Traditionally, moral philosophers discussed ethical issues in terms of humanrelationships. Individuals have moral rights (to human dignity) which others have to honour. In their turn, individuals should discharge similar obligations they owe to others. Philosophers excluded animal kingdom and Nature from moral discourse. According to conventional thinking, the terminology of Ethics or its categories are inapplicable to non-human entities. As we shall see, this view is derived from Western religious and philosophical traditions.
This approach towards animal rights is partly based on Judaeo-Christian religious ideas. In support of this view, authors usually cite Genesis, the part of the Bible which deals with God’s creation of the world. In it, men are exhorted, “to fill theearth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and everyliving thing that moves upon earth.” Another portion later says, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” This may seem to give unfettered licence to man to exploit other animals. But it was greatly diluted by preachers like St. Francis of Assisi, famous for his love of animals. However, the injunctions of the Bible promoted a tendency to regard animals as resources for human use.
Early philosophical thought reinforced this attitude. Rene Descartes, the founder of modern philosophy, regarded animals as biological automata. He believed (wrongly) that human reason is located in a non-material mind; animals lacked mind, and could have no feelings and pains. Immanuel Kant gave other grounds for excluding animals from moral considerations. As we saw, Kant urged that human beings should be treated as ends in themselves and not as means or instruments for achieving any other objectives, no matter however noble. He grounded this moral status of men in their ability to reason or to think conceptually. In modern terms, the sacredness of human life arises because men possess intelligence, reason and autonomy. This view automatically excludes animals, from moral consideration. Incidentally, Kant opposed cruel treatment of animals because it would make men coarse and cruel.
Another way of expressing this idea is that concepts of morality have application only within human society, and applying them to non-human context involves a ‘category error’. In the words of Carl Cohen, “The misapplication of conceptsleads toerrorand, sometimes, to nonsense. Soit iswithrightsalso. Tosay that ratshave rights isto apply to the world of rats aconcept that makesgood sense whenapplied to humans, but which makes no sense at all when applied to rats’. Similarly, no arguments can ever be made in support of emotions of oak trees or criminality of snakes.
A stream of social thought known as ‘contractarianism’ implies that morality is exclusively a human institution. Morality consists of mutually agreed rules of behaviour whose purpose is to ensure smooth and harmonious working of social arrangements. As morality is viewed as a contract, it becomes applicable to only those members who participate in it. This idea of a kind of social contract is a legal fiction. It is a way of visualizing how social norms come into being and why they
command wide acceptance. One problem with this view is that morality becomes inapplicable to those, who in some sense are excluded from the imaginary contract. This can give rise to discriminatory behaviour even within human societies. In any case, it will automatically exclude animals which cannot even notionally be parties to any contract.
From early 1970s, environmental issues and animal rights became popular topics of discussion both among philosophers and lay public. (Recently in our country, public interest in Jallikattu and other animal sports has reignited the debate on animal rights.) In 1975, Peter Singer published his work Animal Liberation. Its basic message is---‘All animals areequal’. It impliesthat humanbeings are also (biologically speaking) animals, and should not ill-treat or abuse other animals. Singer argues that men treat animals as a resource for human uses without bothering about the suffering and pain inflicted in the process on animals. He opposes any use of animals---whether for food, or for scientific experiments, or hunting and sport, or for makingarticles.
These views have led to lot of argumentation in support of and against animal rights. Few thinkers support callous or cruel treatment of animals. Disagreements revolve around two issues: the degree to which men should give up activities that involve cruel use of animals; and whether and how animal rights can be irrefutably established on logical grounds.
Notwithstanding conventional religious and philosophical ideas to the contrary, many writers have argued in recent times for animal rights. In support of their position, they rely on doctrines from ethics and rights theory. In one way, utilitarianism can support animal rights. Utilitarianism advocates that among possible courses of action open to moral agents, they should select that which maximizes net utility after considering both its advantages and disadvantages. While applying the utilitarian criterion, the benefits and harms resulting from actions should not be restricted to human beings but also be extended to animals. Bentham, who founded utilitarianism, had anticipated modern sensitivities on this question: “The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny”. He also foresaw what could be a reasonablebasis for animalrights: “Thequestion is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can theysuffer?”
No clear conclusion in favour of animal rights can be, however, drawn for utilitarianism. Though animals do suffer in many ways from human actions, total ban on animal use for certain purposes leads to unacceptable consequences. Important medical discoveries like vaccines for polio, diphtheria, hepatitis, measles, rabies, rubella and tetanus, could never have been found without experimentation on animals. Extreme advocates urge a total ban on medical testing on animals irrespective of consequences. This view based on animal rights has few takers.
The second strand of reasoning for animal rights is based on the view that animals are entitled to rights similar to those which human beings enjoy. As we saw earlier, many philosophers argue that the concept of rights makes sense only within a human community. The unique moral status of human beings arises from their abilities of conceptual thinking, speaking and independent decision-
making. Further, men are sentient, self-conscious, with desires, hopes, and plans for future. Unlike animals, they can think of the future which holds out both hopes and anxieties. In this way, men have interests while animals lack ability to formulate or express their interests. As animals lack these human characteristics, they cannot be regarded as members of human moral community.
Animal rights protagonists challenge this view on various grounds. First, they question the appropriateness of the demarcation line drawn between human beings and animals. The relevant distinction, they claim, is not reason but capacity for suffering. This can be more fully described as capacity for suffering and/or ability for enjoyment or happiness. Animals have consciousness and feelings. They experience fear, anxiety, and joy. They are sensitive to pain. There is sufficient scientific evidence to show that animals can suffer pain. Although they cannot formulate their interests, men should take into account such interests. If we adopt this criterion, we can see that animals, no less than human beings, have rights.
Animal rights groups also accuse human beings of speciesism, that is, systematic discrimination based on species membership. Men are prejudiced in favour of fellow members of Homo sapiens and biased against other species. Advocates of animal rights bracket speciesism with sexism---prejudice against women---and racism dislike of certain racial groups like blacks. In doing so, they may be
stretching the point a bit far.
Animal rights activists also point to an inconsistency in applying the criterion of human dignity based on human intelligence and rationality. If this criterion is applied, then extremely retarded people and those in a vegetative comatose state should not be entitled to human rights. For example, they can be subjected to medical experiments and even put to death to end their misery. But no such acts are permissible, and the concerned individuals are treated humanely.
How should we evaluate these arguments? We are of the view that the case for animal rights is logically and philosophically unsustainable. To quote Carl Cohenagain, “Rights are universally human; they arise in a human world, in a moral sphere. In the human world, moral judgements are pervasive; it is the fact that all human beings includinginfants and the senile are members of that moral community not the fact that as
individuals they have or do not have certain special capacities, or merits that makes humans bearers of rights.”
Therefore, even if animals possess certain attributes and abilities, these cannot confer rights on them in a human moral community. Of course, this is not to say that animals do not deserve care and concern. However, it is better to approach the question from the point of view of humane treatment of animals rather than from a rights perspective.
Many laws have already been passed for preventing wanton and needless cruelty to animals, and to ensure their humane treatment. Hence, we look at the human activities in which animals are abused, and consider the ways of reducing unnecessary suffering.
Use of animals for food
Human beings in primitive state were carnivores or meat eaters. Cave men hunted wild animals for food, clothing and for making primitive tools. Later, men began domesticating animals such as cows, pigs, sheep and poultry. Animals were grown and reared both for food and as a source of power in pre mechanical age.
Animals were raised in a ‘free range system’. They were left free in fields with their mothers or in groups. They were, of course, killed but swiftly and without needless pain. But the methods of animal rearing changed with ‘factory farming’. Animals are now often cooped up in dark, narrow pens with little moving space, and are injected with chemicals and hormones which ensure rapid growth. Other horrible practices are followed in order to make their meat palatable to consumer tastes. For example, deer calves (source of veal meat), are kept thirsty and forced into narrow dungeons so that veal meat looks pale and becomes soft.
Quite obviously, it is futile to hope that the world would adopt vegetarianism overnight. However, many people in the world are taking to vegetarian diet, or at least cutting down on meat consumption. The ‘vegan’ group in USA does not consume even animal products like milk. The moderate position in use of animals would consist of gradually reducing meat eating, raising animals in humane conditions, and killing them as painlessly aspossible.
Medical experimentation on animals
There are scientific grounds which indicate that higher mammals feel physical pain as acutely as human beings. Even so, it may be impossible to altogether do away with medical experiments on animals. New drugs have to be tested on living organisms, and in the first stage drug testing cannot be done on human volunteers. If medical experiments on animals are given up, the consequences will be catastrophic for medical progress and human well-being. Hence, drug testing on animals has to be allowed. But, strict guidelines have to be followed for medical experiments on animals. Gratuitous and pointless experiments on animals have to be prohibited. Books pleading for animal rights often contain blood curdling accounts of cruel animal experiments. It is essential to provide safeguards for minimizing pain to experimentalanimals.
Killing of animals for sport
Hunting has long been a royal sport. It was a considered a warrior sport which would promote courage. The flesh of many hunted animals was eaten. The body parts and skins of animals were used for various purposes. The heads of hunted animals were displayed as trophies. But in modern times, almost all these activities have been legally banned. But there is still considerable poaching and many animal parts (like ivory) are used for decorative purposes and under false beliefs as sources of male potency. Of course, hunting has to be strictly regulated as a sport; it can be allowed only for a few animals which tend to multiply too fast.
As regards, animal sports the position is more complicated. It shot into prominence with the recent controversy over Jallikattu. One may have to take a more nuanced view on traditional animal sports. Some of them like cock-fights (in Andhra), can be quite bloody. But other sports (for example bull or buffalo racing), do not aim at or result in animal deaths. These traditional sports have long ancestry. They should be allowed with suitable safeguards which minimize dangers to animal and human life.
With all the sympathy in the world for animals, one cannot help noticing the hypocrisy and selective opportunism of animal group activists. To put the matter plainly, most animals are killed for food, and not for sport. But animal activists usually raise a hue and cry over traditional sports like Jallikattu. In reality, the amount of violence involved in such sports is insignificant compared to
slaughter of animals for food. The self-styled activists jump into the fray in practices such as Ganesh Visarjan, kite festivals, and use of Diwali crackers but remain discreetly silent in similar other matters. Be that as it may, any moves which make these traditional festive occasions less dangerous are welcome.