
with all the objects of creation, there is a whole great ethic scarcely
seen as yet."
-- Victor Hugo
5. But surely there are some animals who can experience
pain but lack a unified psychological identity. Since these animals
do not have a right to be treated with respect, the philosophy of animal
rights implies that we can treat them in any way we choose.
Reply: It is true that some
animals, like shrimp and clams, may be capable of experiencing pain
yet lack most other psychological capacities. If this is true, then
they will lack some of the rights that other animals possess. However,
there can be no moral justification for causing anyone pain, if
it is unnecessary to do so. And since it is not necessary that humans
eat shrimp, clams, and similar animals, or utilize them in other
ways, there can be no moral justification for causing them the pain
that invariably accompanies such use.
"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?'
but 'Can they suffer?"
-- Jeremy Bentham
6. Animals don't respect our rights. Therefore,
humans have no obligation to respect their rights either.
Reply: There are many situations in which
an individual who has rights is unable to respect the rights of
others. This is true of infants, young children, and mentally
enfeebled and deranged human beings. In their case we do not say
that it is perfectly all right to treat them disrespectfully because
they do not honor our rights. On the contrary, we recognize that
we have a duty to treat them with respect, even though they have
no duty to treat us in the same way.
What is true of cases involving infants, children, and the other
humans mentioned, is no less true of cases involving other animals,
Granted, these animals do not have a duty to respect our rights.
But this does not erase or diminsh our obligation to respect theirs.
"The time will come when people such as I will look upon the
murder of (other) animals as they no look upon the murder of human beings."
-- Leonardo Da Vinci
7. God gave humans dominion over other animals.
This is why we can do anything to them that we wish, including eat them.
Reply: Not all religions represent humans
as having "dominion" over other animals, and even among
those that do, the notion of "dominion" should be understood
as unselfish guardianship, not selfish power. Humans are to be
as loving toward all of creation as God was in creating it. If
we loved the animals today in the way humans loved them in the
Garden of Eden, we would not eat them. Those who respect the rights
of animals are embarked on a journey back to Eden -- a journey
back to a proper love for God's creation.
"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which
is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
-- Genesis 1:29
8. Only humans have immortal souls. This gives
us the right to treat the other animals as we wish.
Reply: Many religions teach that all animals,
not just humans, have immortal souls. However, even if only humans
are immortal, this would only prove that we live forever whereas
other animals do not. And this fact (if it is a fact) would increase,
not decrease, our obligation to insure that this -- the only life
other animals have -- be as long and as good as possible.
"There is no religion without love, and people may talk as
much as they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them
to be good and kind to other animals as well as humans, it is all a
-- Anna Sewell
9. If we respect the rights of animals,
and do not eat or exploit them in other ways, then what are we supposed
to do with all of them? In a very short time they will be running through
our streets and homes.
Reply: Somewhere between 4-5 billion animals
are raised and slaughtered for food every year, just in the United
States. The reason for this astonishingly high number is simple:
there are consumers who eat very large amounts of animal flesh.
The supply of animals meets the demand of buyers.
When the philosophy of animal rights triumphs, however, and people
become vegetarians, we need not fear that there will be billions
of cows and pigs grazing in the middle of our cities or in our
living rooms. Once the financial incentive for raising billions
of these animals evaporates, there simply will no be not be millions
of these animals. And the same reasoning applies in other cases
-- in the case of animals bred for research, for example. When
the philosophy of animal rights prevails, and this use of these
animals cease, then the financial incentive for breeding millions
of them will cease, too.
"The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them,
but to be indifferent to them. That is the essence of inhumanity"
-- George Bernard Shaw
10. Even if other animals do have moral rights
and should be protected, there are more important things that need our
attention -- world hunger and child abuse, for example, apartheid, drugs,
violence to women, and the plight of the homeless. After we take care
of these problems, then we can worry about animals rights.
Reply: The animal rights movement stands
as part of, not apart from, the human rights movement. The same
philosophy that insists upon and defends the rights of nonhuman
animals also insists upon and defends the rights of human beings.
At a practical level, moreover, the choice thoughtful people
face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One
can do both. People do not need to eat animals in order to help
the homeless, for example, any more than they need to use cosmetics
that have been tested on animals in order to help children. In
fact, people who do respect the rights of nonhuman animals, by
not eating them, will be healthier, in which case they actually
will be able to help human beings even more.
"I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That
is the way of a whole human being."