Animal rights: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 8:

| img1 = Shanghai-monkey.jpg

| width1 = 210px

| cap1 = Animal rights advocates ~~use [[anthropomorphism]] to~~ argue that animals ought to be viewed as [[Juristic person|persons]], not property.<ref>See, for example, Francione, Gary. ''Animals as persons''. Columbia University Press, 2008, p. 1.</ref>

| lbl1 = Description

| row1 = Animals are members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment.<ref name=lead~~>[http:~~//www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/oct03/animalrights.htm "'Personhood' Redefined: Animal Rights Strategy Gets at the Essence of Being Human"], Association of American Medical Colleges, retrieved July 12, 2006; Taylor, Angus. [http://books.google.com/books?id=5oCdPwAACAAJ ''Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate''], Broadview Press, 2009.</ref>

| lbl2 = Early proponents

| row2 = [[Jeremy Bentham]] (1748–1832)<br/>[[Henry Salt]] (1851–1939)

Line 20:

| row5 = Philosophy, ethics

}}

'''Animal rights''' is a philosophical argument for the elevation in society and law of certain higher [[animal|non-human creatures]] from a status of non-sentient [[organisms]] to that of sentient creatures or [[beings]] (depending on how "[[sentience]]" is defined).<ref>For example, Steiner, Gary. In Gary Francione (ed.). ''Animals as persons: essays on the abolition of animal exploitation''. Columbia University Press, 2008, p. ix ff.</ref>

Hence to animals of a certain minimum intelligence would be extended "[[rights]]," and protections (perhaps privileges), similar or equivalent to the [[fundamental rights]] humans beings claim.<ref name=EB3>"[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007642/animal-rights Animal Rights]." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2007.</ref> The term "animal rights" represents a collection of philosophical arguments designed to have influence in social and legal contexts —ranging from a basic moral argument for [[compassion]] toward other creatures, through ''[[appeals to emotion]]'', [[anthropomorphism]], and other arguments, to suggest that those creatures have "[[rights]]," either [[legal and natural rights|constructed or natural]].

~~<!-- for the lulz: the previous text:~~

'''Animal rights''', also referred to as '''animal liberation''', is the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.<ref name=EB3>"[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007642/animal-rights Animal Rights]." ''Encyclopædia Britannica''. 2007.</ref> Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but agree that animals should be viewed as non-human [[person]]s and members of the [[moral community]], and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment.<ref name=lead>[http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/oct03/animalrights.htm "'Personhood' Redefined: Animal Rights Strategy Gets at the Essence of Being Human"], Association of American Medical Colleges, retrieved July 12, 2006; Taylor, Angus. [http://books.google.com/books?id=5oCdPwAACAAJ ''Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate''], Broadview Press, 2009.</ref> They argue that human beings should stop seeing other [[Sentience|sentient beings]] as property—not even as property to be treated kindly.<ref>For example, Steiner, Gary. In Gary Francione (ed.). ''Animals as persons: essays on the abolition of animal exploitation''. Columbia University Press, 2008, p. ix ff.</ref>

~~-->~~

The idea of awarding rights to animals has the support of legal scholars such as [[Alan Dershowitz]] and [[Laurence Tribe]] of [[Harvard Law School]],<ref>See Dershowitz, Alan. ''Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights'', 2004, pp. 198–99; "Darwin, Meet Dershowitz," ''The Animals' Advocate'', Winter 2002, volume 21; [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-257091/animal-rights "Animal Rights: The Modern Animal Rights Movement"], ''Encyclopaedia Britannica Online''. 2007; and [http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/oct03/animalrights.htm "'Personhood' Redefined: Animal Rights Strategy Gets at the Essence of Being Human"], Association of American Medical Colleges, retrieved July 12, 2006.</ref> while Toronto lawyer [[Clayton Ruby]] argued in 2008 that the movement had reached the stage the [[LGBT social movements|gay rights movement]] was at 25 years earlier.<ref name=Dube>Dube, Rebecca. [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080715.wxlpetting15/BNStory/lifeMain/home The new legal hot topic: animal law], ''The Globe and Mail'', July 15, 2008.</ref> [[Animal law]] is taught in 117 out of 180 law schools in the United States, in eight law schools in Canada, and is routinely covered in universities in philosophy or applied ethics courses.<ref>Dube, Rebecca. [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080715.wxlpetting15/BNStory/lifeMain/home The new legal hot topic: animal law], ''The Globe and Mail'', July 15, 2008; [http://aldf.org/article.php?id=445 "Animal law courses"], [[Animal Legal Defense Fund]]; Garner, Robert. ''Animals, politics and morality''. Manchester University Press, 2004, p. 4 ff.</ref>

Line 106 ⟶ 102:

In 1821, the Treatment of Horses bill was introduced by Colonel [[Richard Martin (politician)|Richard Martin]], MP for [[Galway County (UK Parliament constituency)|Galway]] in Ireland, but it was lost among laughter in the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] that the next thing would be rights for asses, dogs, and cats.<ref name=Legge41>Legge, Debbi and Brooman, Simon. ''Law Relating to Animals''. Cavendish Publishing, p. 41.</ref>

Nicknamed "Humanity Dick" by [[George IV of the United Kingdom|George IV]], Martin finally succeeded in 1822 with his "Ill Treatment of Horses and Cattle Bill," or [[wikisource:Martin's Act 1822|"Martin's Act"]], as it became known, the world's first major piece of animal protection legislation. It was given [[royal assent]] on June 22 that year as ''[[Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822|An Act to prevent the cruel and improper Treatment of Cattle]]'', and made it an offence, punishable by fines up to five pounds or two months imprisonment, to "beat, abuse, or ill-treat any horse, mare, gelding, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, steer, sheep or other cattle."<ref>[http://books.google.ca/books?id=2Kt3uatLpQUC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=jus+animalium&source=web&ots=xxf1Al6fg-&sig=Ep2jIUcnDCOcDT6-56VriDhOtJM&hl=en#PPA42,M1 "Text of An Act to prevent the cruel and improper Treatment of Cattle"] in Legge, Debbi and Brooman, Simon. ''Law Relating to Animals''. Cavendish Publishing, p. 40.</ref> Any citizen was entitled to bring charges under the Act.<ref name=Phelps100~~>Phelps, Norman. ''The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA''. Lantern Books, 2007, p. 100.<~~/~~ref~~>

Line 130 ⟶ 126:

A. Broome,

Honorary Secretary <ref name=RSPCAhistory/><ref name=Phelps100>Phelps, Norman. ''The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA''. Lantern Books, 2007, p. 100.</ref>}}

Richard Martin soon realized that magistrates did not take the Martin Act seriously, and that it was not being reliably enforced. Several members of parliament decided to form a society to bring prosecutions under the Act. The Reverend Arthur Broome, a [[Balliol College, Oxford|Balliol]] man who had recently become the vicar of Bromley-by-Bow, arranged a meeting in Old Slaughter's Coffee House in [[St. Martin's Lane]], a London café frequented by artists and actors.<ref name=RSPCAhistory>[http://www.animallaw.info/historical/articles/arukrspcahist.htm "The History of the RSPCA"], Animal Legal and Historical Center, Michigan State University College of Law, retrieved March 25, 2008.</ref>

Line 164 ⟶ 160:

In 1894, [[Henry Stephens Salt|Henry Salt]], a former master at [[Eton College|Eton]], who had set up the Humanitarian League to lobby for a ban on hunting the year before, created what Keith Tester of the [[University of Portsmouth]] has called an "[[Epistemology|epistemological]] break," in ''Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress''.<ref name=TaylorTester>Tester, Keith (1991) cited in Taylor, Angus. ''Animals and Ethics''. Broadview Press, 2009, p. 62.</ref> Salt wrote that the object of his essay was to "set the principle of animals' rights on a consistent and intelligible footing, [and] to show that this principle underlies the various efforts of humanitarian reformers ..." Concessions to the demands for ''jus animalium'' have been made grudgingly to date, he writes, with an eye on the interests of animals ''qua'' property, rather than as rights bearers:

{{cquote|Even the leading advocates of animal rights seem to have shrunk from basing their claim on the only argument which can ultimately be held to be a really sufficient one—the assertion that animals, as well as men, though, of course, to a far less extent than men, are possessed of a distinctive individuality, and, therefore, are in justice entitled to live their lives with a due measure of that "restricted freedom" to which Herbert Spencer alludes.<ref name=Salt1>Salt, Henry S. ''[http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt01.htm Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress''], Macmillan & Co., 1894, chapter 1. He cited Spencer's definition of rights: "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal liberty of any other man ... Whoever admits that each man must have a certain restricted freedom, asserts that it is right he should have this restricted freedom.... And hence the several particular freedoms deducible may fitly be called, as they commonly are called, his rights."</ref>}}

He argued that there is no point in claiming rights for animals if we subordinate those rights to human desire, and took issue with the idea that the life of a human might have more moral worth or purpose. "[The] notion of the life of an animal having 'no moral purpose,' belongs to a class of ideas which cannot possibly be accepted by the advanced humanitarian thought of the present day—it is a purely arbitrary assumption, at variance with our best instincts, at variance with our best science, and absolutely fatal (if the subject be clearly thought out) to any full realization of animals' rights. If we are ever going to do justice to the lower races, we must get rid of the antiquated notion of a "great gulf" fixed between them and mankind, and must recognize the common bond of humanity that unites all living beings in one universal brotherhood."<ref name=Salt1~~>Salt, Henry S. ''[http:~~//www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt01.htm Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress''], Macmillan & Co., 1894, chapter 1. He cited Spencer's definition of rights: "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal liberty of any other man ... Whoever admits that each man must have a certain restricted freedom, asserts that it is right he should have this restricted freedom.... And hence the several particular freedoms deducible may fitly be called, as they commonly are called, his rights."</ref>

====Late 1890s: Opposition to anthropomorphism====