The
original idea behind this essay was to try and clarify some of the differences
between animal rights activists and animal welfare supporters. However, as I
delved into researching the topic I developed a freakin’ headache. It's not so
much the topic itself as the hypocrisy shown by supporters of one position or
the other. Hence the opening quotation.
Animal
rights advocacy is based in the supposition that all sentient species deserve
equal rights with humans, especially as this pertains to the right to avoid
suffering. Various terms are thrown around such as sentience (the ability to
feel sensation), and speciesism (prejudice against another species). Many
philosophers and scholars of ethics, from Immanuel Kant to John Stuart Mill,
have thrown their hat into the ring regarding the subject, the latter adopting
his utilitarian approach which is essentially a mathematical calculation of the
harm caused subtracted from the amount of overall happiness gained. If you're
familiar with the recent arguments known as personhood being proposed by the
pro-life faction of the abortion debate and extend that argument to nonhuman
species you may have an idea of what the extreme end of the animal-rights spectrum
believe and advocate. At this extreme end advocates propose that all human use
of animals ends, up to and including the ownership of companion animals. Vegan
lifestyles are pushed and often extreme actions are taken.
On
the other hand, animal welfare advocates adopt a position that is, arguably,
more one of stewardship. The use of animals for food, clothing, and
companionship, for example, is accepted but the infliction of unnecessary
suffering in the fulfillment of these uses is unethical and should be outlawed.
That
all seems clear, doesn't it? So where does the confusion arise? Well, to go
back to the opening quotation, the words and actions do not always match.
Supposed animal-rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) actually advocate, support, and encourage the killing of animals
in rescue shelters. The theory behind this appears to be that killing the
animals prevents the suffering imposed by a potential lifetime of confinement
with limited exercise and interaction. I see several problems with this
position…not least of which is the fact that the workers in most rescue
shelters are kind caring people who interact as much as possible with those in
their care and provide as much exercise as is possible, while seeking to find
permanent homes. Perhaps more importantly, by an extension of this logic, if
the rights of animals and humans are equal then those people confined to
nursing homes or other forms of long-term care should also be killed?
Ridiculous? Then consider this… In some of the more famous incidents involving
PETA, activists threw fake blood on people for wearing fur coats. One has to
presume that the thinking behind this action is, "if the animal suffered
in making your coat, then we will make you suffer for wearing it." If that
is the case then these people believe in equal suffering. Therefore, why are
the remedies for supposed suffering not also the same?
Also,
consider the position of the abolitionists, the really extreme end of the
animal-rights spectrum. If, in the interest of equal rights, we should not be
killing animals and we should not own them then what happens? If we provide
animals with an unfettered right to life but are not prepared to care for them
then presumably they will all be running wild. I don't necessarily have a
problem with that thought but it will inevitably create a situation where
animals and humans are competing for resources such as food and shelter. We all
know what happens in that situation!
On
the other hand, one would think that animal welfare advocates would be in favor
of euthanasia in overcrowded rescue shelters, thinking that it would be in the
best interests of the animals. Yet, animal welfare advocates comprise the
majority of the no-kill movement. Animal welfare advocates unfailingly tend to
be optimists. They see the best in human nature despite experiencing the worst,
and believe that there is a compassionate side to human nature which, if
appealed to, will result in the compassionate treatment of animals.
I
personally believe in an animal welfare philosophy. I believe we were intended,
as the supposedly superior species (although that is debatable), to care for
those sharing this planet with us while taking into account biological and
evolutionary needs. We were designed to be omnivores not herbivores, but there
is no need in farming to inflict unnecessary suffering upon the animals that we
will eat. We do not have to be cruel to raise animals for food. We could at
least have the common decency and empathy to ensure that their lives are
comfortable and pain-free. Some animal uses are unacceptable, for example, the
testing of cosmetics on animals. Also, we must preserve endangered species… The
extinction of an entire species purely because of our own needs is proof of our
own fallibility. It reduces the human species to nothing more than the locusts
stripping their environment; it is, in terms of stewardship, a scorched earth policy!
I have no doubt that
some of you reading this rambling stream-of-consciousness essay will happily
point out the flaws in my own logic. But that is exactly my point: attitudes
towards animals must be considered at the emotional level, not the logical
level. At the logical level I have more in common with the animal-rights
faction but at the practical level I can be considered an animal welfare
advocate. What hasn't been mentioned is whether we are discussing companion
animals such as cats and dogs or we are talking about all animals. My own
answers might vary depending upon the scope of the discussion, hence the
confusion caused by the terms animal-rights versus animal welfare. There is an
incredible lack of agreement on basic definitions.
No comments:
Post a Comment