Animal rights – do they exist?

https://www.newsday.co.zw/2017/06/03/animal-rights-exist/

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated — Mahatma Gandhi.

Rights: MIRIAM TOSE MAJOME

MIRIAM TOSE MAJOME

MIRIAM TOSE MAJOME

We turn to this age old philosophical question that has dogged human kind for generations and no pun is intended.
Do animals have rights? Human beings have clearly defined rights, but there is no commonality of thought regarding the rights of animals. Non-human animals do not have the capacity to formulate moral judgment in the way humans do.
Apart from some primates that humans share a common ancestor with other animals do not have the same natural capacity for moral judgment meaning they do not know right from wrong. In that one distinct way animals are different from human beings, therefore, the issue of whether they can have rights or not becomes an issue. For further reading the BBC webpage www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights.rights_1.shtml gives a detailed and simplified analysis of this complex issue.

This discussion will appeal to animal lovers and even those who do not necessarily love animals, but keep them anyway for different purposes. Animal keepers of pets and livestock should be cognisant of the basic guiding principles and philosophies that pertain to animals. The recognition of animal rights remains one of the most debated topics in international legal circles. Zimbabwean jurisprudence regarding the rights of animals has not been sufficiently developed, but there is advanced legislation that compels the humane treatment of animals and good animal welfare.

The Law

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Chapter 19:09) is an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. An animal means any kind of domestic vertebrate animal. Without getting too complicated it means the commonly known animals such as mammals, fish, birds and reptiles. The Act applies to both domesticated animals such as pets and livestock and wild animals that have been taken into captivity. Whenever people take custody of an animal they are automatically subject to this law.

Cruelty to animals

Cruelty against animals is very common in this country as much as anywhere. Abandoned, ill-treated and neglected animals are a cause for concern globally. What is not commonly known is that ill-treating animals is a criminal offence. Section 3 stipulates that any person who beats, kicks, ill-treats, overdrives, overloads, or tortures any animal or causes any animal to be so treated shall be guilty of a criminal offence. People routinely beat and kick their pets to punish or train them or just for fun. Dogs are the most abused animals of all animals. Killing animals indiscriminately and violently is also a rife practice. The drowning of unwanted cats in rivers is a widely accepted practice. Other criminal acts include driving or using animals that are unwell or have a disease or if they have been injured or are simply not fit enough for the purpose they are tasked with. It is illegal and constitutes immense cruelty against animals to for example yoke a sick ox or donkey for ploughing or for other draught power. When it is evident that a horse, ox, mule or donkey is not physically well or physically strong enough for the task it is illegal to use it anyway for its physical strength. Neglecting and abandoning animals or causing them to be so neglected and abandoned are criminal offences. Other offences will be discussed in detail.
For now it is instructive to re-iterate that ill-treating animals in any manner is illegal. It does not matter whether one regards an animal as their exclusive private property or even whether or not animals have rights. The law sufficiently dictates that there be no cruelty of whatever form against animals. Conviction for an act of cruelty against animals attracts a fine and/or imprisonment of up to six months. Witnesses to any form of cruelty against animals may report any such acts to the police.

Animal Rights: The Argument in a nutshell

As mentioned there is serious divergence of opinion regarding the rights of animals. The question is not any easy one to answer because the different philosophies compete vigorously. Animal rights activists present an intriguing radical view while the more conservative traditional view remains dominant. Animal rights activists champion a world where animal rights are fully recognised and properly defined. This radical perspective regards animals as having the same rights as all living creatures because they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain. Animals, therefore, have the right to be treated with respect and dignity in regard to their physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing. The more radical activists believe animal rights should be on the same level as human rights which is opposed by the traditional view. If basic human rights are transferable to animals it would mean animals could not be killed because they would have a right to life. This would automatically outlaw breeding animals for any purpose. Inevitably this would upset the natural and social balance and bring a revolutionary change to human diets and human and commercial activities centred on animals and animal rearing. Animals would no longer be used in experiments or for entertainment. Animal rights activists often employ very violent tactics such as bombing test laboratories to disrupt the use of animals for research. Breeding animals would be outlawed because the ultimate and inevitable purposes of breeding animals is to kill them for food and other beneficial functions. Hunting animals would be illegal as would be placing them in captivity in zoos and animal parks because this would be a breach of their right to liberty. Breeding animals would only be allowed if it was to the benefit of the animals themselves. Needless to say using animals for hard labour would be outlawed.

The list is endless, but it shows that placing animal rights on the same footing as human rights is an impractical and ridiculous concept. It only upsets the natural and social balance. It should be enough to treat animals humanely and refrain from any form of cruelty against them. The Zimbabwean Constitution does not recognise the rights of animals but only for natural and juristic persons. We will look at specific forms of cruelty against animals and continue the debate.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Animal rights – do they exist?

  1. It is a values question. To the extent humans have rights, it can also be argued that other animals have rights. Humans apoint themselves as special, higher than other animals, as having dominion of other animals, as created in God’s image. I would argue that man is not superior, except as a tool maker and of course weapons of destruction tools, but not morally, physically, cognitively superior, and not spiritually.

  2. “Non-human animals do not have the capacity to formulate moral judgment in the way humans do.”
    Under that assumption, handicapped humans might not be able to formulate moral judgment either. Would these humans be exempt from having rights? I don’t think so. Nevertheless, the debate which shows chickens and humans being equal on the rights scale can be fruitless. I always go back to the question “can they suffer”?

    • Exactly. But we learn every day that animals’ social activities and perceptions are much more complex than once believed, because we placed ourselves above them. Since we are not and cannot know what another creature thinks, we can’t assume. As you say, a mentally handicapped individual may not be able to formulate a moral judgment, or ‘know right from wrong’, but entire legal defenses have been created to protect them because of it. There’s a cognitive dissonance there that shows that are decisions are not based on reason as much as we would like to think they are.

      Every living thing has a right to be here on Earth because they were born on this planet, outside of our ‘jurisdiction’. Because we are capable of domination without conscience, as we have done to our own kind on every continent since the dawn of humanity, we are not without our moral failings either.

  3. Also, while some may debate the use of animals in agriculture and scientific research as ‘necessary’, there is much room for improvement in how we treat other creatures, the non-human animals. Animals are absolutely not necessary to ‘entertain’ us, it is not necessary for our survival and comes at great cost and exploitation to animals. If we ended it entirely, it wouldn’t affect our welfare in the slightest. If we pride ourselves as moving forward to the future, we do not need animals to entertain as we have done in centuries past. We’ve got (many) other means of entertainment. I’d much rather see animals in their natural habitats that we redirect our efforts in to protect and enjoy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s