Reading an article on Animal rights the other day, I was introduced to some of the arguments that have been put forward by those who claim that animals have no inherent rights. Some of them dwell on the theory that animals are meant for humans to use for their pleasure or that cruelty to animals is bad because it makes humans cruel – not because animals have rights of their own independent from humans.
Image Credit: meganpru
Animal Rights
Needless to say I disagree with these views. However, one particular argument was rather interesting. It was put forward by Roger Scruton – a philosopher who enjoys discussing this issue. His point is that Animals don’t have rights of their own since rights and duties go together, and since only humans have duties, he says that “the corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights.”
While this is an interesting angle, I don’t believe it’s a valid objection. While it is true that humans need duties to balance their rights, I’m not sure that the concept of duties needs to be applied to animals for the following reason:
Humans need the concept of “duties” and “responsibilities” because without them, there is no check on human behavior. Humans can use their rights to behave irresponsibly. However, there is no such thing as an irresponsible animal inasmuch as they are incapable of overstepping the limits that nature has placed on them. There is no such thing as an irresponsible tiger for example.
While the concept of “duties” applies to humans due to the nature of humans, there is no requirement for the concept of rights to be limited to animals alone. While it is true that the concept of rights only applies in the context of humanity, we are not talking about any creature other than humans allowing the animals to have their rights. We’re not asking tigers to respect the rights of deer since tigers aren’t going to abuse their power. Only humans can do that.
humans, while pursuing their insatiable quest for pleasure, may neglect duties to themselves and others. the laws of the universe work such that, in time, they find that they have automatically ( without the interference of a man made judicial system ) been denied their rights . this inbuilt justice system is awesome ! if we have faith in it and patience, we will be inherently non violent too. we don't really need additional laws. the wheels of justice in this inherent system, grind slowly; but very surely. man, having been bestowed with reason, must protect animals. especially their basic right to live.
Hi, Im from Australia.
Scruton is such a barbarian!
Please check out this unique Understanding of the non-humans of this mostly non-human world.
1. http://www.fearnomorezoo.org/literature/observe-l…
Plus you might like to check out a new book by Jeffrey Masson titled The Face on Your Plate
For a philosopher of Roger Scruton’s stature (and whom I respect greatly), his position on animal rights is – astonishingly – absurd. It is not logical to suggest that you can have rights only if you also have duties.
Basically, as moral beings, only humans (excluding the very young and those of unsound mind or who are otherwise disabled) can have duties. Rights are not so confined; and the notion that only those who have duties can have rights cannot be justified. Humans, as moral beings, have both rights and duties in their relations with each other. Between us and animals there can be no such mutuality: they have rights which we, as moral beings, have a duty to recognise. Claiming that animals have the right to live, and the right not to be subjected to pain, is equivalent to saying that it is the duty of humans, as moral beings, to avoid causing pain and death to animals unless no sensible alternative is available.
As Schweitzer once said in his address to the French Academy: “The man who is concerned for the fate of all living creatures is faced with problems even more numerous and more harassing than those which confront the man whose devotion extends only to his fellow human beings. In our relations with animals and birds we are continually obliged to harm, if not actually kill them. …Each one of us, therefore, must judge whether it is really necessary for us to kill and to cause pain. We must resign ourselves to our guilt, because our guilt is forced upon us. We must seek forgiveness by letting slip no opportunity of being of use to a living creature.” He goes on to say: “Ethics is only complete when it exacts compassion towards every living thing.”4
Kant’s argument that “cruelty to animals is contrary to man’s duty to himself” certainly has great force. It is unlikely that the high levels of chronic violence among human beings that we are experiencing today can ever come down to manageable proportions unless we face squarely the ethical deficit in our treatment of animals.
In reply to Vir Narain
Agreed. Besides, even babies and unborn foetuses have rights though they can’t have the conception of “duty.” How is a baby any different from an animal?
In reply to bhagwad
“How is a baby any different from an animal?”
In the same way a rabbit is different than a Carrot.
You claim to ‘refute” the argument against, but all you offer is the same sollipsism, emotional hysteria, and logical fallacies that the vegan movement has been built upon.
In reply to Vegan Hypocrisy 101
I’m sorry, how is a baby like a rabbit and an animal like a carrot?
Unless the baby is the carrot of course. That would make more sense.
I’m afraid I don’t understand your argument against Scruton, bhagwad. Scruton’s argument is that humans have rights because they have duties. How is an argument about humanity’s need for duties relevant to whether or not it has rights because of its duties?
Please also keep in mind I am not arguing in favor of Scruton’s view. While I feel there are other valid reasons to treat animals with less moral consideration than humans (though not necessarily no moral consideration at all), Scruton’s argument is a complete failure.
In reply to Chris
Scruton’s argument is general. He’s saying that rights cannot exist without duties and that since humans have duties they have rights. Since animals cannot conceive of the concept of duties, rights don’t apply to them.
In reply to bhagwad
I don’t think you quite understood what I was saying. I understand Scruton’s argument. What I don’t understand is your argument against Scruton – i.e., how humanity’s need for duties counters the claim that animals do not have rights because they do not have duties. I apologize if I wasn’t clear in my previous post.
In reply to Chris
According to Scruton, since humans can abuse their rights, they require duties. however, since animals cannot abuse their rights, they don’t require any duties in the first place. Therefore they can have rights without duties.
I hope I was a little clearer this time. Sorry for the mix up.