Animal Aid

Our Great Debate on the philosophical basis of animal protection continues to provoke lively and thoughtful dispute. Here's an exchange between Dave Eaton - author of our first contribution - and a New York City resident.

Dear Mr Eaton,

If I may share my opinion with you, I'd like to note that I find it difficult to have a well thought out moral position without any philosophical basis. Without some philosophical format, Animal Rights appears to only be a matter of belief and though a compassionate one, without enough foundation.

I know from debating with opponents that they seek very specific reasons why animal rights should be recognized. I've heard many criticisms from opponents who accuse us of "trying to distance humanity from nature" - all the way to the notion that legislated rights will only "restrict the actions of humans and since animals cannot be forced to respect each other's rights, they therefore can hold no rights". Whether it is moral or philosophical, it seems clear to me that within nature, no animal exists for another. Biology shows us that each animal is complete and has his/her own innate protections. No animal, either predator or prey, exists for the sake of another animal. The lamb lives for the lamb, not for the wolf or the shepherd. Opponents of Animal Rights seek to maintain the predator to prey connection and purport that this is what is "natural" and should be maintained; but unless someone rationalizes that one animal exists for another, this excuse is NOT applicable. No doubt predators are obligated to kill prey for their own survival but this takes place in a very random manner, certainly not (in my opinion) because nature somehow ordained that one animal should have rights over another. If that were really the case, then prey would not have innate protections, but in fact, they do. There is no true comparison between the natural predator/prey relationship and our selected use of animals. So this accusation is false.

The idea that animals cannot be rights holders because they cannot respect each other's rights is also untrue because humans cannot legislate what we do not participate in. The opposition purports that the lion does not respect the zebra and thus neither can have established rights. I think that is ludricrous (even though some well educated people believe it) because we don't participate in lions killing zebras, and of course we should have no legal jurisdiction in what we don't take part in. Where does somone begin to look at evolutionary adaptation? I don't think we can simply say that humans evolved to eat meat unless we also consider that humans naturally make their own cholesterol, taurine, carnitine (and maybe other nutrients) that make it possible for us to live without meat. It may be necessary in some cultures for humans to eat meat because there is not adequate nutrition from other sources. In that context of survival, we are not different from other animals who must kill to survive; but in my opinion what is necessary is still not moral. This does not mean I think people should starve rather than eat meat, and I do understand how people would hunt for food to avoid starvation; but I don't believe participating in the predator/prey cycle - even to ensure survival - should be elevated to a moral precept.

Thank you for your informative web site and for the opportunity to share my opinion.

Yours truly,
Ellie Maldonado
New York City

Hi Ellie,

Thanks a lot for your thoughts on what I put in my article on the Great Debate website. It's always good to get feedback. It is difficult to agree on these issues sometimes because of the different connotations that people put on the idea of 'rights'. I certainly agree strongly with you that no animal should exist purely for another animal (or human animal) and in a sense this could be called a 'right' (e.g. a right not to be the property of another). But establishing philosophically that such things as rights actually exist is very difficult. I used to be as frustrated as you are with philosophers who said this - of course, 'rights' are just a way of saying that certain ways of behaving towards another creature are morally objectionable. But (and this is only my personal interpretation of the situation) analytical philosophy has an annoying way of reifying terms and arguing over them to the point where they lose some of their relevance to reality and to solving real dilemmas. I would be very pleased to see it established legally that animals have much stronger rights than they do now because this would be the safest way to get rid of such abhorent things as the meat trade and vivisection. But I tend to think that if we are going to take the debate forward and engage all of the criticisms that are thrown at the animal rights movement then we have to be flexible and incorporate as many different perspectives as possible.

For example, I suspect we both agree that our society as a whole is going very wrong in more ways than just how we treat animals. Our treatment of the natural world in a wider sense is arrogant and destructive and this is partly because western culture has separated us from it to the point where we begin to lose sight of what it might mean to have a close and caring relationship with it. This is what I referred to when I mentioned the distancing of humanity from nature. My point here is that in nature itself, rights don't exist.... are fairly meaningless. They only have meaning (and are only needed, as I think you pointed out), when applied to the crazy, insensitive, abusive way that modern humans have come to live. And while we desperately need to oppose the awful way that humanity treats animals, it also seems important to me (for our own sanity as much as for the common future of the world) that we learn to think our thoughts and to create our culture, in ways that resonate more with the natural world, and emphasise our connectedness to it. This doesn't mean reverting to primitivism and predator/prey relationships as some critics of animal liberation would have it.... it means (to me at least) finding ways to articulate our respect, wonder, love and our desire to protect animals, that don't conspire with the more mechanistic and detached elements of our social world. By taking on board the criticism that is thrown at animal liberation philosophy, we can make it stronger, we can make it more wide ranging, and just possibly one day we can integrate it into a complete and holistic worldview that might have the potential to rescue our culture from the path it is currently on. Sounds farfetched, maybe, but idealistic goals are the best kind.

Of course, problems can arise when the idealistic position I just described comes up against the hardheaded short term self interest of the sort of people who support the meat industry and the non-sustainable exploitation of nature. They don't want to look at the issues in any depth. They want to be able to come out with glib answers that make your arguments look ridiculous, and I can't deny you will have big problems trying to put across a complex idea to people like that. In one sense therefore, there is a big problem with what I've said against the idea of 'rights'. If we can get an argument based on rights over to people that wouldn't be receptive to the more difficult position I have hinted at then we have to engage in that way. But we also have to engage with other debates, and with criticism that is honestly intended as well.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Yours,
Dave

Dear Dave,

Thanks so much for your reply. I wasn't at all sure that my email made sense, and I'm glad you mentioned the difficulty in trying to explain any type of philosophical basis for "rights" (not that I know much about analytical philosophy). I definitely agree that this whole world is arrogant and headed in a very destructive direction. With such a self-centered foundation, I think it's no wonder that animals are abused so terribly.

Basically, my experience debating on behalf of animals has been limited to the AOL message board. I previously spent about six months hashing out arguments with people whose main goal is making animal rights look ridiculous. It's amazing how some people are actually determined to squelsh our activity, and they will resort to condoning all sorts of brutality against animals in order to make their "point". I'm not so sure it stops there! Not only were some of the posters involved in hunting, research, and factory farms, but some seem to lack sanity with regard to fighting wars and recognizing even human rights. Many stated that outside of individual beliefs, even the right to be free does not really exist. According to them, if a culture believes slavery is acceptable, then humans rights are not violated by keeping people slaves. This is where I think it gets confusing as we recognize that "in nature there are no rights". Yes, I see that's true in nature, but does that also mean that people are not born free, I wonder. It seems to me that slavery is a human construct which is imposed upon a "natural" state.

Well whatever. Whether it's a question of morals or my getting tongue tied trying to explain "rights", I think it's because humans have choices that we in turn have the responsibility to be moral.

Thanks again.
Ellie Maldonado

Remember, you don't have to be a philosophy graduate to take part in the Great Debate. Nor do you have to speak a complicated special language. If you have a thoughtful, well reasoned set of ideas that you believe would carry the debate forward, then we want to hear from you. Please send an outline of your proposed article (no more than 200 words) to info@animalaid.org.uk - mark it: GREAT DEBATE.