I think we get into all sorts of problems when we start presupposing animals rights. Animals, to put it bluntly, have few legitimate rights. Any rights they did have would be either implicitly or explicitly embodied in the “natural order of things”, correct? And by “natural order”, I’m referring to nature with the human element removed. So, do we see these “rights” anywhere in nature? When my cat kills an insect or rodent and “plays” with it - basically, torturing it for fun - is it violating the animal’s rights? Is my little kitty immoral? Of course not. Animals, at least as far as humans are not concerned, have no rights relative to one another.
Okay, so let’s throw humans into the equation. We take the idea of human rights for granted, but where do they come from? They come from a recognition that our fellow humans are all thinking, feeling, rational creatures, and as such deserve a certain degree of respect and courtesy. Can we extend such rights to animals? Well, we theoretically could, but there’s no logical reason why we should be compelled to do so. Animals have no concept of rights, they can’t think, they can feel only in the basest and simplest of fashions. They are a separate and distinct class from humans, and the rationale for ascribing most rights to humans simply doesn’t apply to animals.
So does that mean I have no problems with seeing animals tortured or subjected to extensive suffering? No. Why not? Two reasons. First of all, there’s nothing to be gained from subjecting animals to undue suffering. A cow can be killed for food or clothing relatively quickly and painlessly. Since it can be done, I feel it should be done, so as to minimize the unhappiness of the animal. But I don’t see this is a “right” of the animal, any more than I see public maintenance of highways to be a “right” of the people. Like having the government keep up the roads, I think treating animals kindly when possible is a good idea, for a variety of reasons, many political.
Secondly, I, like many others, irrationally anthropomorphize animals. When my cat looks at me quizzically, I like to pretend he’s thinking something clever and cat-like, like “I just don’t get you humans.” In reality, anything resembling a “thought” in that cat’s head is likely more akin to “Duh.” We look at a field of cows grazing, and think “Oh, those poor cows, waiting to be slaughtered in such cramped conditions,” while the only thing running through the cow’s brain is “Chew, chew, chew, chew…” Thus, when we see an animal in a cage, or being used as a test subject, we think, “Well, if that was me, it would be a horrible violation of my rights as a human being. Therefore, it must be wrong.” In fact, this kind of rationalization is completely groundless. That animal isn’t you, it isn’t anything remotely resembling a human. It has no thoughts, it has no emotions, and anything resembling a desire to be free is just animal instinct.
Of course, there are some exceptions among more highly-developed animals, particularly primates. Their brains more closely resemble ours, and they can feel some rudimentary emotions, and have a limited capacity for genuine thought. As such, the rationale that leads us to recognize human rights can applied to them, to some extent. Still, though, they’re obviously not so advanced as to be worthy of the full range of rights of humans.
If you’re going to lobby for animal “rights”, you need to come up with some plausible reason for doing so. You also need to come up with a good place to draw the line, and why. “Because animals have feelings, too” isn’t good enough, unless you explain what you mean by “feelings”, and further, why we should care. The existence of pain sensors does not, in and of itself, prove anything. And do rodents deserve the same rights as, say, cats? How about insects? How about plants? Bacteria? Amino acid compounds?
Jeff
