Man-Animal Conflict in Animal Right Issues - Research Paper Example

A Critical Analysis of Man-Animal Conflict in Animal Right Issues Introduction The question whether animals should have rights is one of the most debated topics in modern age. It has been viewed and examined from many perspectives. But scholars have failed to reach any unanimous conclusion. Anyway, while deciding whether animals should rights or not, the debaters mainly focus on several factors such as animal ability to learn, to use language, the level of their consciousness, their ability to feel pain, etc. A school of debaters of animal rights claim that whether animal should have rights should be decided on which characteristics of animals have been taken into consideration. But most often some of the debaters fail to consider animals’ rights in term of human being. Obviously animals’ rights should be considered in relation to human beings’ welfare of betterment. Probably, purely ethical perspectives will never be able to reach any unanimous conclusion. Indeed, the attempt to include human being in the issue of animal rights is debated, since some people believe that inclusion of human-animal relationship into the debate on animal right violates pureness of ethicality of rights. Indeed, such a tendency fails to consider the fact that the question of animal right arises the very conflict of human interest with animals’. Therefore, any attempt to decide whether animals should have rights and (if yes) what rights animals should have needs to take human-animal relationship into consideration. Necessarily, if man-animal relationship along the previously mentioned factors is taken into consideration, debaters can reach a conclusion which might not be the unanimous, but will prove to be effective good for animals and also for humanity. Indeed any ethical decision about animal rights from a man-animal relationship perspective, in the very first place, grants animals to have rights, since lack of animals’ rights endangers not only the animals but also the human life on earth. A Brief History of Animal’s Rights Though the debates on animal right began to absorb heat during the 21 century, it has a root in the ancient philosophy. The “Book of Genesis” says that God has given Adam dominion over “the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Francione, 1996, p. 45) A creed religiosity most likely views such statement as the divine assertion of man’s right over animal as the possession of material property. But a more liberal view on this doctrinal assertion considers that man’s dominion over animal kingdom does not necessarily infer that man is the ruthless usurper or exploiter of animal kingdom (Francione, 1996, pp. 42-46). Rather he is the sincere guardian of animals and he must know what animals should have what rights. Furthermore, the famous philosopher, Pythagoras argues that animals should have the right to be respected because their souls are reincarnated from human souls and vice versa. Indeed, Pythagoras’s argument is mostly doctrinal; so it needs to be validated from any ethical perspective. Even Aristotle also advocated such doctrinal view about animal right; but he holds a view which is opposite to Pythagoras’. He likes to see human beings and animals on the same ‘Great Chain of Being’. Indeed, Since Aristotle’s view is also tied with a rigid ethical framework, it cannot tell much about what man should do when man’s right and animal right conflict with each other (Fellenz, 2007, pp.34-45) In modern Europe, the concept of animal right began to grow during the late 18th century. Arthur Schopenhauer (1998), who was a German philosopher, was a great supporter of this the development of the concept of animal right in England. Though he supports man’s practice of eating meat, he appreciated the idea of animal right: “awakening more and more to a sense that beasts have rights, in proportion as the strange notion is being gradually overcome and outgrown, that the animal kingdom came into existence solely for the benefit and pleasure of man.” (Phelps, 2007, p. 23) Referring to the animal right movement in England, he further says, “To the honor, then, of the English, be it said that they are the first people who have, in downright earnest, extended the protecting arm of the law to animals” (Phelps, 2007, p. 23). Why Animal Should Have Rights and who will ensure those Rights? Man’s role in animal’s rights is indispensable since the question of right for animal arises only when man’s right and animals’ right become contrastive and conflicting with each other. A lion may eat a goat. But man has nothing to do with the goat’s right since lion-goat relationship is determined by the law of nature. In the same manner, man also can kill a lion if it is necessary for him (Lin, n.d., pars.2). The problem is: though a lion’s need is determined by a natural law, a man’s often violates the natural order. Therefore man’s needs as well as his rights are not only harmful for the animal kingdom but also it is harmful for man himself. Both man and animal should have rights which will determine how they should interact with each other and man himself is responsible for ensuring and implementing these rights for himself and also for the animals. That is, man will ensure animals’ rights for his own sake (Rollin, 1981, pp. 56-57). Man and animals should have rights what nature permits them. In this regard, before having his rights, man must check whether his needs are violating the natural law. Thus, the discourse on animal’s right can successfully bring something good for humanity. This ethical perspective, which is based on man-animal-relationship, advocates for a harmonious and friendly relationship between man and nature. Descartes claims that animals should not have rights because they do not have consciousness and rationality. In a similar tone, lawyer Steven M. Wise says that animals do not have right because “it lacks that quality of mind that matters for legal rights. They’re not aware that they, or anyone else, exist. . . . Entitlement to legal rights rests upon the existence of conscious states.” (Taylor, 2009, p. 62) But this assertion of rights on the basis conscious can be refuted on two grounds: first, the question whether animals have consciousness or not is a disputed topic, as Marian Stamp Dawkins says, “Different animals might possess some or all of these attributes to different extents, so that it may not be possible to say that an animal is either conscious or not” (Taylor, 2009, p.67). Secondly, consciousness should not be the basis of right, as Philosopher David S. Oderberg (2002) states, The truth is that there is no straight entailment between consciousness . . . and the possession of rights. What is the logical connection between sentience and rights? Feeling pain/ pleasure is just another way that a creature’s life can go badly/ well for it. . . . So why don’t plants have rights? They aren’t sentient, but their lives can go well or badly in other ways. (In Waldau, 2011, p. 89) The Possible Conflicts between Man’s Interests and Animal’s Right Biologically man is an animal of superior rationality. By nature, man is an omnivore who eats both vegetarian and non-vegetarian foods. Also biological he is designed to consume and to digest these foods. So, some of his rights such as eating, living, etc can go against animal’s rights. In order to avoid this conflict between man and animal, some authors argue against animal right. Indeed, Doris Lin is one of those authors who believe that animal should have right. Authors like Doris Lin, etc argue that animals should have rights. They argue that “If it's OK for lions to eat meat, it should be OK for people to eat meat” (Lin, pars.2). But such extreme-end argument does not care much about its effect on the environment. Moreover, it is not careful about man’s responsibility and commitment to nature and environment. Another possible conflict is man’s attempt to use animals for his own good. From the beginning of human civilization, man is very much accustomed to use animals for transportation. In modern age, animals are often used scientific tests which often endanger their lives. Again there are other possibilities of conflict between man’s interests and animals’ right. History shows that man have used animal for satisfying their brutal entertainments such as games like Badger baiting, Bull baiting,  Cockfighting, etc. Apart from these conflicts, some people like to treat animals for satisfying the weird desires of their mind. Man’s Perspectives and Needs behind these Conflict The above mentioned conflicts between man’s and animals’ interests often occur when man’s desire to use animal for his good. In most case, man has been driven by inevitable necessities to manipulate animals, though, in some cases, man’s treatment of animal are not the least rational. Before the beginning of the 19th century, animals were considered as mere things that could be exploited according to man’s necessity. This perspective on the being of an animal has normally boosted up by the traditional religious view about man’s god-gifted dominion over animal kingdom. In this regard, Arthur Schopenhauer (1998) comments as following: Thus, because Christian morality leaves animals out of account ... they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere "things," mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights, and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. (p.98) In most cases, the view about animals as things could justify man’s use of animals in daily activities. According to this view, man can use animal for eating, transporting, etc for his own survival. But the instances of animal abuses are not premised on any particular view about animals. Rather a brutal and sick psychology seems to pervade any animal-abuser. Flaws of Extreme-End Decision on the Question of Animal Right Extreme end-decisions on the question of animal right are always flawed. There is a group of scholars who attempt to prove that animals should have right because they have intellect, the ability to learn, to feel pain, etc. For example, referring to Descartes, James Rachel (1990) says, “There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties” (p.67). Therefore, this group further believes that animals should have rights. Indeed their proposition necessarily infers that since animals have these qualities, they should have the right not to be killed even for meat and also not to be used in hard works like carrying loads. This proposition is essentially self-contradictory because it denies man’s right to eat meat. It is as injustice as to deny a lion to kill a deer. On the other hand, referring to this same paradox, another group argues that since a lion has the right to eat up a deer, man also has the right to kill a goat and to eat its meat. Therefore, animals should not have rights. But this argument fails to take into consideration man’s ability to violate the law of nature. As an eater, man is quite different from a lion. For example, if a lion can kill one deer in an hour, a man can kill thousands. So, man’s ability often proves to be drastic for the environment, for the mankind and also for the animal kingdom. So, in order to prevent man’s antagonism, animals should have rights to remain safe in particular situations. Conclusion Now, the question is what rights animals should have. A clear-cut declaration that animals should have rights not to be enslaved, not to be killed for meat and not to be used in scientific tests is essentially the violation of man’s right. This declaration is something like prohibiting a lion from killing. Again another declaration that animals do not have any right is also meaningless and harmful for both man and animal. So, a middle position is good for both man and animals. The question of animal rights should not be decided on an animal’s possession of consciousness. Therefore, animals should have rights not to suffer pain, unless this right causes man’s sufferings. Referring to this criterion, Judge Posner (2004) describes the relationship between man’s and animal’s rights through the following deduction: “human beings prefer their own. If a dog threatens a human infant, even if it requires causing more pain to the dog to stop it, than the dog would have caused to the infant, then we favour the child. It would be monstrous to spare the dog.” (p.78) References Fellenz, M. R. (2007). The Moral Menagerie: Philosophy and Animal Rights. University of Illinois Press. Francione, G. (1996). Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Temple University Press. Lin, D. Top Eight Arguments Against Animal Rights. About.com Guide. Retrieved 24 March 2013 from http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalrights101/tp/ArgumentsAgainstAR.htm Phelps, N. (2007). The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA. Lantern Books Posner, R. (2004). "Animal rights" in Hall, Lee (2006). Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror. Nectar Bat Press. Rachels, J. (1990). Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Oxford University Press. Rollin, B. (1981). Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books. Schopenhauer, A. (1998). On the Basis of Morality. This edition Hackett Publishing, 1998, p. 96. Taylor, A. (2009). Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate. Broadview Press. Waldau, P. (2011). Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. Read More