Do animals have rights?

What do philosophers say about animal rights?

Many philosophers deny that animals should have the same rights or status of personhood as human beings. These arguments tend to stem from the concept that the holder of rights must be able to comprehend the concepts of duty to others in order to recognise possible conflicts between themselves and others - and make the appropriate choice. Animals are not able to determine if their actions are ethical, or moral – how their actions will effect other beings - they are unable to limit their behaviour. It therefore seems clear based upon this distinction that animals must be excluded from having rights. Yet, even if this is so, the belief that animals may not have rights or be ‘persons’ in the same manner as human beings does not necessarily condemn them to a status in which they should be subject to indiscriminate ill-treatment. Even though animals do not have the ability to understand and possess rights – humans possess this facility. It must be up to us to decide if we, ourselves have the right to impose our will on other creatures and to what extent.

In 2002 German legislators added the words ‘and animals’ to the part of the country’s constitution which required that the state protect and respect the dignity of humans – ‘…protect and respect the dignity of humans and animals’. Prior to this, Switzerland amended it’s laws in 1992 which allowed animals to be recognised as ‘beings and not things’.

In the future, courts in jurisdictions where animals have such a status may be asked to further define and clarify an animal’s protection from human uses ranging from research purposes through to religious practices. Scientists will no doubt be asked as experts to provide evidence in such legal situations so that societies and legislators can make the appropriate decisions. It seems likely, and morally right, that situations will arise in which courts will correctly outlaw the use of animals in the testing of non-essential products such as cosmetics. The deeper issue of whether or not animal testing for the development of drugs for human use will still, however, remain.

Further in the future is the possibility that computer models of biological systems may replace the need to use animals in the testing of new drugs. Professor David Harel of the Weizmann Institute of Science asserts that ‘biological systems can be modelled and analysed using man-made computerised systems.’ Computer models can be created of living systems, ranging from cells, through to organs and eventually a digital representation of an entire animal.

When scientists are able to produce biological models of such depth and accuracy, perhaps then the need for animal testing will vanish all-together.

For more information

People for the ethical treatment of animals
www.peta.org/

AnimalRights.net
www.animalrights.net/