Alexis Alberson
Prof. Sauls
English Comp II
Part I
Why Do Animals Deserve Legal Rights?
In the United States, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights provide broad human rights protections. As humans, we are at the top of the food chain so we are expected to be granted these necessary rights; but, what about animals? Why are they not given the same rights to themselves as we are?
Through experimentation, slaughtering, overbreeding and many more inhumane acts, we are greedily and thoughtlessly rewarding ourselves with improvements to benefit ourselves via the pain and suffering of another species. They have a moral status, too. They are valued by their own, too. We strip them of their rights and claim they have no soul to make it morally acceptable and “politically correct”.
“To be 'for animals' is not to be 'against humanity.' To require others to treat animals justly, as their rights require, is not to ask for anything more nor less in their case than in the case of any human to whom just treatment is due. The animal rights movement is a part of, not opposed to, the human rights movement. Attempts to dismiss it as anti-human are mere rhetoric.” Tom Regan, American philosopher and author of “The Case for Animal Rights” makes it very potent in one of his most famous quotes that to be pro-animal rights does not mean that you are against humans having the rights we’ve been given, but that you are seeking equal rights among all mammals.
All living things make up the entirety of this ecosystem. Why is there still a moral and legal distinction between human and non-human animals? The warped mind of our world views animals as resources here for us. A poorly built system that instills in us that they are our personal property to surgically manipulate and exploit for money or for sport (Regan, 1983).
“The day may come when the rest of animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withheld from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the velocity of the skin, or the termination of the sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conservable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?”
In this passage by Jeremy Bentham, he is articulating that non-human animals who have the characteristics of being able to feel suffering, sadness, happiness, and joy should be given equal consideration no matter the color of their skin or number of legs they walk on. Suffering in itself is a fundamental trait within itself that should safeguard any living species. Animals have been deemed soul-less and that they do not feel emotions in the way that we as Homo sapiens do. Suffering cannot be founded solely on whether or not an animal may show emotion externally. Animals do not have the same facial muscles or structures humans do, so our physical display of emotion cannot be comparable to theirs. It is also important to understand that each species, dog or sheep, is manifested by their own unique way of reacting to pain related behaviors. The welfare and interest of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of every other being (Singer, 1975).
The controversy of whether an animal has the mental capacity for meaningful relationships, whether they have a soul, or the questionable amount of intelligence one must obtain for self-awareness is not relevant to inflicting pain. Agony is agony.
“The evil of pain is, in itself, unaffected by the other characteristics of the being that feels the pain; the value of life is affected by these other characteristics.” (Singer, 1975)
There is a broad spectrum to the animal rights movement. It does not demonstrate only on the behalf of dogs, cats, horses, or most family pets that we relate to. The animal rights movement speaks on the totality of the animal species; this includes the inclining number of over 100 million rats, birds, rabbits & other vertebrae species that are used as tools for research in laboratory experiments annually.
The practice of experimentation on animals is used in order to ensure that certain substances or products are safe for human consumption. One standard experiment that has been administered since 1944 is known as the Draize eye irritancy test. This test includes pulling the bottom eyelid out to form a cup and dropping drain cleaner, cosmetics, dishwashing liquid and other chemical substances in the eyes of usually an albino rabbit. The chemicals are then left to see if they cause irritation, cloudiness, swelling, discharge, hemorrhaging, or blindness. Once the experiment is over and the animal shows any of the signs, they are killed.
Another notorious animal toxicity experiment is called the “Lethal Dose 50 Percent” or “LD50”. This test involves giving an animal a chemical substance through skin application, force- feeding, vein injection, through abdominal cavity, and/or by inhalation. This experiment is performed to determine the dose that kills 50% of the test animals. These tests are performed without any anesthetic or pain relief.
Tom Regan argues, “Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment” (qtd. in Orlans 26). He goes on to say, “ animal experimentation is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit, because the animals basic right has been infringed. Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not choose to take them” (qtd. Orlans 26).
Animals do not voluntarily donate their lives and well being to the gratification and achievement of human advancements and welfare. But, because these mute, sentient creatures cannot vocalize to speak in favor or defend themselves, we take control of their decision for them. At that time, their equally justifiable rights have been totally abolished and voided from them. One of the most nauseating, appalling, and unfortunate truths of this sickened system is that these innocent animals are completely unaware of what lies for their short lived, miserable, and excruciating days ahead.
The methods used for testing are obsolete and no longer essential to the development of humans. Researchers have found less expensive, more relevant to humans, viable, faster, and more humane non-animal experiment methods. One of the alternatives is the “in vitro” method which uses human cells and tissues to quickly replicate the same symptoms a human would incur. They have found “in silico” modeling, which through computer is able to simulate the progression of developing diseases and is able to emulate the reaction of new drugs in the bodies system. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a sophisticated and advanced way of brain imaging that can provide an alternative for invasive and insensitive brain research on animals.
Testing harmful and deadly chemical substances on an animal when we have knowingly proven substitute methods that are equally feasible is not only unnecessary, but is inhuman, evil and cruel no matter how rationalized it is and how sugar-coated it’s portrayed to be.
“Some there are who resist the idea that animals have inherent value. ‘Only humans have such value,’ they profess… “but, there are many, many humans who fail to meet these standards and yet are reasonably viewed as having value above and beyond their usefulness to others.”
Is it not despicable that we are subject daily to the presence of cruel, ruthless, barbaric people who were served undue justice and yet they are still unlawfully granted with more inherent value than a faultless animal?