My Library: Glenbrook South High School

Gale Databases

Glenbrook South High School

Skip to Content

Logout

My Library Links

Sign in with Google

Opposing Viewpoints in Context

Please enter a search term

Submit Search

Advanced

Maps

Bookmark
More

Browse Issues

Curriculum Standards
SmallerLarger

The Animal Rights Debate

Animal Rights, 2011
Listen

According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (2003), a right is a "power or privilege to which one
is justly entitled." In The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest (1992), James M. Jasper
and Dorothy Nelkin define a right as "a moral trump card that cannot be disputed." The term human
rights came into usage during the late 1700s to refer to generally recognized privileges (or freedoms) that
every person should enjoy.

Rights and Society

The United Nations has the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1998,
http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm), which states, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person." The declaration specifies dozens of particular human rights, including the right to be free from
slavery, torture, and cruel or degrading treatment.
The U.S. Declaration of Independence, which was written in 1776, states, "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Even though the

United States' founding fathers considered these rights to be inherent, they did note that people form
governments to "secure these rights." Thus, even though rights have a moral basis, they are upheld
through the law.
Since the 1970s a debate has arisen about whether animals have moral rights that should be recognized
and protected by human society. This is largely a philosophical question, but the answer has many
practical consequences. For example, if animals have a right to life, then it is wrong to kill them. If animals
have a right to liberty, then it is wrong to hold them in captivity. If animals have a right to pursue happiness
and enjoy security, then it is wrong to interfere in their natural lives.
Societies and governments make decisions about who should be granted rights and how those rights
should be secured. In general, an individual's legal right to life and liberty ends if that person infringes on
someone else's right to life and liberty. In some states a person who kills another person can be executed
by the government. At the very least, the government can restrict the killer's liberty. People debate the
moral issues involved in such affairs, but the legal issues are generally spelled out clearly in U.S. law.
Sometimes it is not considered morally or legally wrong for one person to kill anotherfor example, in the
case of self-defense or in defense of others. The same holds true for a person killing an animal. There is
general moral and legal agreement that killing an attacking tiger or rabid dog is reasonable and right
behavior. In human society the moral and legal arguments that protect a person acting in self-defense
begin to melt away as the threat level decreases. Killing an unarmed burglar or trespasser may or may not
be perceived as justified under the law. Killing a loud, annoying neighbor crosses over the line.
This line is set much lower when it comes to killing animals. People can sometimes kill animals that burgle
or trespass, make too much noise, or become a nuisance without moral or legal condemnation. The same
holds true for animals that taste good, have attractive skin or pelts, or are useful laboratory subjects. Why
is it acceptable to kill an animal for these reasons, but not a human?
People answer this question in different ways, depending on their belief system and moral and social
influences, including religion, philosophy, and education. The following are some of the most common
reasons people give for denying animals rights:

Animals do not have souls.

God gave humans dominion over the animals.

Humans are intellectually superior to animals.

Animals do not reason, think, or feel pain like humans do.

Animals are a natural resource to be used as humans see fit.

Animals kill each other.

Animal Rights Activists and Welfarists

Some people believe it is not acceptable to use animals for any human purpose at all. They believe
animals have moral rights to life, liberty, and other privileges that should be upheld by society and the rule
of law. These are the hard-core believers in animal rights, the fundamentalists of the animal rights

movement. When they speak out, write, march, or otherwise publicize their beliefs, they are called animal
rights activists. An activist is someone who takes direct and vigorous action to further a cause (especially
a controversial cause).
Other people believe some animals have (or should have) moral and/or legal rights under certain
circumstances. They may rescue abandoned pets, lobby for legislation against animal abuse, feed
pigeons in the park, or do any number of other things on behalf of animals. These people are broadly
categorized as animal welfarists. Their adherence to the idea of animal rights generally depends on the
circumstances. For example, a welfarist might defend the rights of pet dogs and cats but eat chicken,
steak, or pork for dinner.
This is unacceptable to animal rights fundamentalists. They argue that all animals (not just the lovable or
attractive ones) have rights that apply all the time (not just when it is convenient). Such fundamentalists
face opposition from a variety of sources. Some of this opposition is driven by moral and philosophical
differences of opinion. Some is also driven by economics.
Many animals (alive or dead) have financial value to humans. Livestock farmers, ranchers,
pharmaceutical companies, zookeepers, circus trainers, jockeys, and breeders are among the many
people who have a financial interest in the animal trade. If humans were to stop using animals, these
people would be out of work. Many others would be deprived of their favorite sport and leisure activities.
Given such economic arguments and the moral and philosophical arguments noted previously, those
opposed to the idea of animal rights feel as strongly about the topic as those who support it.

The History of the Animal Rights Debate

It was not until the 1970s that the question of animal rights became a major social issue. In 1970 the
British psychologist Richard D. Ryder (1940-) coined the term speciesism to describe prejudice and
discrimination practiced by humans against animals. Ryder's ideas received little publicity, but they were
embraced by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer (1946-). In 1975 Singer published the influential
book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, which describes in vivid detail the
ways in which animals are subjected to pain and suffering on farms, in slaughterhouses, and in laboratory
experiments. Singer publicizes the notion of speciesism and calls for an end to it. He argues that
speciesism is similar to racism and sexism, in that they all deny moral and legal rights to one group in
favor of another.
Henry Spira (1927-1998) formed Animal Rights International after attending one of Singer's lectures.
Spira was a social reformer who had worked in the civil rights and women's liberation movements.
Barnaby J. Feder notes in the obituary "Henry Spira, 71, Animal Rights Crusader" (New York Times,
September 15, 1998) that Spira turned his attention to the animal rights movement after he "began to
wonder why we cuddle some animals and put a fork in others." Spira was instrumental in bringing various
animal groups together to work for common causes. Many people credit him with pressuring cosmetics
companies to seek alternatives to animal testing for their products during the late 1980s.
By 1980 the animal rights movement had become prominent enough to attract the attention of critics.
In Interests and Rights: The Case against Animals (1980), the philosopher Raymond G. Frey argues that
animals do not have moral rights. He insists that animal lives do not have the same moral value as human
lives because animals cannot and do not undergo the same emotional and intellectual experiences as
humans.

In 1979 the organization Attorneys for Animal Rights was founded by Joyce Tischler. The group held the
first national conference on animal rights law in 1980. The following year it successfully sued the U.S.
Navy and prevented the killing of 5,000 burros at a weapons-testing center in California. In 1984 the group
adopted a new name: the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF). One of the ALDF's goals is to end the
belief that animals are merely property. The group's anticruelty division also works with state prosecutors
and law enforcement agencies to draft felony anticruelty laws and stiffen penalties for violations.
The British philosopher Mary Midgley joined the debate when she published Beast and Man: The Roots
of Human Nature (1978) and Animals and Why They Matter (1983). Midgley argues that Charles Darwin's
(1809-1882) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859) was the catalyst for ending
the moral separation that humans felt toward animals because it proved that humans were in fact animals.
Midgley compares speciesism to other social problems, such as racism, sexism, and age discrimination.
It was during the 1970s and 1980s that some animal rights advocates began using high-profile tactics,
such as sit-ins at buildings and protest marches on the streets, to attract public attention to their cause.
These are examples of civil disobedience (refusing in a nonviolent way to obey government regulations or
social standards). A radical element of the movement went even further by breaking into laboratories and
fur farms to release animals and damaging buildings and equipment. Some people who used these
methods referred to themselves as part of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). ALF followers became
known as the "domestic terrorists" of the animal movement.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was founded in 1980 and quickly came to
prominence. One of the group's cofounders infiltrated a research laboratory and obtained photographs of
the primates being held there. The incident attracted national media attention and greatly helped Spira's
efforts to reduce animal use in cosmetic testing. Animal issues also became important to a larger number
of Americans during the 1980s.
Many in the scientific community were disturbed by this new wave of moral and social opposition to the
use of animals in research. The Foundation for Biomedical Research was founded in 1981 to defend such
usage and promote greater understanding of its medical and scientific benefits among the general public.
The foundation began tracking and reporting on the activities of criminal animal activists who broke into
laboratories to release animals and/or destroy property.
In 1983 Tom Regan of North Carolina State University published The Case for Animal Rights. He argues
that animal pain and suffering are consequences of a bigger problem: The idea that animals are a
resource for people. Regan presents detailed philosophical arguments that outline why he believes
animals have moral rights as "subjects-of-a-life." Regan states that acknowledging the rights of animals
requires people to cease using them for any purpose, not just those associated with pain and suffering.
Frey responded to the growing pro-vegetarian movement in 1983 with Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral
Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics. The idea of moral vegetarianism (adhering to a vegetarian diet for
moral reasons, rather than for physical reasons) dates back centuries. The Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci
(1452-1519) once wrote in his notebook, "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the
murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men." Moral vegetarianism was advocated by the
Indian religious leader Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) during the early 1930s as a moral duty of humans
toward animals and gained new life during the animal movement of the 1970s. Frey, however, argues that

a widespread adherence to a vegetarian lifestyle would result in the collapse of animal agriculture and
other animal-based industries and massive social disruption.
In 1984 Ernest Partridge of the University of California, Riverside, attacked Singer's speciesism
philosophy and Regan's animal rights view in "Three Wrong Leads in a Search for an Environmental
Ethic: Tom Regan on Animal Rights, Inherent Values, and 'Deep Ecology'" (Ethics and Animals, vol. 5, no.
3). Partridge maintains that both Singer and Regan miss a crucial point about the nature of rights: that
rights have no biological basis, only a moral basis. In other words, it does not matter how humans and
animals are alike or dissimilar in biology. What really matters is that no animals exhibit the capacities of
"personhood," such as rationality and self-consciousness. Partridge contends that the lack of personhood
effectively disqualifies animals from being rights holders.
Carl Cohen of the University of Michigan Medical School also attacked Singer's and Regan's views in
"The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research" (New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 315,
no. 14, October 2, 1986). Cohen acknowledges that speciesism exists, but denies that it is similar to
racism or sexism. He argues that racism and sexism are unacceptable because there is no moral
difference between races or between sexes. However, he writes that there is a moral difference between
humans and animals that denies rights to animals and allows animals to be used by humans.

Animals as Property
In 1988 researchers at Harvard University obtained a patent for the OncoMousea mouse that had been
genetically engineered to be susceptible to cancer. This was the first patent ever issued for an animal.
The ALDF challenged the issuance of the patent in court, but the case was dismissed because the court
found that the ALDF had no legal standing in the matter. Since that time, several other animals have been
patented, including pigs, sheep, goats, and cattle.
In 1995 Gary L. Francione published Animals, Property, and the Law, in which he argues that there is an
enormous contradiction between public sentiment and legal treatment when it comes to animals.
Francione notes that most of the public agrees that animals should be treated humanely and not
subjected to unnecessary suffering, but he claims that the legal system does not uphold these moral
principles because it regards animals as property.
Francione compares the treatment of animals in modern times to the treatment of slaves before the Civil
War (1861-1865). Even though there were laws that supposedly protected slaves from being abused by
slave owners, they were seldom enforced. Slaves, like animals, were considered property, and the law
protects the right of people to own and use property as they see fit. Property rights date back to English
common law. According to Francione, the law has always relied on the assumption that property owners
will treat their property appropriately to protect its economic value. Under this reasoning, the courts of the
19th century refused to recognize that a badly beaten slave was "abused," as defined by the law.
Francione believes this same logic gives legal support to common practices in which animals are
mistreatedfor example, by the farming industry or by research laboratories. He explains that humans
are granted "respect-based" rights by the law and that animals are only considered in terms of their utility
and economic value. Francione points out that animals are treated by the legal system as "means to ends
and never as ends in themselves." In other words, existing animal laws protect animals because animals
have value to people, not because animals have inherent value as living beings.

Bob Torres also believes that exploitation lies at the root of human-animal interactions. In Making a
Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights (2007), he states, "Animals labor to produce commodities
or to be commodities, and they do this as the mere property of humans. We generally talk of this
relationship in magnanimous terms, describing our 'care' of animals as 'husbandry,' or as us being
guardians of their 'welfare,' yet, underneath these comfortable and bucolic notions of animal-human
relations, there is a system of exploitation that yields value for the producer while denying the animal [its]
right to live fully."

Philosophical Arguments
At the base of the animal rights debate is philosophy. Philosophical discussions involve abstract ideas and
theories about questions of ethics and morality. These can be difficult subjects to comprehend and apply
to real-life situations, but philosophy is important because it explains people's motivations and why people
feel the way they do about a particular issue. Philosophical arguments are commonly used to either justify
or condemn certain actions toward animals.
Not all people involved in the animal movement believe in animal rights. Many are motivated to work for
animal causes for other reasons. Historically, the most common motivator has been concern for animal
welfare, or welfarism.

Welfarism
When applied to animals, welfarism assumes that humans have the primary responsibility for the welfare
of animals. Welfarists acknowledge that society uses animals for various purposes. Their goal is to reduce
the amount of pain and suffering that animals endure. Welfarism centers on compassionate and humane
care and treatment.
The best-known welfarist organization in the United States is the American Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA; 2011, http://www.aspca.org/about-us/about-the-aspca.aspx), which was
founded in 1866. Its mission is "to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals
throughout the United States." The ASPCA defines itself not as an animal rights organization but as an
animal welfare or animal protection organization. Even though the ASPCA does advocate for stronger
anticruelty laws, it does not actively promote issues such as vegetarianism or banning the use of animals
in medical research.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was founded in 1954. It is an animal organization that
fits into the welfarist category, but its agenda is more sweeping than that of the ASPCA because it
encompasses the protection of wild and marine animals as well as companion animals. Even though it
defines itself as an animal protection organization, critics charge that the HSUS supports an animal rights
agenda because it is openly against the use of animals in research, inhumane farming practices, and the
fur industry.
Animal welfarists believe humans have a responsibility to ensure the well-being of animals and reduce
their suffering. This responsibility is upheld by society in the form of anticruelty laws. However, these laws
do not prevent farm animals from being slaughtered for food or laboratory animals from being
experimented on, usually without anesthetic to numb their pain. In these situations, welfarists work for
humane slaughtering methods and for the prevention of "unnecessary" or excessive suffering during
experimentation.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a philosophy popularized by the British philosopher and political scientist Jeremy Bentham
(1748-1832) in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). The basic premise of
utilitarianism is that right actions are those that maximize utility. Bentham defines utility as either the
presence of positive consequences"benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness"or the absence
of negative consequences"mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness." In other words, right actions are those
that maximize the best consequences or minimize the worst consequences. An important aspect of
utilitarianism is that the interests of all parties involved in a particular situation must be considered.
Likewise, the consequences to all parties involved must be taken into account. This is a difficult enough
task when only humans are involved; it becomes much more complicated when animals are taken into
consideration.
Singer uses a form of utilitarian logic in Animal Liberation. He argues that the suffering endured by
animals on farms and during slaughtering far outweighs the pleasure and nutrition that the meat gives to
humans. Likewise, he contends that the pain laboratory animals experience outweighs their usefulness to
humans as test subjects. Singer concludes that the moral consequences of these practices (and other
practices in which animals suffer) are so severe that they must be abolished. As a result, advocates of
Singer's theory are often called liberationists or abolitionists. Even though his book is frequently called the
bible of the animal rights movement, Singer does not specifically call for animal rights in the book. He has
stated, however, that he believes the term is politically useful for drawing attention to animal suffering.
Many philosophers reject the notion that utilitarianism can be applied to human-animal situations
because, historically, animals have not been considered to have interests at all, or their interests have not
been considered equal to human interests. In 1992 the philosopher Peter Carruthers published The
Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice, in which he argues that utilitarianism is not an acceptable moral
theory for examining animal issues because it equates animal lives and suffering with human lives and
suffering, an idea Carruthers calls "intuitively abhorrent" and a violation of "common-sense beliefs."
In Interests and Rights, Frey also discounts the utilitarian theory as a model of morality for dealing with
animals, saying that animals do not have interests because they do not experience wants, desires,
expectations, or remembrances.

Contractarianism
Contractarianism is another philosophy that is used to examine morality. According to this theory, society
establishes right actions (or moral norms) through an arrangement in which individuals (called agents)
voluntarily agree to abide by certain rules of morality. Following these rules is beneficial to both individuals
and society in general. Even though there are many different models of contractarianism, the most
common are based on the writings of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and the
American philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002). Kant believes the moral code arising out of
contractarianism reflects what rational agents would choose under ideal circumstances. Rawls expands
this view by explaining that the right actions are those that rational agents would choose if they were
unaware of their own personal ambitions or prejudices.
When contractarianism is used to discuss human society, the rational agents are assumed to have direct
duties. In other words, the rational agents know they are bound by a moral contract and are responsible
for acting accordingly. The rational agents also have direct rights under the contract and have duties to
those who lack the rationality to enter into the contract, such as infants, small children, and the mentally
challenged.

Some philosophers use the contractarian model to explain the moral relationship between humans and
animals. In Animals Issue, Carruthers argues that contractarianism is the best moral model for describing
the human-animal relationship, but he concludes that animals do not have moral standing under the
contract because they do not qualify as rational agents. He notes that humans have only indirect duties
toward animals, one of which is to treat them humanely out of respect for the feelings of the rational
agents (other humans) who care about them. Carruthers does, however, extend direct rights to human
beings who are not rational agents (such as infants), noting that this is necessary to maintain social
stability.
In the contractarian model, humans are moral agents, meaning that they make decisions and take actions
based on morality. Many philosophers believe animals are amoralneither moral nor immoral. For
example, a lion that kills a baby zebra to feed her cubs is acting out of instinct. The action is neither
morally good nor morally bad. Some opponents of animal rights argue that because animals do not make
decisions based on morality, they are not part of the moral contract and do not have moral rights. Tibor R.
Machan is an outspoken critic of the notion of animal rights. In Putting Humans First: Why We Are
Nature's Favorite (2004), he argues that animals cannot have rights because they are not capable of
making moral decisions.
In practice, the moral code of contractarianism seems to provide some protections for selected species of
animals. For example, in American society there is widespread moral repugnance to the idea of eating
dogs and cats or killing animals with sentimental or patriotic significance (such as bald eagles). These
views might be argued to be rooted in their moral and philosophical impact on humans and could
therefore be extensions of the contractarian model.

Rights View
The rights view is defined and defended by Regan in Case for Animal Rights and in many subsequent
books. He maintains that all beings who are "subjects-of-a-life with an experiential welfare" have inherent
value that qualifies them to be treated with respect and gives them a right to that treatment. In other
words, living beings with conscious awareness and self-identity deserve moral rights. Regan does not
define exactly which animals fall into this category, but higher species, such as vertebrates (animals with
a spinal cord), fit his criteria.
This philosophy is fundamentally different from welfarism and utilitarianism. The rights view holds that
animals have moral rights to certain privileges and freedoms, just as humans do. However, it does not
mean that animals have exactly the same rights as humans. Most animal rights advocates believe that
animals at least have the right to life and the right to freedom from bodily interference.
The philosopher best known for criticizing the animal rights view is Carl Cohen. In 2001 Cohen and Regan
coauthored The Animal Rights Debate, which presents a point-counterpoint examination of the issue.
Cohen sums up his argument against animal rights by stating that "animals cannot be the bearers of
rights, because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in the human moral world and has
force and applicability only within that world." He admits that animals are sentient (conscious of sensory
impressions), feel pain, and can experience suffering, but insists that sharing these traits with humans
does not make animals morally equal to humans.
Cohen writes that some people confuse rights with obligations and assume that because humans have
obligations to animals, it means that animals have rights. This assumption is called symmetrical

reciprocity, and he believes it is based on false logic. The difference, Cohen explains, is that an obligation
is what "we ought to do," whereas a right is "what others can justly demand that we do."
Cohen states that humans are moral agents who are restrained by moral principles from treating animals
inhumanely. This means that humans should not inflict "gratuitous" pain and suffering on animals.
However, it does not mean that humans must stop every activity that could or does harm animals in some
way. Medical research on animals is an example. He believes that scientists have moral obligations to
humanity to use animals in their experiments if that is the best way for them to achieve their goals.
According to Cohen, "Our duties to human subjects are of a different moral order from our duties to the
rodents we use."
Cohen's overall conclusionthat rights do not apply to animals because rights are essentially humanis
a point commonly made by those who oppose the animal rights movement. Many of them find it ludicrous
to even debate the issue. Adrian R. Morrison is a scientist engaged in animal research and a vocal critic
of the animal rights movement. In "Understanding the Effect of Animal-Rights Activism on Biomedical
Research" (Actas de Fisiologa, vol. 8, 2002), he notes that few philosophers besides Cohen and almost
no scientists bother to dispute in detail the philosophy behind the animal rights view. Morrison suggests
that most scientists and philosophers "think the subject to be too far from reality to be worth the trouble."
The Moral Case for Great Apes and Dolphins.
Morrison's viewpoint accurately assessed the situation in 2002. Very few scientists who were engaged in
zoology or other types of animal studies publicly recognized or advocated for moral-based rights for the
species they were studying. One vocal exception was by the famed chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall
(1934-). Goodall has emphasized the high cognitive abilities of chimpanzees and other primates as a
reason to grant them moral rights. In 1994 she contributed the article "ChimpanzeesBridging the Gap"
(http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/goodall01.pdf) that was published in The Great Ape Project:
Equality beyond Humanity. Goodall asks, "In what terms should we think of these beings, nonhuman yet
possessing so very many human-like characteristics? How should we treat them? Surely we should treat
them with the same consideration and kindness as we show to other humans; and as we recognise
human rights, so too should we recognise the rights of the great apes? Yes."
The book was edited by Singer and fellow philosopher Paola Cavalieri. Its publication accompanied their
founding of a movement called the Great Ape Project (GAP; http://www.greatapeproject.org/). According
to the GAP, its mission is "to defend the rights of the non-human great primateschimpanzees, gorillas,
orangutans and bonobos, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. The main rights are: the right to life,
the protection of individual liberty and the prohibition of torture." Note that these are the same key rights
that are guaranteed by the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights described earlier in this
chapter.
The GAP has had some success in meeting its goals. For example, in 2008 Spain's parliament approved
a resolution that expressed the country's commitment to the GAP's declaration of rights for great apes.
However, as of March 2011, the resolution had not been enacted into law. Such a law would mean that no
great apes could be used in Spain for research, entertainment, or other purposes. This measure would go
beyond the bans that have been implemented in New Zealand and in some European countries on the
use of certain primates in medical research.

In 2010 two scientists well known for their research into dolphin intelligence made headlines by publicly
calling for moral rights for the creatures. Diana Reiss and Lori Marino provided evidence in 2001 that
dolphins could recognize themselves in mirrors, a cognitive feat that was formerly believed to be possible
only by humans and great apes. The researchers' findings were reported in "Mirror Self-Recognition in the
Bottlenose Dolphin: A Case of Cognitive Convergence" (Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, vol. 98, no. 10, May 8, 2001). In February 2010 the two scientists appeared with the ethicist
Thomas I. White at the symposium "Intelligence of Dolphins: Ethical and Policy Implications"
(http://www.eurekalert.org/aaasnewsroom/2010/sessions/SES_000000000035.php) that was sponsored
by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In "Is a Dolphin a Person?" (ScienceNow,
February 21, 2010), David Grimm reviews the symposium and quotes Marino as saying, "The very traits
that make dolphins interesting to study make confining them in captivity unethical."

Practical Implications
Assuming that all animals have rights would have massive consequences to society. If animals have
moral rights to life and freedom from bodily interference, then they cannot be purposely killed, harmed, or
kept in captivity by humans. Billions of domesticated animals would be spared from slaughter and would
have to be released from cages and pens.
PETA (2011, http://www.peta.org/) states its position quite bluntly:

Animals are not ours to eat.

Animals are not ours to wear.

Animals are not ours to experiment on.

Animals are not ours to use for entertainment.

Animals are not ours to abuse in any way.

Implementation of these beliefs would mean the elimination of all commercial animal operations: livestock
and fur farms, animal research facilities, circuses, zoos, animal parks and aquariums, game ranches,
hunting lodges, animal breeding facilities, pet stores, dog and horse racetracks, and so on. All the people
working in these businesses would be put out of work. The economic consequences would be enormous.
Animal rights advocates point out that dismantling the institution of slavery after the Civil War was costly
as well, but it was done anyway because it was the right thing to do.
Besides an economic cost, there would also be a scientific cost. Medical and scientific research has relied
on animal test subjects for centuries. Some research and development would be put on hold until
alternatives could be found. Students in schools and universities would have to learn anatomy and biology
without dissecting animals. Doctors, surgeons, and veterinarians in training would have to practice on
something besides animals. Cloning, twinning, and other genetic manipulation of animals would have to
stop. Eliminating the use of animals would disrupt the entire scientific community. Animal rights activists
believe the move is overdue because it would force scientists to think about their research in new ways.
For example, many school districts have already implemented alternatives to animal dissection, including
computer models that accurately mimic animal bodies.

There are also implications to private individuals in terms of dining, fashion, sport, recreation, and leisure.
None of these activities could include the personal use of animals. Hunting, fishing, eating meat, wearing
leather, and keeping pets would come to a stop. The activity that would affect the most Americans would
be the elimination of meat and animal products (milk, eggs, cheese, and so on) from their diet. Most
animal rights advocates and liberationists are vegetarians or vegans. (Vegetarians do not eat meat,
although some vegetarians do not shun the consumption of fish and other aquatic creatures; vegans do
not eat meat of any kind or animal-derived products.) They believe a vegetarian diet would not only help
animals but would also be healthier for humans and be better for the environment.
Opponents of animal rights are always eager to point out that keeping pets would be forbidden if animals
had rights. Ingrid Newkirk, a PETA cofounder, has been quoted as saying that pets are a symbol of the
human manipulation of animals, and the notion of pets should be phased out. This idea is controversial
even within the animal rights community because it is so radical. Many people involved in both the animal
rights and animal welfare movements refer to pets as "companion animals" and to owners as "animal
guardians" or "animal caretakers." These terms are intended to downplay the ownership element between
humans and animals.
Legally, most animals are considered property. In fact, the term cattle derives from a Latin word meaning
"property." Carolyn B. Matlack suggests in "Sentient Property: Unleashing Legal Respect for Our
Companion Animals" (Animal Law Section, summer 2003) that companion animals should be given a new
property classification under the law: sentient property (feeling property). She argues that courts could
determine the best interests of sentient property based on the testimony of experts, as is done for young
children and the mentally disabled.
Even wild animals are categorized by ownership. Private landowners assume power of ownership over
wild animals on their land. As long as the animals are not protected by specific legislation, property
owners may kill them as they please. Wild animals inhabiting government lands are considered public
property and are treated as such. The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (December 29, 2006,
http://www.fws.gov/help/mission.cfm) is "to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and
their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people."
Public and private landowners exhibit implied animal ownership when they grant hunters permission to
hunt on lands under their control. If these animals are assumed to have moral rights, then they can no
longer be considered property.
Many animal welfarists are uneasy with the animal rights movement. They worry that it draws attention
away from the goals that are more easily obtainable for animals in the near future. They also worry that
the radical statements and actions of some animal rights activists will turn the public against the entire
animal movement. Radical animal rights activists have been known to demonstrate in the nude, splash
paint on people wearing fur coats, and destroy and vandalize property. Many have spent time in prison for
their actions.
Even though welfarists and liberationists/abolitionists sometimes work together to achieve change, there
is a philosophical gulf between them. This was made clear by the animal rights advocate Joan Dunayer
in Speciesism(2004). Dunayer supports the idea that humans and animals should have "absolute moral
equality." She accuses animal rights groups of compromising their beliefs by campaigning for welfarist
reforms in animal treatment, rather than for complete liberation. Dunayer compares the plight of animals

to that of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (1939-1945), arguing that the
prisoners would have begged their supporters on the outside to work for liberation rather than for more
humane living conditions or kinder slaughtering techniques.
In 2008 the philosophical fight between the two factions intensified during the passage of a ballot initiative
in California. Proposition 2 (a ban on certain confinement techniques for some farm animals) was
championed by the HSUS and other mainline animal welfare groups. Animal rights advocates were bitterly
opposed to it. In "A Losing Proposition" (2008,
http://animalrights.about.com/od/proposition2ca2008/a/FrancioneProp2.htm), Francione criticizes the
measure, noting that "animals raised for food in California will still be tortured. The only difference will be
that the torture will have the stamp of approval of the Humane Society of the United States." He suggests
the money that is spent on so-called humane ballot measures would be better spent on promoting
veganism. Other animal rights activists derisively say that welfarists endorse "happy meat," instead of
working to free farm animals from slavery and exploitation.
Abolitionists ask welfarists to give up meat and leather; close down all circuses, zoos, animal parks,
aquariums, and racetracks; and stop laboratories from using animals. Most welfarists are not willing to go
so far; instead, they prefer to focus on finding practical solutions to problems such as pet overpopulation
and cruelty to domestic animals.
At the other end of the spectrum is the radical element of the animal movement. This element does not
debate philosophy but takes direct actionsometimes illegallyto free animals from farms and
laboratories. The ALF is not really a group, as it has no leadership structure, but is instead a set of
guidelines. The ALF (2011, http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/alf_credo.htm) states that "the ...
short-term aim is to save as many animals as possible and directly disrupt the practice of animal abuse.
[The] long-term aim is to end all animal suffering by forcing animal abuse companies out of business."
The ALF also states that any vegans or vegetarians who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines
can regard themselves as part of the ALF. These actions include liberating animals from "places of abuse"
and inflicting "economic damage" on the people involved. ALF followers are urged to take precautions to
prevent harming humans and animals. The ALF receives funding from the ALF Supporters Group, which
consists of people who believe in the ALF guidelines but do not want to be involved in criminal activities.

Public Opinion
The issue of whether or not animals should have moral or legal rights does not receive a lot of attention in
mainstream media sources. The most recent comprehensive public opinion polls conducted on the
subject date to May 2008, when the Gallup Organization gauged Americans' opinions regarding animal
rights issues. The results were reported by Frank Newport in Post-Derby Tragedy, 38% Support Banning
Animal Racing (May 15, 2008, http://www.gallup.com/poll/107293/PostDerby-Tragedy-38-SupportBanning-Animal-Racing.aspx).
According to Newport, 25% of those asked believed animals deserve the same rights as people. A large
majority (72%) said animals deserve some protection but can still be used to benefit people. Only a small
percentage (3%) said animals do not need much protection from harm and exploitation. These results are
virtually identical to the results that were obtained by Gallup in a May 2003 poll on the same subject.

The poll participants in 2008 were also asked whether they supported or opposed four specific proposals
concerning the treatment of animals. Sixty-four percent favored passing strict laws regarding the
treatment of farm animals, 39% supported a ban on all product testing performed on laboratory animals,
38% favored a ban on animal sports (such as dog racing and horse racing), and 35% favored a similar
ban on medical research testing on animals. Support was far lower (21%) for a total ban on hunting.
Gallup also conducts an annual morality poll in which it surveys Americans about their opinions on some
controversial moral issues. In May 2010 participants were asked to rate 16 specific issues or actions as
"morally acceptable or morally wrong." Three of the moral issues/actions were animal related. (See Table

2.1:
.) Sixty percent said buying and wearing
clothing made of animal fur was morally acceptable. A slightly lower percentage (59%) of respondents
rated medical testing on animals as morally acceptable. Only 31% of poll participants rated the cloning of
animals as morally acceptable.

Gallup found significant differences between men and women on all the animal morality issues. As shown

in Table 2.2:
, men were far more accepting
than women of buying and wearing animal fur (73% versus 48%), conducting medical testing on animals
(69% versus 49%), and cloning animals (43% versus 19%). Differences based on political affiliation were

far more subtle, as shown in Table 2.3:

.
Republicans were more likely to state that the buying and wearing of animal fur and conducting medical
tests on animals were morally acceptable than Independents or Democrats. Republicans were the least
likely to state that animal cloning was morally acceptable. The smallest differences were seen in opinions
on medical testing on animals. Sixty-two percent of Republicans, 58% of Democrats, and 57% of
Independents rated this activity "morally acceptable."
Public opinion on the morality of various issues, May 2010
Public opinion on the morality of various issues, by gender, May 2010
Public opinion on the morality of various issues, by political affiliation, May 2010
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning.
Source Citation
"The Animal Rights Debate." Animal Rights. Kim Masters Evans. 2011 ed. Detroit: Gale, 2011. Information
Plus Reference Series. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.
URL
http://sproxy.glenbrook225.org/login?
url=http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?
displayGroupName=Reference&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE
%7CEJ1529600102&zid=6523f9ba22a6b0ca8371921748157331&source=Bookmark&u=gotitans&jsid=24
b7182605242029523cf5e2387b74f0
Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ1529600102

Tools

Citation Tools

Email
Download
Print

Highlights and Notes (0)

Save
Share
Translate

Table of Contents

Rights and Society

The History of the Animal Rights Debate
Philosophical Arguments
Practical Implications
Public Opinion

Document Images

Related Subjects
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsAnimal experimentationAnimal rightsAnimal
rights activistsAnimal rights movementMore

About Opposing Viewpoints in Context

About Gale
Contact Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
Gale | Cengage

kim@kimstallwood.com / +44(0)794-345-6815

Kim Stallwood
Independent animal rights scholar and author of Growl: Life Lessons, Hard Truths, and Bold Strategies from an Animal
Advocate (Lantern Books 2014)

o
o

Home
Growl

Consultant
Archive

o
o

Animal Rights Challenge

Writer

About
Events

Animal Rights: Moral Crusade or Social Movement?

July 27th, 2014Leave a commentGo to comments

The following paper I presented at the MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory 2012 at the University
of Manchester in September 2012.

Animal Rights: Moral Crusade or Social Movement?

Kim Stallwood

Introduction
Is animal rights the duty of the individual or the responsibility of society? Is the animal rights
movement a moral crusade or a social movement with a political agenda? Which will achieve moral
and legal rights for animals: A moral crusade or a social movement?
These are the fundamental questions I try to answer here. This discussion informs my call for a new
strategy for the animal rights movement.
The publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer in 1975 is usually recognised as the beginning of
the modern animal rights movement. Notwithstanding formidable challenges to accomplishing its
mission, the animal rights movement is making progress in public opinion and public policy; however,
it fails generally to decrease the number of animals consumed; persuade people to go vegan; convince
governments to pass meaningful legislation; and challenge fundamentally societys attitudes toward
animals. Moral and legal rights for animals are currently beyond the reach of the present animal rights
movement.

The animal rights movement and its strategy, emphasising personal lifestyle choice, is no match for
the animal industrial complex, the collective term used to describe the many traditions, institutions
and industries which transform animals into products and services for human consumption.
Animal rights is more than just saying Go vegan! It is the responsibility of society. It is a legitimate
public policy issue. It is, therefore, appropriate to assess the present strategy of the animal rights
movement and make recommendations.

Animal Industrial Complex

Anthropologist Barbara Noske first identified in Humans and Other Animals the animal industrial
complex as the accumulation of interests responsible for institutionalised animal exploitation. Animals
have become reduced to mere appendages of computers and machines, she wrote. (Noske 1989: 20)
The animal industrial complex breeds billions of animals, as their legal property, to make products and
services for human consumption. Animals may be alive or dead; in their physical entirety, or as a
piece or byproduct of their body; or overwhelmingly changed so as to no longer appear or represent in
any way their original presence: an individual sentient being.
Human history records animals, simultaneously and confusingly, as mysteries beyond our
understanding and practical resources to aid our survival. Today, animals are still revered; however,
the animal industrial complex has transformed our relations with animals and significantly increased
the number consumed. Indeed, there is such extraordinary growth that the animal industrial complex
and its exploitation of animals threatens our survival.
Clearly, the origins of the animal industrial complex reach back to beyond the present era. Since 1945,
however, the animal industrial complex has grown significantly. It is an integral part of the neoliberal,
transnational order of increasing privatisation and decreasing government intervention, favouring
transnational corporations and global capital.
The existence of the animal industrial complex is so pervasive that its existence often goes
unrecognised and unacknowledged. What licences the animal industrial complex and its exploitation of
animals? Which norms and values in society allow institutionalised violence to animals to occur without
any effective public opposition or government intervention?
First, western orthodox Judeo-Christian religious belief systems, as allegedly directed by a supreme
deity, positions humans exclusively as superior to animals, who are merely things and not sentient
beings. Although various scholars and theologians assert the Bibles commitment to animal welfare as
paternal dominion, among adherents and those generally influenced by such belief systems, the
prevailing view is that animals are here courtesy of God for human use.
Second, notwithstanding recent findings from ethologists and primatologists who identify similarities in
behaviour between humans and other animals, Darwins scientific Theory of Evolution, positioning
humans as animals along a species continuum, established an ideology of scientific reductionism,
which reinforced western orthodox Judeo-Christian religious belief systems and their hierarchy placing
humans superior to animals.

Religion and science also provide a foundation to patriarchy, which situates man as superior to
women, children, animals and nature. Embedded within patriarchy is the notion of the other. Women,
children, animals and nature are the other. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute, wrote Simone de
Beauvoir in The Second Sex, she is the Other. (de Beauvoir, 1986, 16) As women are the other to
men, so, animals are the other to humans. Otherness empowers power and control, which licenses
exploitation. As misogyny is the hatred of women by men, misothery is human hatred and contempt
for animals. Otherness also causes invisibility. Carol J Adams describes in The Sexual Politics of
Meat the presence of animals in meat as the absent referent. (Adams 2010: 13) The meat on a plate
can range in appearance from the explicit (e.g., one entire fish cooked and served whole) to the
implicit (e.g., ground beef in a burger made from multiple animals).
Ultimately, these norms and values produce lebensunwertes Leben or life unworthy of life. The animal
industrial complex renders the lives of animals as life unworthy of life. Animal exploitation, as an
established and accepted practice, perpetuates and legitimises itself, while hiding from the
consequences of its actions. For example, the true economic consequences of animal exploitation are
not met by the animal industrial complex but by consumers and society. The animal industrial complex
is also enabled with government approved programs (e.g., trade agreements, financial incentives, tax
credits, exemptions from the law) whose costs are met again by taxpayers. The animal industrial
complex favours privatisation and government deregulation to ensure it supervises itself with
voluntary standards. The priority for the animal industrial complex is to protect its profits and other
entitlements.
The dominance of the animal industrial complex is emboldened by the animal rights movement and its
strategy emphasising personal lifestyle choice. The animal industrial complex accommodates demands
made by the animal rights movement to end egregious use of animals. While these developments
deserve recognition, they are accomplished without any obligation imposed on the animal industrial
complex to end generally its institutionalised violence toward animals. Also, the animal industrial
complex responds, in part, to demands from the animal rights movement by taking advantage of the
opportunities for new markets in consumerism (e.g., meat-free, vegetarian and cruelty-free vegan).
While these developments are to be welcomed, they have the effect of weakening the animal rights
movements call for moral and legal rights for animals by ensuring the problem of animal exploitation
remains as an optional personal lifestyle choice. While genuine cooperation between the animal rights
movement and the animal industrial complex is an important strategy, the former must avoid being
used by the latter, even unwittingly, to legitimise and even perpetuate institutional animal exploitation.
Political campaigns which call for public policy to end animal exploitation will mobilise vast financial
resources from the animal industrial complex to ensure its profitable use of animals survives. There is,
of course, enormous profits to be made from animal exploitation. These profits are protected by
existing arrangements with governments and their regulatory mechanisms thereby ensuring the
continuation of animal exploitation. The animal industrial complex has a proven history of collusion
with private security forces and state law enforcement to monitor, pervert and harm the animal rights
movement.
It is, therefore, not surprising that animal-related public policy is more about protecting our interests
in what we do to them than in protecting them from us. Animals are represented in public policy by
those who benefit from the power and control they exert over them. Animal researchers (not antivivisectionists) and animal farmers (not vegans) are more likely to be members of the policy-making
networks which determine regulations and laws governing our relations with animals.

Moral Crusades
Generally, moral crusades are one specific issue which is framed as an exclusive cause with
extraordinary meaning. Moral crusades may be religious imperatives, political campaigns or initiatives
of some other kind which embed a religious, spiritual, political or moral belief as an integral
component. Moral crusades rely upon campaigns which trigger moral shocks to provoke public
debates. An extraordinary situation or conflict, which may receive unprecedented attention from the
public or the media or both, may be called a moral panic. Examples of animal related moral panics
include bird flu, BSE, dangerous dogs, etc.
Moral crusades can be controversial issues relating to lifestyle choice (e.g., alcohol consumption and
recreational or illegal drug use), sexual activity (e.g., pornography, homosexuality, monogamy) or
issues of individual freedom (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, death penalty). Generally, moral crusades are
social movements whose missions address fundamental and profound issues relating to human
activity, the relationship humans have with their perception of themselves and their place in society.
Even though moral crusades mean different things to different people, it is not unreasonable, if not
entirely correct, to view the animal rights movement as one. Certainly, the animal rights movement at
present behaves more like a moral crusade than a social movement with its emphasis on personal
lifestyle choice.

Social Movements
Sociologists Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper define social movements in The Social Movement
Reader as collective, organized, sustained, and noninstitutional challenge to authorities,
powerholders, or cultural beliefs and practices. (Goodwin and Jasper, 2003, 259)
The academic study of social movements by sociologists and political scientists offers insight into the
animal rights movement as a social movement. Further, the writings of social movement practitioners
(e.g., studies, histories, biographies, memoirs) also provide lessons to learn from their experiences.
For example, the animal rights literature includes biographies and movement studies and histories.
Further, sociologists and political scientists include the animal rights movement in their research.
In his book, Eco-Wars, political scientist Ronald T. Libby discusses analysis of the animal rights
movement by Bill Rempel, a research scientist in animal agribusiness at the Department of Animal
Science at the University of Minnesota. (Libby 1998: 62-63) Rempel makes the case that the
industrys perception of the political influence of animal rights groups passes through four stages. The
animal rights movement develops, politicises, legislates and litigates an issue. From my experience
with the animal rights movement, I conclude he was partially correct. Therefore, I have adapted it to
the following five stages.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Public education, when people are enlightened about the issue and embrace it into their lives
Public policy development, when political parties, businesses, schools, professional
associations and other entities that constitute society adopt sympathetic positions on the issue
Legislation, when laws are passed on the issue
Implementation, when laws and other public policy instruments are enforced on the issue
Public acceptance, when the issue is embedded into the values of society

This is the lifespan of a successful social movement, as it emerges from obscurity to acceptance. The
five stage analysis makes it possible to determine which stage is reached by a social movement, what
is next, and why some organisations and issues fail, stagnate or succeed. Most issues start in stage
one and expand to the others, but not always in a clear sequential order. Life is very complicated.
Everything never fits neatly into any analysis. Simplistic schemes are problematic. Nevertheless, they
help to determine where we have come from and where do we go from here.
For any social movement to achieve its mission it must pass through each of the five stages and
maintain an active engagement in each one. In doing so, its ability to resist setbacks, obstacles and
opposition from opponents is diminished increasingly. In other words, as a social movement expands
its presence in each stage while maintaining activities in each one, the power and control that any
opposition may weald against it is further weakened.
For example, bloodsports in Britain hunting and killing, foxes, deer and stags with packs of dogs on
foot and horse back and hare coursing was for many years in Stages One and Two. The hunting
issue is now in Stages Three and Four. With the passage of the Protection of Wild Mammals Act in
Scotland in 2002 and the Hunting Act in England and Wales in 2004, bloodsports went from being a
legal to an illegal activity. Nevertheless, pro-hunting interest groups continue to pursue, not always
successfully, their attempts to undermine or even overturn the legislation.

The Animal Rights Movement

The five stages illustrate the transition animal advocates must make from moral crusader to political
activist and the animal rights movement from a moral crusade to a political movement. We can never
assume a growing collective of personal lifestyle change automatically leads to institutional, societal
change. The capriciousness of human nature is subject to change. Institutionalised regulations and
laws are much more entrenched expressions of societys values.
History shows that social movements, including animal rights, are accused routinely of seeking change
which will adversely impact society if they achieve their objective. But it rarely, if ever, turns out to be
true. Indeed, it is surprising any social and economic progress has been made, given these outrageous
claims. The challenges other social movements confronted for various human interests are clearly
different from those which the animal rights movement faces. To make this statement is not to
underestimate their significant accomplishments; nevertheless, the animal rights movement asks one
species to change thousands of years of custom with its relationship with all other species.
Those who maintain we must use animals will say any rights animals may have must be subordinate
to dominant human interests. This frames human and animal interests as a competition. A strategic
dichotomy all too prevalent in human history: men superior to women; whites to blacks; natives to
immigrants; heterosexuals to homosexuals; and so on. In our case, it is humans are superior to
animals, which is called speciesism. As society evolves and we become aware of our superiority
prejudices, we seek to resolve them, as we become more aware of the resulting injustices. We
readjust, accommodate and move on, in all likelihood, all the better for it.
The same, no doubt, will be true for animal rights; particularly when it is understood that to feed the
worlds population and encourage well-being, animal exploitation in animal agriculture and animal
research are fundamentally problematic. This is why it is vital for the animal rights movement to be
viewed as more than just as a moral crusade.

I conclude the animal rights movement is mostly in Stage One (Public Education), with some presence
in Stages Two (Public Policy), Three (Legislation) and Four (Implementation). If Stages One and Two
are the moral crusade, Stages Three and Four are the political movement.
The animal rights movement has not progressed much beyond the first stage of a moral crusade.
Should I spay or neuter my companion animal? Should I stop eating meat? Should I visit a zoo? This
consumer-based advocacy is more usually known as vegetarianism and cruelty-free, vegan living.
Inevitably, the animal rights movement confronts the animal industrial complex because of its
instrumental use of animals. The arenas in which this conflict is played out include public opinion,
public policy, legislation, law and society generally. But the animal rights movement is not competent
for these encounters. Its understanding of the animal industrial complex, and institutional animal
exploitation, is limited to optional personal lifestyle choice. Animal rights is not understood as a
mainstream political issue.
In contrast to the animal rights movement, the animal industrial complex, which does understand the
politics of animal exploitation, is resolutely entrenched and fully engaged in all five stages. Which
stage would the animal industrial complex want the animal rights movement to be in? Its answer
would be the stage we currently occupy, Stage One Public Education. Further, it will do everything in
its power to ensure the animal rights movement maintains this position. This is because the first stage
is the beginning and the stage with least influence of all the five stages. Remember: the further along
the five stages that a social movement progresses, the greater its ability to resist its opponents,
thereby increasing its ability to succeed. In other words, the animal industrial complex is largely
unchallenged by the animal rights movement in its present form, as it is in Stage One and functions as
a moral crusade. Whereas the animal industrial complex is fully engaged in all five stages.
Why is the animal rights movement entrenched in Stage One?
The answer lies in how we become animal advocates.
With the exception of those who were raised by vegans or vegetarians and educated about animal
cruelty and exploitation, people become animal advocates because they experience a personal
transformative moment.
Everyone who is an advocate for animals has a compelling personal story. These unique narratives
describe how they were transformed from someone who ate meat and fish to a vegetarian or vegan.
Personal transformative moments may be triggered by a variety of experiences, including reading a
book, watching a film, speaking with a friend, witnessing animal cruelty, experiencing a profound
relationship with a companion animal and so on.
Philosopher Tom Regan describes in Empty Cages three types of animal advocates. (Regan 2004: 2128) The Damascan, who has a startling revelation. The Muddler, who struggles with the challenge of
animal rights throughout their life. The Davincian, who intuitively understood all along. Scholar Ken
Shapiro also characterises animal advocates as Caring Sleuths, who discover, seek and embrace the
suffering of animals.
These personality types help to illustrate who animal advocates are and how they each arrived from
different places. Also, they help to explain why animal advocates are a diverse group of people who do
not always agree. Regardless, each personal narrative is unique. Everyone experiences a personal
transformative moment when, what was previously hidden from view and what we are trained not to

see, reveals itself for what it is: animal cruelty and exploitation. Meat is not seen as delicious steak
but as the charred remains of dead animal body parts.
The personal transformative moment is powerful. So compelling, in fact, that it overwhelmingly
informs the rationale of most of the animal rights movements current strategy to educate the public.
This is why the calendar of the animal rights movement falls mostly into Stage One Public Education:
media stunts, information dissemination, demonstrations, advertising campaigns, personal appeals by
celebrities and so on. These are all attempts by the animal rights movement to influence people,
essentially, to go vegan.
The modern animal rights movement has increased public awareness about animal exploitation;
encouraged people to live cruelty-free lifestyles, particularly as vegetarians and vegans; persuaded
corporations, charities, non-governmental organisations, churches and other entities like them that
constitute society, to adopt various pro-animal policies; and lobby local, national and international
governments and their agencies to implement regulations and pass laws limiting or prohibiting some
animal use. Most of these accomplishments, but certainly not all, fall within the First Stage of Public
Education, or they began in that stage and later developed into Stages Two, Three and Four.
These accomplishments are remarkable. Not only for the prevalence and range of animal cruelty and
exploitation but also for the two key differences uniquely distinguishing the animal rights movement
from other social movements. Indeed, all social movements face significant challenges, internally
(e.g., limited resources) and externally (e.g., disinterested public and unsympathetic media). But
these two key differences add significantly to its challenges, making the mission of the animal rights
movement even more daunting and its accomplishments even more impressive. Also, it helps to
explain why animal rights is often thought of as a moral crusade.
The first of the two key differences speak to the nature of social movements and their protagonists
and beneficiaries (agency). It is customary that social movements are populated and supported by
those whose self-interests are sought. They are the agents of their change. Protagonists seek legal
status withheld from them usually because of a prejudice more widely felt by society. They wish to
redress wrongs committed against them or improve their well-being and legal standing. With respect
to the animal rights movement, the protagonists are mobilised in the interests of beneficiaries who are
not even the same species. The beneficiaries all animals who are instrumentally used by humans
are unable to form their own social movement to advance their own agenda. The protagonists who
seek animal rights come from one species, which is the same species that oppresses all others. The
animal rights movement is the only social movement whose beneficiaries are not the protagonists and
not the same species.
The question of benefits enjoyed by humans from exploiting animals is the focus of the second
difference between the animal rights movement and all other social movements. Although there are
benefits to humans from liberating animals from our exploitation, the perception of animal rights is
that, if it is accomplished, it would adversely impact human interests. Animal rights requires humans
to relinquish all benefits gained from animal exploitation, regardless of whatever harm it may cause to
humans. It is customary among social movements that any benefits gained by protagonists and
enjoyed by them as beneficiaries, also brings some benefits to others with minimal impact or little cost
to society.
Notwithstanding these two key differences, animal advocates want to persuade people to change their
hearts and minds, as well as their lifestyles, with respect to their relations with animals. The personal

transformative moment is the currency of the animal rights movement, which seeks to foment in
others similar conversion experiences. Indeed, personal change does change one person at a time.
But institutional change changes society. The fault line between success and failure for the animal
rights movement lies in understanding the difference between personal change and institutional
change.
Notwithstanding the emergence of the modern animal rights movement, there is no major increase in
the number of vegetarians and vegans in the countries where it is prominent. Opinion polls
commissioned by the Vegetarian Resource Groups between 1994 and 2012 suggest the percentage
number of adult vegetarians in the USA to be no more than five per cent. (Vegetarian Resource Group
2012) The UK Food Standards Agency found similar results (three per cent said they were completely
vegetarian.) (Food Standards Agency, 2009, 48.)
By emphasising personal lifestyle choice over institutional change, the animal rights movement
pursues a strategy which is not fit for purpose and impedes severely its ability to achieve institutional
change. A new strategy, with equal emphasis in action at the level of the individual and society, is
needed. The animal rights movement, only then, will be in a better position to succeed in achieving its
mission and confronting the animal industrial complex. Framing animal rights as a political movement
emphasises a strategy which moves from the individual to society, an approach that includes public
policy, legislation and law enforcement. This choice in strategy is reflected in how its mission is
viewed. Generally, animal rights is seen as a demand for individual lifestyle change. In contrast, as a
political movement, the animal rights mission calls for the transformation of society and its
relationship with animals.

New Strategy for the Animal Rights Movement

At the RSPCAs Rights of Animals symposium at Trinity College Cambridge in 1976, I heard Lord
Houghton of Sowerby challenge the animal rights movement in the UK.
My message is that animal welfare, in the general and in the particular, is largely a matter for the law.
This means that to Parliament we must go. Sooner or later that is where we will have to go. That is
where laws are made and where the penalties for disobedience and the measures for enforcement are
laid down. There is no complete substitute for the law. Public opinion, though invaluable and indeed
essential, is not the law. Public opinion is what makes laws possible and observance widely acceptable.
(Paterson and Ryder (eds.) Animals Rights: A symposium. 1979: 209. Emphasis in original.)
Although he did not frame his remarks in the context of my five stage analysis of social movements,
Lord Houghtons emphasis on the law and Parliament as the essential and unavoidable stage, answers
the question whether the animal rights movement is a moral crusade or a social movement? I believe
Lord Houghton would have said the animal rights movement is a social movement pursuing a political
agenda with the necessary support of the people. This is why he said, to Parliament we must go.
If the publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer in 1975 signifies the beginning of the modern
animal rights movement, I consider the RSPCAs Rights of Animals Symposium in 1976 to be its first
birthday party. Now, it its mid-30s, has the animal rights movement followed Lord Houghtons advice?
My answer is that it has not. With the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to understand why. When I
look back on these formative decades in the history of the modern animal rights movement, I see a
period principally of public education.

By public education I mean the emergence of the modern animal rights movement and the
development of animal ethics, the study of of our moral relationship with other animals, and the
impact they made in introducing animal rights into the public discourse. Campaigning for and thinking
about animal rights encapsulates what has taken place so far. Activists and philosophers may not
make, at first impression, complementary traveling companions; but the animal rights movement
demonstrates well why both are needed to inspire and inform. Indeed, in many cases, philosophers
were activists and vice versa! Further, many social movements also had complementary academic and
advocacy flanks. For example, feminism included the womens social justice movement and womens
or feminist studies.
Animal ethics is an essential development in understanding what we mean when we say moral and
legal rights for animals. Animal ethics is now an accepted subject for philosophy in the academy.
Animal ethics informs the public debate about our complex relationship of compromise and
concealment with other animals.
Further to animal ethics, there is also the development of animal welfare science in the biological and
veterinary sciences and animal studies in the social sciences and humanities. They indicate significant
changes are underway in the academy to understand our relations with animals. Two further related
developments in the academy are animals and the law and the political status of animals. In the
United States, animal law is enjoying significant growth in research and litigation; however, the study
of animals and politics is less developed, although there are indications that this is changing.
For many years, Robert Garner has stood out as the primary political theorist exploring the political
status of animals. His current research considers societys treatment of animals within the context of
justice and the application of ideal and non-ideal theory to animal ethics with respect to legislation
related to regulating and ending animal suffering. New research in the political status of animals is
being led by Siobhan OSullivan in Animals, Equality and Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan 2011) and
Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka in Zoopolis (Oxford University Press2011).
OSullivan makes the case that existing inconsistencies within the law relating to animals should be
addressed. For example, laws relating to dogs as companion animals and research tools are different.
Clearly, this difference reflects the nature of the relationship between dogs and people. One is a
companion animals. The other is a research tool. The law which establishes the highest standard of
animal welfare should be applied consistently wherever the law relates to that species, regardless of
the circumstances. In other words, the law should be the same for the same species in different
circumstances.
The approach that Donaldson and Kymlicka take is to apply political theories on citizenship to animals.
Our varied relationships with animals have their own moral complexities which have, in turn, political
consequences.
Some animals should be seen as forming separate sovereign communities on their own territories
(animals in the wild vulnerable to human invasion and colonisation); some animals are akin to
migrants or denizens who choose to move into areas of human habitation (liminal opportunistic
animals); and some animals should be seen as full citizens of the polity because of the way theyve
been bred over generations for interdependence with humans (domesticated animals). (Donaldson and
Kymlicka, 2011, 14)

The debate about animal ethics engaged by Singer, Regan and others is augmented by the debate
about politics and animals made by Garner, OSullivan, Donaldson, Kymlicka and others. It is one thing
to claim moral rights for animals. It is something else to persuade society and its representational
governments to recognise legal rights for animals, including enforcement by the state with its legal
apparatus.
Most, if not all, social movements struggle with the question of fundamentalism and real politik or
abolition and regulation. Often, they fail to resolve it successfully. The animal rights movement is no
exception. Frequently, this tension is framed as an exclusive choice. I do not support this view. Both
are needed to help the other achieve the change they seek. The challenge is to learn how to direct
strategies simultaneously and complementarily pursuing both. This is why animal rights is more than
just a moral crusade pursuing idealistic goals of abolition. It is also a pragmatic social movement
working to embed the values of animal rights into public policy.
There are five challenges the animal rights movement must address in order to implement this
strategy of theory and practice.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Establish animal rights alongside human rights as the responsibility of society in the
mainstream political arena as related and complementary points on a moral and political continuum
Organise within political parties to develop policies in support of animal rights
Make animal rights relevant to people and their lives by building alliances with the various
institutions that constitute society
Position animal rights as part of a progressive agenda of social change thereby rejecting the
view that there is a competition between human and animal interests
Frame animal cruelty and exploitation as violent behaviour which has serious consequences
not only for the animals but also for ourselves

Conclusion
Animals can neither join a moral crusade nor organise their own social movement. Unlike humans,
they can not be the agency of their own liberation. Further, animals are not the problem. They do not
chose to subject themselves to the cruelty and exploitation we inflict upon them. We are the problem.
And we are the solution. We can only stop institutionalised violence to animals and award rights to
them if we want to.
Notwithstanding significant challenges and noteworthy accomplishments, the impact to date of the
modern animal rights movement on societys relationship with animals is limited. The present reliance
upon a strategy emphasising personal lifestyle choice appeals only to a small minority. It is naive,
even delusional, for the animal rights movement to believe that this present strategy of a moral
crusade will persuade society and its representational governments to recognise legal rights for
animals, including enforcement by the state with its legal apparatus.
The animal industrial complex is the formidable adversary of the animal rights movement; however, its
position as opponent can be softened and, in certain situations, could be positioned as associate, if the
animal rights movement became a social movement with a political agenda. Therefore, I believe the
new strategy of the animal rights movement must be simultaneously as a moral crusade and as a
social movement. This is the only way to cross the fault line laying between success and failure in
understanding the difference between personal change and institutional change.

Comments (1) Leave a comment

1.
Sailesh Rao
September 21st, 2012 at 19:41 | #1
Reply | Quote

I arrived at veganism from an environmental standpoint. The Animal Industrial complex is responsible
for 51% of the anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions causing climate change. It seems to
me that this fact can be leveraged to turn animal rights into a powerful social movement with political
backing if people do get worked up about climate change. However, as you may know already, climate
change is getting increasingly short shrift within political circles as politicians are beginning to grasp
that solving it requires a major shift in industrial civilization, where endless growth is no longer the
objective of society. Veganism is about renunciation, which is not conducive to endless growth either.
Incidentally, I wrote a book entitled Carbon Dharma: The Occupation of Butterflies in 2011, where I
laid out the case for veganism as the main solution for the environmental crises facing humanity. Im
now working on a new book entitled, Occupy Dharma, tying it in with the animal rights movement
and the human rights movements such as Occupy Wall Street. I look forward to reading your Animal
Dharma when it is published.
Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Subscribe to comments feed

Submit Comment

RSS

Twitter

Kim Stallwood

Kim Stallwood is an independent scholar and author on the moral and legal rights of animals. His book, Growl: Life
Lessons, Hard Truths, and Bold Strategies from an Animal Advocate, was published by Lantern Books in 2014.
Since 1974, he demonstrated personal commitment and professional experience in leadership positions with some
of the worlds foremost animal advocacy organisations in the U.K. and U.S.A. This includes Compassion In World
Farming, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and The
Animals' Agenda magazine. He co-founded the Animals and Society Institute in 2005. He is also (volunteer)
Executive Director of Minding Animals International. His client organisations include CIWF and League Against Cruel
Sports in the U.K. and GREY2K USA Worldwide and Alley Cat Allies in the U.S. He became a vegetarian in 1974
after working in a chicken slaughterhouse. He has been a vegan since 1976. He holds dual citizenship in the U.K.
and U.S.

Growl: Life Lessons, Hard Truths, and Bold Strategies from an Animal Advocate

Growl is the book I wish I could have read when I discovered animal
cruelty and exploitation. I weave together two parallel narrative arcs. A memoir recalling how animals became
important to me and my experiences with the animal rights movement in the U.K. and U.S.; and an exploration on
what I now understand as the four key values in animal rights: compassion, truth, nonviolence, and justice. Growl
is published by Lantern Books and available from book stores and online.

Latest tweets from @grumpyvegan

The late morning program from Animal Biographies

conference. #animalstudies#animalrights #veganhttps://t.co/0sJ3jiNOua about 2 hours
ago from InstagramReplyRetweetFavorite

Daniel Wolf looks at Cesar in The Planet of the Apes -- a fictional biography.#animalstudies
https://t.co/EwWGnXVA3r about 2 hours ago from InstagramReplyRetweetFavorite

Dominic O'Key asks how do we imagine animal biography in post human world?
#animalrights https://t.co/epmliYGgWOabout 2 hours ago from InstagramReplyRetweetFavorite

Upcoming Events
1.

Alley Cat Allies, USA

November 1, 2015 - April 30, 2016

2.

Animal Biographies Conference, Germany

March 9 - March 11

3.

SOAS Elephant Conference, India

April 4 - April 6

4.

Scandinavia Speaking Tour

May 11 - May 17

View All Events

Library Thing
Books from my LibraryThing

The Animal Century: A Celebration of Changing Attitudes to Animals byMark GoldTagged: Animal
rights history,Animal rights movement

Pack of Two: The Intricate Bond Between People and Dogs by Caroline KnappTagged: Dogs

Darwinian Dominion: animal Welfare and Human Interests. byLEWIS:

PETRINOVICHTagged: Animals and philosophy,Darwin

Animal Breeding, Welfare and Society by Jacky TurnerTagged: Ethology, Companion animals, Animals in
entertainment,Animals in research, Animals in agriculture, Animals and public policy

Powered by LibraryThing

Archives

February 2016

January 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

June 2015

May 2015

March 2015

February 2015

December 2014

November 2014

October 2014

September 2014

August 2014

July 2014

May 2014

April 2014

March 2014

January 2014

October 2013

September 2013

July 2013

June 2013

May 2013

February 2013

January 2013

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

July 2012

June 2012

May 2012

April 2012

March 2012

February 2012

January 2012

December 2011

November 2011

October 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July 2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

October 2010

September 2010

August 2010

July 2010

June 2010

May 2010

April 2010

March 2010

February 2010

Categories

Animal Dharma (20)

Compassion (1)

Interbeing (2)

Nonviolence (4)

Truth (7)

Animal Rights (291)

Animal Rights Movement (96)

Books (54)

Events (10)

Kim Stallwood (142)

Hastings Old Town (18)

Living in the UK (31)

Politics (32)

Uncategorized (3)
TopWordPress
Copyright 2010-2016 Kim Stallwood. All Rights Reserved.
Theme by NeoEase. Extended byheroandtn3.

ANIMALS
From Moral Issues that Divide Us and Applied Ethics: A Sourcebook
James Fieser
www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class
Copyright 2008
Updated: 1/1/2015
Contents
1. Overview
2. Animal Rights and Human Irresponsibility People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals
1. OVERVIEW
Every day we are intimately connected with animals. We eat animals for food, wear
animal skins for clothes, own animals as pets, use animals for recreation, and
experiment on animals to test drugs and consumer products. We are aware of this, yet
we typically give little thought to the staggering number of animals that we use in
these ways, and what the animals themselves might be experiencing as we use them
for our purposes. While no non-human animal on this planet has the sophisticated
rational abilities that we do, many, nevertheless, have mental capacities that enable
them to experience pain, suffering and anxiety from our treatment of them. In this
chapter we will look at some of the more controversial ways that society treats
animals, and whether animals might have rights that protect them from our conduct
towards them.
BACKGROUND
The underlying problem with many of the uses of animals is that they cause them to
experience pain. Our first line of inquiry, then, is to determine which if any animals
are capable of experiencing pain. Next we must look at the specific pain-producing
ways in which we treat those animals.
Animal Consciousness and Pain
How do we know which if any animals have the conscious capacity to feel pain?
There are many different animals out there with varying degrees of neurological
complexity, from primitive ones like worms, to sophisticated ones like chimpanzees.

How do we get inside the minds of any of these o know what they are experiencing?
This points to a larger problem of how we know the mental experiences
of anyconscious creature, whether it is a human, an animal, or an alien from
outerspace for that matter. The only mental experience that I can directly encounter is
my own. If a rock falls on your foot, I cannot directly experience your thought process
to know whether you are consciously feeling pain, and, so too if a rock falls on the
foot of an animal. In fact, I cant even say with complete certainty whether you or
anyone else has a conscious mind at all since I cant access anyone elses mind
directly. All I see is how you behave, but for all I know you are just an unconscious
biological robot that is programmed to respond to certain stimulus, such as shouting
ouch when a rock is dropped on your foot. This is what philosophers call the
problem of other minds. Although the barrier between my mind and the minds of other
people is a permanent one, there is nonetheless a partial solution to this problem. If
there are enough physical and behavioral similarities between me and you, then Im
justified in inferring that you have mental experiences just like I do. The solution,
then, is one based on analogy, which can be expressed as follows:
1. When a rock falls on my foot, I consciously experience pain.
2. Joe has physical and behavioral features that are similar to mine.
3. Therefore, when a rock falls on Joes foot, he consciously experiences pain.
Since Joe and I are members of the same species and essentially identical
physiologically, it is reasonable for me to conclude that Joes mental experiences are
essentially the same as mine.
What, though, about animal consciousness and animals experiences of pain?
We are different species and physiologically distinct in many important ways. But,
while there may be dramatic differences between me and the animals, the same
solution from analogy still applies. If there are relevant physiological and behavioral
similarities between me and a cat it may be reasonable to conclude that the cat
experiences pain the same way that I do. The more physical and behavioral features
animals have in common with me, the more likely it is that they are conscious like me.
Often we rely on the behavior of an animal to make the judgment call, such as if it
limps, whimpers, or makes a recognizable facial expression of distress. These signs,
though, are not always reliable since we can too easily read into these our own human
experiences. A better test of whether an animal feels pain involves its physiology: the
closer its biological pain mechanism is to that of humans, the more reasonable it is to
assume that it experiences pain the way that we do. In humans, the experience of pain
involves the presence of (1) pain receptors throughout our body, (2) neurological pain
pathways within our brains, (3) natural painkillers that are released within the brain
when pain increases, and (4) specific pain pathways to the association cortex, which
gives the emotional aspect of pain.

Which animals, then, have these pain mechanisms? Invertebrate animals, such
as sea slugs, only have the first of these features, but lack the remaining ones which
involve more sophisticated nervous systems. It appears, then, that their receptors
operate as only stimulus-response reflex mechanisms, without involving any
conscious experience of pain. The story is different with most vertebrate animals,
though, particularly mammals, whose nervous systems are complex enough to support
the first three of the above features, thereby implying that they consciously experience
pain. As to emotional suffering, only a small number of mammals have an association
cortex, and in smaller mammals such as mice it is virtually nonexistent. It is
particularly prominent in chimpanzees and dolphins, which suggests that they might
be capable of experiencing human-like suffering.
Factory Farming
In the U.S., over 10 billion animals are raised and killed each year for foodabout 9
billion chickens, 250 million turkeys, 100 million pigs, 35 million cows. The vast
majority of these are not raised on small family farms but, rather, in large agricultural
facilities called factory farms, also known as Confined Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs). The idea of factory farming originated in the 1920s with the discovery of
vitamins A and D. When mixed with feed, farm animals were capable of growing
without sunlight or exercise, which enabled them to be raised more efficiently in barns
throughout the year. With population growth, and increases in meat eating, by the
1960s factory farming became widespread and today it dominates the meat production
industry. The driving force behind factory farming is economics: it is cheaper to raise
animals in a confined area using assembly-line methods than it is to manage them in
larger and open areas. The meat industry is highly competitive, and to stay in business
farmers need to adopt the most cost-effective methods of raising animals.
In the process of cutting production costs, factory farming has been
notoriously neglectful of animal welfare, and the main animals affected are cows,
pigs, turkeys and chickens. The central problem is that an excessive number of
animals are held in tightly confined areas, typically in metal buildings that allow no
access to sunlight, fresh air, or vegetation, and prevent them from moving around or
carrying out other normal behaviors. It is typical for feedlots to house thousands of
cows, or egg-laying facilities to hold over a million chickens in small cages stacked
several layers high. Many animals are so restricted that they cannot turn around to
satisfy their natural inclinations of self-grooming. Within these tightly compressed
areas, chickens often become aggressive and, to prevent them from pecking their
neighbors, farmers clip off their beaks shortly after they are hatched. Diseases rapidly
spread in such close and unsanitary living quarters, and to combat this antibiotics are
mixed in with their feed. To maximize efficiency, animals are given growth hormones
or specially bred to put on bulk, often to the point that their legs break under their
weight. About 10% of factory farm animals die from disease, injury and stress,

without ever making it to slaughterhouses. The enormous amounts of urine and feces
from these animals is stored in large lagoons or sprayed on crops, which pollutes the
air and contaminates groundwater.
The principle products of factory farming are meat and dairy items. However,
built into the economics of animal agriculture, all parts of slaughtered animals are
used as ingredients in various consumer products, as described here regarding the
rendered byproducts of slaughtered cows:
the blood of a slaughtered cow is used to manufacture plywood adhesives,
fertilizer, fire extinguisher foam, and dyes. Her fat helps make plastic, tires,
crayons, cosmetics, lubricants, soaps, detergents, cough syrup, contraceptive
jellies and creams, ink, shaving cream, fabric softeners, synthetic rubber, jet
engine lubricants, textiles, corrosion inhibitors, and metal-machining
lubricants. Her collagen is found in pie crusts, yogurts, matches, bank notes,
paper, and cardboard glue; her intestines are used in strings for musical
instruments and racquets; her bones in charcoal ash for refining sugar, in
ceramics, and cleaning and polishing compounds. [Steven M. Wise, Drawing
the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights, (2002)].
The life spans of all factory-farmed animals are very short. While the normal life of a
cow is 25 years, factory farm beef cattle are slaughtered at around age 1, and dairy
cows at age 4. Pigs, which live to 15 years, are slaughtered at less than a year.
Chickens, with a 7 year lifespan, are killed at 5 weeks for food and 2 years for egglaying. As the egg-laying industry uses only hens, unwanted male chicks are killed as
soon as they hatchabout 200 million a yeartypically by being dropped alive into a
grinding machine.
Animal Research
Over 25 million animals are killed each year in the US for animal testing. The specific
type of animal used depends upon the type of test thats performed. Around 90% of
these are mice and rats, and about 1% (i.e., 250,000) are cats, dogs and primates.
Other animals used in research are hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, chickens, sheep,
horses and cows. There are three main purposes of animal testing. First is to advance
scientific knowledge about animals themselves, such as their behavior and physiology.
Second is to use animals as models for studying human diseases, such as viruses, and
the effectiveness of human medicine. Third is to use animals as models for toxicity
testing of drugs, food, cosmetics, and household chemicals; these experiments tell us
whether a particular manufactured substance might be harmful or even lethal for
humans. Almost all research animals are killed when the studies are complete.
Inhumane treatment of laboratory animals can occur at every stage of their
lives. There is distress from their early weaning, transporting them in unfamiliar and

harsh conditions, housing them in cages for most of their lives, and restraining them
during testing procedures such as strapping a primate to a chair. Then there is the
test procedure itself which involves administering a drug or chemical, or performing
surgery. Toxicity tests are vivid examples. Suppose, for example, that a cosmetic
company develops a new facial cream. To test for potential harm, researchers will
apply the chemical agents in the cream to lab animals skin and eyes, feed it to them,
and have them breathe its vapors. The chemical will be introduced in both low and
high quantities to detect the point at which physiological problems might emerge.
Specific problems might include skin rash, weight loss, nausea, pain, genetic damage,
birth defects, organ failure, convulsions, coma, and death. Some animals will be
subjected to long term exposureabout two yearsto test for carcinogenicity. One
particularly controversial toxicity experiment is the Draize test, which involves
placing a substance directly into the eyes of a live, conscious animal, usually an albino
rabbit. While some countries are phasing out this particular procedure, it is still
practiced in the U.S.
To help limit the harm done to animals in laboratory experiments, some
researchers advocate what are known as the Three Rs of humane animal
experimentation: replacement, reduction, and refinement. The original creators of this
standard explain what each means here:
Replacement means the substitution for conscious living higher animals
of insentient material. Reduction means reduction in the numbers of
animals used to obtain information of a given amount and precision.
Refinement means any decrease in the incidence or severity of inhumane
procedures applied to those animals which still have to be used. [William
Russell Rex Burch,The Principles of Humane Experimental
Technique (1959), Ch. 4]
With replacement, alternative laboratory tests might involve experimenting only on
parts of animals, such as isolated cells, tissues, or organs; they might also test
invertebrates such as horseshoe crabs in place of vertebrates and mammals, or they
might study vertebrates only during early stages of fetal development. Computer
models of living organisms are also becoming an option. With reduction, one effort
would be to eliminate unnecessary duplication of animal experiments, which often
occur when researchers are unaware of or dont have access to the data of earlier
experiments. Researchers note that while needless redundancy should be eliminated, it
is often important to replicate the same experiments as part of the scientific method
whereby one researcher confirms the findings of another. With refinement, animal
suffering can be reduced by giving them more natural environments and better
anesthesia.

Animal Advocacy Groups

Numerous animal advocacy organizations have emerged which seek to improve
animal conditions in one way or another. Perhaps the most famous of these are the
Humane Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
Slightly more radical is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which
devotes most of its resources to opposing factory farming, animal research, the animal
clothing industry, and the animal entertainment industry. Their website contains
especially graphic videos of animal mistreatment within these industries. Some
organizations have particularly narrow focuses. For example, the Coalition for
Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) opposes animal testing with cosmetics
and lists companies that have adopted their "Corporate Standard of Compassion for
Animals," thereby agreeing not to test on animals during any stage of product
development.
Another specialized group is the Great Ape Project, which aims to secure legal
rights for large primates, which are the closest genetic relatives to human beings, and
share many of our mental and emotional characteristics. Founded in 1993, the Project
aims to take a census of all great apes worldwide, and, in the U.S., it seeks release of
the 3,000 of them in captivity, almost half of which are used in biomedical research.
The Project is lobbying the United Nations to enact a Declaration on Great Apes that
includes the following:
We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes:
human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans. The
community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain
basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and
enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following: 1. The
Right to Life. . . 2. The Protection of Individual Liberty. . . 3. The Prohibition
of Torture. . . . [www.greatapeproject.org]
New Zealand has enacted a version of the Great Ape Declaration.
Some animal advocacy groups advance their causes through illegal tactics and
are classified as domestic terrorists by the U.S. government, often with the
designation of animal enterprise terrorism. The most famous of these is the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF), and their activist guidelines include the following:
1. To liberate animals from places of abuse, i.e. laboratories, factory farms, fur
farms, etc, and place them in good homes where they may live out their
natural lives, free from suffering.
2. To inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and
exploitation of animals.

3. To reveal the horror and atrocities committed against animals behind locked
doors, by performing non-violent direct actions and liberations.
4. To take all necessary precautions against harming any animal, human and
non-human. [www.animalliberationfront.com]
ALF members have vandalized fur stores, slaughterhouses, meat shops, animal
breeding facilities, fast-food restaurants and circuses. They have conducted raids on
animal testing facilities, releasing animals and stealing research videos of animal
experiments. They have sent letter bombs and firebombed buildings. All of these
activities, they maintain, are in the interests of freeing animals from mistreatment and
making it financially unprofitable for companies and research institutions to harm
animals.
What People Think
The surveys below suggest that people in the U.S. are generally concerned about
animal protection, but are not ready to make big sacrifices on behalf of animals when
it conflicts with human interests (fromwww.pollingreport.com, 5/8-11/08).
"Which of these statements comes closest to your view about the treatment of
animals? Animals deserve the exact same rights as people to be free from harm
and exploitation. Animals deserve some protection from harm and exploitation,
but it is still appropriate to use them for the benefit of humans. OR, Animals
don't need much protection from harm and exploitation since they are just
animals."
Same Rights As People: 25
Some Protection: 72
They are Just Animals: 3
Unsure: 1
"Here are some specific proposals concerning the treatment of animals. For
each one, please say whether you strongly support this proposal, somewhat
support it, somewhat oppose it, or strongly oppose this proposal.
"Passing strict laws concerning the treatment of farm animals"
Strongly Support: 35
Somewhat Support: 29
Somewhat Oppose : 20
Strongly Oppose: 13
Unsure: 3
"Banning all product testing on laboratory animals"

Strongly Support: 15
Somewhat Support: 24
Somewhat Oppose: 31
Strongly Oppose: 28
Unsure: 2
"Banning sports that involve competition between animals, such as horse
racing or dog racing"
Strongly Support: 16
Somewhat Support: 22
Somewhat Oppose: 25
Strongly Oppose: 34
Unsure: 3
"Banning all medical research on laboratory animals"
Strongly Support: 13
Somewhat Support: 22
Somewhat Oppose: 31
Strongly Oppose: 33
Unsure: 1
"Banning all types of hunting"
Strongly Support: 8
Somewhat Support: 13
Somewhat Oppose: 29
Strongly Oppose: 48
Unsure: 1
ETHICAL ISSUES
While animal science can tell us how closely animal physiology is to that of humans,
and whether animals can experience pain and suffering like we do, science by itself
cannot tell us whether animals have the same moral status that we have. This is a more
philosophical issue that hinges on whether animals are moral persons in a way that
human beings are. Humans are moral persons in the sense that we have a moral
standing, moral worth and moral rights; others have moral duties towards us and must
treat us in morally responsible ways. It is our moral personhood that enables us to say,
for example, that it is wrong for others to assault, kidnap, torture or kill us. There are
largely three ways of viewing the moral personhood of animals:

Clear line position: humans are unique among living creatures, and we alone have moral
personhood, which all non-human animals lack.

Equality position: human and many non-human animals have an equal status as moral
persons and no distinctions can be drawn between their moral worth.
Sliding scale position: there is a spectrum of moral worth among animals where humans
are at the top, followed by primates, then other higher mammals (dogs, cats, pigs), then
lower vertebrate (birds, frogs), then invertebrates (flies, worms), then single-celled
creatures.

With each of these positions, the deciding factor involves what precisely the criterion
is for moral personhood: what specific quality does an organism need to have in order
to qualify as a moral person? There are a range of possible answers. Perhaps it is
merely animal life itself, particularly through the inclinations and desires that most
animals have to move about to acquire food, protect themselves or reproduce. Perhaps
it is rudimentary consciousness of its surroundings, or sentience, that is, the capacity
to experience pleasure or pain. Perhaps it is a higher cognitive faculty, such
as rationality, self-awareness, speaking a complex language, or learning complex
tasks. Well look at how the various possible criteria of personhood factor into the
above three positions.
Clear Line Position
Until recently, philosophers throughout the history of Western civilization have
typically taken the clear line position regarding the moral status of animals. In
virtually every case the argument has been that animals lack a fundamental humanlike mental quality that is necessary to give it personhood. Augustine (354430)
argued that the critical mental quality is rationality pure and simple, and since animals
lack this, God permits humans to use animals as we see fit:
If when we say Thou shalt not kill, we do not understand this of the plants,
since they have no sensation. Nor do we understand this of the irrational
animals that fly, swim, walk, or creep, since they are dissociated from us by
their lack of reason, and are therefore, by the just appointment of the Creator,
subjected to us to kill or keep alive for our own uses. [City of God, 1.20]
When denying that animals are rational, Augustine had in mind specific cognitive
abilities, such as to do mathematics, draw logical deductions, and discover scientific
and moral principles. He largely assumes that these are the criteria that confer moral
worth, without explaining why this is so.
One of the more sophisticated defenders of the clear line position was French
philosopher Ren Descartes (15961650), whose views hinge on the philosophical
position called spirit-body dualism. According to Descartes, human beings are
composed of two distinct types of substances: a physical body and a non-physical
spirit-mind. Our physical bodies, he argued, are simply biological machines that
follow strict biological laws of nature; our bodies are essentially robots without any

capacity for conscious thought. Our spirit-minds, on the other hand, exist in a nonthree-dimensional spirit realm and are responsible for our consciousness and
reasoning. Our spirit-minds are connected to our robotic bodies at a point in the center
of our brains, which enables us to control our movements of our bodies the way that a
puppeteer controls a puppet. But animals, he argues, are composed only of one
substance, namely, a physical body, and completely lack a spirit-mind. The bodies of
animals behave purely mechanically with no conscious mental activity whatsoever.
Descartes recognized that some animals occasionally appear to have rational abilities,
as when we train dogs to perform clever tricks, but these are still just robotic activities
that dog trainers program into them. But, he argued, the clearest proof that animals
have no spirit-mind is that they are incapable of expressing themselves in any
language:
it has never yet been observed that any animal has arrived at such a degree of
perfection as to make use of a true language. That is to say, they have not been
able to indicate to us by the voice, or by other signs anything which could be
referred to thought alone, rather than to a movement of mere nature. For the
word is the sole sign and the only certain mark of the presence of thought
hidden and wrapped up in the body. [Letter to Henry Moore]
On Descartes view, then, not only are animals not rational, but, lacking a spirit-mind
as they do, they are not even conscious and thus are incapable of experiencing pain. If
an animal acts as if its in pain, it is only a reflexive action that is part of its biological
programming. Descartes himself performed surgical experiments on live animalsa
practice called vivisectionand his stance on animal pain provided a moral
justification for vivisection in the centuries that followed.
Another influential traditional philosopher who defended the clear-line
position was Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant agreed with philosophers before him
that animals are mere things that lack self-consciousness and rationality.
However, Kant cautioned against needlessly torturing animals, not for the animal's
sake, but because this desensitizes people towards suffering which they may then
inflict on another person. If I torture an animal, Ill be more predisposed to act cruelly
towards human beings. He writes,
Tender feelings towards dumb animals develop humane feelings towards
mankind. In England butchers and doctors do not sit on a jury because they are
accustomed to the sight of death and hardened. Vivisectionists, who use living
animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly, although their aim is
praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals must be regarded
as mans instruments; but any such cruelty for sport cannot be justified.
[Lectures on Ethics]

On Kants view, then, the moral obligation that we have regarding animals is not
directly towards the animals themselves, but, rather, indirectly towards human
interests alone.
From our contemporary perspective there are serious problems with the clear
line position on the moral status of animals. Scientists today reject Descartes view of
spirit-body dualism and instead hold that human consciousness is purely a function of
biological brain activity. Thus, if animal brains are sufficiently similar to ours, it is
reasonable to assume that those animals are also conscious and capable of feeling
pain. Recent animal studies also suggest that animals show many signs of rationality
that we thought were previously only reserved for humans. Many animals have
sophisticated communication, and chimpanzees that were taught sign language have
vocabularies of over 200 words, about the level of a two or three year old human.
Many animals have impressive problem solving skills and can use rocks or sticks as
tools. If rationality is the litmus test of moral personhood, as Augustine, Descartes and
Kant assume, then some animals might pass that test, perhaps even near the level of
some humans.
Equality Position
Again, the equality position is that human and many non-human animals have an
equal status as moral persons and no distinctions can be drawn between their moral
worth. It is unlikely that anyone has seriously held the position that all animals,
including single-celled ones such as amoebas, have an equal moral status with
humans. Rather, defenders of the equality position identify a class of animals that
exhibit a particular criterion of personhood, such as vertebrates or mammals, and
recognize them as having the same moral worth as us. The religion of Janism,
originating in India around 500 BCE, is representative of this view, as one of their
scriptures states, all breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain,
nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away (Akaranga
Sutra, 1.4.1). Even insects and worms have moral worth, and Jain believers often wear
masks over their faces to keep from accidentally inhaling flies, and they sweep the
bugs paths in front of themselves with brooms. Their underlying rationale is that
human souls may be reincarnated in the bodies of animals, and thus the reverence that
we show towards human life extends to these creatures as well.
Even in Western civilization there are indications that ancient thinkers held to
the equality position, as described in the following:
Not only men of moderate abilities, but even first-rate sages and philosophers,
such as Pythagoras and Empedocles, declare that all kinds of living creatures
have a right to the same justice. They declare that unpardonable penalties loom
over those who have done violence to any animal whatsoever. It is, therefore, a

crime to injure an animal, and the perpetrator of such crime. [Cicero, Republic,
3]
But, like Jainism, these schools of thought require a religious-like commitment that
would not come easily to people outside of those traditions. In more recent times,
English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was the first philosopher to suggest
a more secular justification for the equality view. There are two components to
Benthams position. The first is his view that the criterion of personhood is sentience,
that is, the capacity to experience pleasure and pain. He writes, The question is not,
can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer? (Principles of Morals and
Legislation, Chapter 17.1). According to Bentham, many animals have that capacity,
and because of that they have a moral standing. The second part of Benthams position
is his view of utilitarianism, that is, morally right actions are those that bring about the
most pleasure for the most people. When determining whether an action is right or
wrong, we should tally the amount of pleasure and pain our actions cause. Since
animals experience pleasure and pain, then we must factor their interests into the
equation. We rarely take into account the interests of animals when we make moral
decisions. However, according to Bentham, we should, and perhaps someday animals
will have rights like we do: The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation
may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by
the hand of tyranny (ibid).
Bentham never fully developed his sentience-based view of animal rights, and
in fact his only discussion of the subject appears in a footnote. The task of expanding
on Benthams view was taken up by contemporary Australian philosopher Peter
Singer (b. 1946). According to Singer, utilitarianism offers a clear standard of equality
that applies to all sentient creatures: the interests of every sentient being affected by
an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests
of any other being. When we fail to give the interests of animals the same weight as
those of humans, we are engaged in an act of prejudice and bigotry against animals
that is analogous to the prejudice that underlies racism or sexism. Singer calls
this speciesism:
It is on this basis [of equality of rights] that the case against racism and the case
against sexism must both ultimately rest; and it is in accordance with this
principle that the attitude that we may call speciesism, by analogy with
racism, must also be condemned. Speciesismthe word is not an attractive
one, but I can think of no better termis a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor
of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members
of other species. . . . If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not
entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle

humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose? [Animal Liberation,

Preface]
According to Singer, we show speciesism and thereby wrongly discriminate against
animals when we eat them for food or submit them to cruel experiments, neither of
which we would permit with our own species.
Another recent defender of the equality position is American philosopher Tom
Regan (b. 1938). Rather than select sentience as the criterion of personhood, as
Bentham and Singer do, Regan focuses on a broader cognitive ability that he calls
being the subject of a life. He describes this here:
we are each of us the experiencing subject of a life, a conscious creature having
an individual welfare that has importance to us whatever our usefulness to
others. We want and prefer things, believe and feel things, recall and expect
things. And all these dimensions of our life including our pleasure and pain, our
enjoyment and suffering, our satisfaction and frustration, our continued
existence or our untimely death -- all make a difference to the quality of our life
as lived, as experienced, by us as individuals. [The Case for Animal Rights
(1989)]
While the above list of mental qualities includes sentience, what is important, for
Regan, is that there is a subject, or an I behind the preferences, beliefs and feelings
that we have. Its this larger ability to view the world through our first-person
perspective that gives us inherent worth. For Regan, many animals also have this
capacity. Consequently, as the same is true of those animals that concern us (the ones
that are eaten and trapped, for example), they too must be viewed as the experiencing
subjects of a life, with inherent value of their own (ibid).
The biggest problem with the equality position is that animal species vary
enormously in their cognitive abilities, and it seems arbitrary to set a single cognitive
threshold to differentiate those animals which have a moral standing from those that
dont. Singer himself sets that dividing line at sentience: an organisms capacity to
experience pleasure and pain. Thus he groups together snakes, fish and chickens in the
same moral community as chimpanzees and even humans. And, if we fail to include
some sentient animal species within the moral community, we are speciesists. Regan
sets a different dividing line, namely, having a first-person perspective of the world,
and this may not necessarily include snakes, fish and chickens. There are subtle
cognitive differences from one animal species to another, and, rather than having a
single dividing line of moral worth, it makes more sense to have several cognitive
thresholds which designate different levels of moral worth. That brings us to the third
position, that of the sliding scale.

Sliding Scale Position

Again, the sliding scale position regarding the moral status of animals is that there is a
spectrum of moral worth among animals where humans are at the top, on down to the
lowest animal forms at the bottom. There are major differences in the cognitive
abilities of various animals, and, accordingly, a spectrum of mental criteria of
personhood confers differing degrees of moral worth to different animals. At the
bottom end would be mere animal life inclination to move around, which even worms
and other invertebrates have. Next would be consciousness of ones surroundings and
sentience, which fish and birds have. Next would be rationality and self-awareness,
which higher animals such as dogs, cats and pigs have. Next would be higher rational
functions that Chimps exhibit, and finally the highest rational functions that humans
have. While all animals have some level of inherent worth, the more intelligent
animals have it to a higher degree and thus have a stronger set of moral rights than
less intelligent animals do.
The advantage of the sliding scale view is that it acknowledges that all animals
have at least some moral worth (unlike the clear line position) while at the same time
recognizes that there are cognitive differences that impact a things moral status
(unlike the equality view). How, though, might such a sliding scale proportion moral
worth to cognitive ability? At the very low end we might say that animals that are
completely unconscious animals might be entitled to have us protect their species
from extinction. Since they are unconscious, it would make little difference whether
one survived rather than another, but it would be appropriate to acknowledge their
species successful struggle for existence so far. Higher up on the scale, animals that
are sentient would have the rudimentary right to be free from unnecessary suffering.
This would require the elimination of cruel practices within factory farming and
animal experimentation. Higher still, animals that are self-aware and have a sense of
personal identity might have a right to life that would prohibit us from killing them for
food or research. The highest non-human animals, such as chimpanzees, have a great
capacity for emotional suffering, and for that reason might be entitled to a life in a
well-maintained and protected habitat. That is, we might go beyond our basic duty to
avoid killing them and more actively ensure that they remain alive and healthy within
their natural environments, free of predators as much as possible.
In animal rights discussions, the sliding scale position is sometimes attacked
by defenders of the equality position on the grounds that if we adopt a sliding scale of
moral worth, then this would lead us to assign less worth to humans that are mentally
deficient. Its wrong to devalue the moral standing of mentally deficient humans, so it
is also wrong to do that with animals. However, defenders of the sliding scale position
have a response. There is a long standing principle in moral philosophy that what
matters are the attributes pertaining to human beings generally, not the irregularities
that appear in an isolated person. Aquinas states this succinctly: in human acts the
line of natural rightness is not drawn to suit the accidental variety of the individual,

but the properties common to the whole species (Summa Contra Gentiles, 3.122).
There are any number of differences that we can find between one individual human
and anotherdifferences in strength, intelligence, sociabilitybut none of these alter
ones fundamental moral standing. Morality is essentially a one-size-fits-all
phenomenon for humans, and it applies equally to all members of the human species,
even those who are mentally deficient. The sliding scale position also extends this
reasoning to the various animal species at their respective levels of cognitive
complexity. The individual members of animal species at the low end of the cognitive
spectrum have a uniformly lower moral standing, and those at the higher end have a
uniformly higher moral standing.
PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES
As with most countries around the world, in the U.S. animals have the legal status of
property, and have no direct legal standing in their own right as legal personsthe
way, for example, that individual people or corporations do. With much of the
property we own, such as refrigerators and can openers, we can do with them as we
please. Our treatment of the animals we own, though, is regulated by law, some
federal, and some state. While many of the laws attempt to safeguard the wellbeing of
animals, much of the time they strike a middle ground between the interests of the
animals and the financial interests of the owners, such as factory farms, research labs
and pet owners. Activist groups that seek to improve the laws protecting animals are
of two sorts. First, animal welfare advocates seek to maintain the legal status of
animals as property and their current uses as food and in research, while encouraging
reforms on behalf of animals. Second, animal rights advocates seek legal personhood
status for animals, which would have the practical effect of enabling animal advocacy
groups to sue to protect the interests of animals directly.
Federal Animal Laws
U.S. laws that govern the use of animals exist on both the federal level, applying to
the nation at large, and the state level, applying to just those jurisdictions. Three
federal laws are particularly noteworthy. First, the Humane Methods of Livestock
Slaughter Act, enacted in 1958, regulates how animals can be killed for food, with the
aim of preventing the needless suffering of animals and also to improve working
conditions for people in the slaughtering industry. The heart of the act is its
description of how livestock are to be killed: all animals are rendered insensible to
pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid
and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Over the years,
though, the Act has been criticized on several grounds. First, for decades there was
poor enforcement of the laws since inspectors often did not have legal access to the
killing floors within the slaughterhouses themselves. Without the ability to directly
view the procedures, they could not detect violations. In 2002 Congress attempted to

address this deficiency by enacting a resolution that would ensure the enforcement
of the slaughter act. Second, the Act focuses only on how agricultural animals are put
to death, not on how they are raised, and, as animal rights advocates charge, animals
endure widespread suffering and neglect in overcrowded factory farm settings. Third,
the Act pertains to only cattle, pigs, and sheep, but not other animals commonly
slaughtered, particularly chicken, turkey, and fish, which together comprise over 99%
of the animals killed for food in the U.S.
The second law is the Animal Welfare Act, signed into law in 1966, which aims
to protect animals used in scientific research by restricting the procedures that can be
performed on them. The Act is accompanied by a detailed and regularly updated set of
regulations that provide guidelines for researchers. The regulations that pertain
directly to animal pain during experiments are the following:
(i) Procedures involving animals will avoid or minimize discomfort, distress,
and pain to the animals . . . (iii) The principal investigator has provided written
assurance that the activities do not unnecessarily duplicate previous
experiments; (iv) Procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight
pain or distress to the animals will: (A) Be performed with appropriate
sedatives, analgesics or anesthetics, unless withholding such agents is justified
for scientific reasons, in writing, by the principal investigator and will continue
for only the necessary period of time. . . (v) Animals that would otherwise
experience severe or chronic pain or distress that cannot be relieved will be
painlessly euthanized at the end of the procedure or, if appropriate, during the
procedure; (vi) The animals' living conditions will be appropriate for their
species . . . and contribute to their health and comfort. [AWA Code of Federal
Regulations, 2.31]
The guidelines above attempt to address many of the concerns of animal rights
advocates, such as minimizing suffering, avoiding duplication, providing adequate
care and living conditions. However, there is great latitude within the guidelines that
allow researchers to perform painful experiments on conscious animals, and the
minimum standards set for adequate care and living conditions may be too low.
The third law is the recent Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (2006), which
aims to protect companies from vandalism by animal activist groups. A similar law
was enacted in 1992, called the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, but animal research
and agricultural companies successfully lobbied Congress to strengthen the law and
classify offenders as terrorists. The law specifically targets any action
thatintentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property
(including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal
property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions
with an animal enterprise. While the law is primarily geared to punish animal

activists who cause property damage, its broad wording could be applied to nonviolent protestors if their activities result in a loss of profits. Opponents of the Act
charge that this seriously undermines animal activists legitimate right to protest, as
one critic states here:
That clause, loss of profits, would sweep in not only property crimes, but
legal activity like protests, boycotts, investigations, media campaigning, and
whistleblowing. It would also include campaigns of non-violent civil
disobedience, like blocking entrances to a laboratory where controversial
animal testing is taking place. Those aren't acts of terrorism. They are effective
activism. Businesses exist to make money, and if activists want to change a
business practice, they must make that practice unprofitable. [William Potter,
U.S. House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Animal Enterprise Terrorism
Act (2006)]
Other federal animal laws deal with the creation of wildlife management
programs, protection of marine mammals and migratory birds, and prohibitions
against animal fighting. One federal law, the Companion Animals Federal Pet
Protection Act, requires that pet shelters wait a period of five days before selling
unclaimed pets. The purpose of the Act, it explains, is to prevent animals from being
stolen and purchased from humane societies in order to use the animals for scientific
testing or illegal purposes (such as fighting, etc.). About 50,000 dogs and 100,000
cats each year are purchased from animal shelters for use in animal testing. The
waiting period gives owners a chance to retrieve their lost pets before they might meet
with that fate. In spite of this law, pets continue to be stolen by research animal
dealers. In one investigation a dealer stated "I know a few boys that go into rich
neighborhoods. . . they get some of them rich people's dogs and they don't even know
what happened to 'em." Another dealer admitted, "Well, let's face it, it's not legal, you
know. I took stolen dogs to him . . . I think well -- that could be a child's dog. You
know -- that could be a pet, ya know. . . Hey, a buck's a buck" (U.S. House Agriculture
committee hearing, Review of the Welfare of Animals in Agriculture, 2007).
State and International Animal Laws
While federal U.S. animal laws govern many aspects of animal treatment, there is no
comprehensive federal law that deals with animal cruelty: each state must enact its
own cruelty laws, and all 50 states have indeed done so. The state laws are only
criminal, and not civil, which means that animal ownersindividuals or companies
cannot be sued for cruelty, but only criminally punished. While cruelty to animals can
be a felony offense in most states, offenders are most often prosecuted for lesser
misdemeanor charges. A good example of a state animal cruelty law is the following
from California:

every person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or

wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is
guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine
of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more
than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000),
or by both the fine and imprisonment. . . . Every person [is also guilty of a
punishable offense] who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded,
overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or
shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal. [California penal
code sect. 597]
In addition to the above general law against animal cruelty, California has dozens of
more specific laws that regulate animal hunting, fishing, trapping, breeding, training,
impounding, poisoning, euthanizing and slaughtering. Some laws are geared towards
specific animals, such as those prohibiting the abuse of elephants, dog fighting, or the
sale of dog and cat pelts.
Countries around the world face the same animal-related problems that we do
and thus devise their own policies, many of which are more liberal than ours.
Germany has granted legal rights to animals. A farm animal welfare organization that
advises the British government has devised a list of five freedoms for animals:
1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirstby ready access to fresh water and a diet
to maintain full health and vigor.
2. Freedom from Discomfortby providing an appropriate environment
including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Diseaseby prevention or rapid diagnosis and
treatment.
4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviorby providing sufficient space, proper
facilities and company of the animal's own kind.
5. Freedom from Fear and Distressby ensuring conditions and treatment
which avoid mental suffering.
Many European countries have adopted a Pet Protection Treaty, which aims to protect
pets against unnecessary pain, suffering, distress, and abandonment.
But Switzerland has enacted what are perhaps the most animal-friendly laws to
date. A 1992 law mandates that animals be recognized as beings, not things, and a
more recent 2008 law extends to them a range of unique protections. Social animals,
such as hamsters and parrots, cannot be kept in cages by themselves. Fishermen
cannot use live bait and are prohibited from catching then releasing fish essentially

fishing for sport rather than food. Live goldfish cannot be flushed down the toilet and
owners of aquariums must light them in a way that maintains a natural cycle of day
and night. New dog owners are required to take a course on how to best meet the
needs of their pet.
ARGUMENTS PRO AND CONTRA
The Conservative Position
The conservative position on the topic of the moral status of animals is that humans
have a moral standing that is superior to that of animals, which justifies our use of
them. Animals have no moral rights and should have no legal rightsand animal
pain is justified when it brings about a human good. The main arguments for the
conservative position are these.
1. Animals are here for our use: As part of the natural order of things, animals
exist for human benefit, and we can use them as we see fit. As the dominant species
on this planet, all living things are under our complete authority. A criticism of this
argument is that might does not make right. Merely having power over something
does not entitle one to harm, torture or exploit it. A king cant line up and shoot his
subjects just because he dominates them. We even recognize this with inanimate
objects such as national treasures and irreplaceable works of art. If a museum owns
the Mona Lisa, that does not give the museum the moral authority to destroy it. So too
with animals: dominance over animals in and of itself does not justify us in doing
what we want to them.
2. Animal use is necessary. Use of animals is a matter of human survival, and
that surpasses any other consideration we may have towards them. We biologically
depend on animals for food, and we culturally depend on animals for scientific
advancement and safe consumer products. In a perfect world we might give more
consideration to animal interests, but as things stand, our use of them is a necessity. A
criticism of this argument is that, while animal use may have been necessary for
human survival in previous eras, it is no longer true today. We dont need animals for
food, clothing and labor. We no longer need them for scientific research and consumer
product testing. We keep using animals for these purposes since thats the way weve
always done it, but that doesnt mean that it is still necessary.
3. Human interests have greater importance: Human interests are more
important than those of animals, and thus outweigh them. There is a qualitative
difference between the lives that humans lead and those that animals do. Unlike
animals, we have an appreciation of cultural advancement; we have capacities for art,
music, scientific exploration, historical knowledge. Every action we perform as
humans is set against this backdrop of superior human interests, which overshadows
the more brutish interests of animals. A criticism of this argument is that trivial human
interests do not outweigh important animal interests. My desire for a tasty hamburger
does not outweigh the interests of a cow to continue to remain alive. My interest in

wearing alluring cosmetics does not outweigh the interests of lab animals to be free
from painful toxicity tests. I may have the aesthetic capacity to appreciate fancy
clothes, but that doesnt justify me in skinning an animal for that purpose. In most
cases, the specific interests that we have when using animals are quite trivial when
compared to the animals interests to remain alive and not experience pain.
The Liberal Position
The liberal position regarding animals is that many of them have moral personhood,
and thus qualify for both moral and legal rights. Thus, most human uses of these
animals are not morally justified, and animal pain is never justifiable even if it leads to
a human good. The main arguments for the liberal position are these.
1. Some animals are self-aware. Higher animals, such as dogs, cats, pigs, and
chimps, have higher mental capacities of self-awareness that give them their own
desires, preferences, and sense of identity. This capacity qualifies them for
personhood, which in turn, means that they have rights to pursue their preferences,
just as we humans have rights to pursue ours. A criticism of this argument is thatfew
animals have higher mental abilities that compare to those of humans. Maybe the
great apes and large sea mammals have brain structures that give them human-like
self-awareness, but that might be it. While animals like dogs, cats and pigs have
impressive mental abilities, they do not necessarily rise to the level that would give
them human-like moral or legal rights.
2. Many animals are sentient. Vertebrate animals, from fish on up to humans,
have nervous systems that enable them to consciously experience pain. This capacity
qualifies them for personhood, and implies that they have the right not to be inflicted
with pain. Virtually all of the uses that we make of animalsfor food, clothing,
research, entertainmentsubjects animals to pain, and is thus unjustifiable.A criticism
of this argument is that not all vertebrates perceive pain in the same way, and how
they do depends on the size and structure of their brains. Compare, for example, the
level of conscious sentience of a minnow fish with that of a chimp. The two may be so
far apart that, even if we granted personhood to a chimp, the minnows sentience
might be to too insubstantial to warrant it having personhood status. Thus, if there is
no uniform experience of sentience from one creature to another, then there is no
uniform standard of personhood which they all have.
3. Humans are traditionally speciesists. We have a longstanding bias in favor
of our own species, which prevents us from seeing the moral worth of animals.
Throughout history weve defined notions of rationality, personal identity, dignity, and
moral worth in terms of our human experience. Weve largely ignored the
sophisticated capacities of animals to communicate with each other and solve
problems. The more we learn about animals, though, the more we can see important
cognitive similarities with those of humans. The traditional bias that weve had
against the moral status of animals is grounded in ignorance and unfounded

stereotypes, in much the way that racial and gender bias are. A criticism of this
argument is that we have good reason to view species differently, but no good reason
to view races and genders differently. For example, there are no dissimilarities with
the cognitive abilities of races, which thus makes racial bias unjustified. But even our
most impartial understanding of animals reveals enormous gaps between their
cognitive abilities and ours, which justifies us in giving them a different status.
A Middle Position
Throughout the animal rights debate, it is easy to find areas of compromise on both
sides. On the one hand, we know so much more about animal physiology and
cognition now than in previous centuries that the traditional clear-line distinction
between the moral worth of animals and humans must be rejected. On the other hand,
science tells us that there are significant differences between the cognitive abilities of
animals and humans, and even between animals themselves; thus, it seems untenable
to hold that humans and all animals have equal moral worth. The sliding scale position
on the moral worth of animals is a reasonable compromise, and it has the benefit of
relying directly on what science tells us about the differing cognitive capacities of
animals. The greater is their capacity for sentience and self-awareness, the greater is
their moral worth. The challenge, though, is altering animal laws and business
practices in ways that would reflect the differing degrees of moral worth of animals. It
would be easy enough to accept the Great Ape Declaration, as New Zealand already
has. It would also be easy enough to at least cut back on animal testing in the ways
suggested by the Three Rs of humane animal experimentation. Meat consumption
could be dramatically reduced (even if only for reasons of health), and factory farming
techniques could be eliminated, as some European countries are doing. Other areas of
animal welfare, though, may be more tricky to regulatesuch as with hunting, fishing
and pet ownershipand may require time for society to acclimate to animal-friendly
restrictions.
____________________
#1.
Animal Rights and Human Irresponsibility
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
With nearly one million members, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA) is the largest animal rights organization today. Their guiding principle is that
animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. The
organization was founded in 1980 by two animal rights advocates who were inspired
by Peter Singers influential book Animal Liberation. Since its inception, PETA has

gained fame for its undercover investigations of animal abuse in laboratories and
food production facilities; videos of many of these atrocities are posted on their
website. Through their efforts, research and food production facilities have been
either shut down or forced to modify policies because of animal mistreatment.
In the selection below, which is in a question and answer format, PETA
defends animal interests on a range of issues. Defending the notion of animal rights,
they maintain that Animals should have the right to equal consideration of their
interests, for example, they should have the right not to have pain unnecessarily
inflicted on them. Experimenting on animals in the name of scientific research, they
argue, has no real benefit, and other experimental techniques are more effective than
animal testing. Animals unnecessarily suffer in the production of leather, wool, fur
and down; for this reason, they maintain, we should not purchase these products.
Responsible pet owners should spay and neuter their dogs and cats and allow them
outdoors only when walking them on leashes. Zoos, horse races, circuses and rodeos
all routinely mistreat animals. Hunting and fishing are not necessary for human
survival and these practices cause great animal suffering. A vegetarian diet, they
argue, will reduce animal suffering and on the whole is much healthier than a meateating diet.
INTRODUCTION
Whether youre a staunch animal rights advocate, an activist whos just getting
started, or a complete skeptic, you can use these answers to help clarify your
understanding of the animal rights movement. The responses presented here are by no
means the only answers to these frequently asked questions. They are simply intended
to provoke you to think about common assumptions and to serve as a resource as you
formulate your own opinions.
What do you mean by animal rights? People who support animal rights
believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment,
experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their
best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and
regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged
human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes
him or her).
What rights should animals have? Animals should have the right to equal
consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in
not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We are, therefore, obliged to
take that interest into consideration and to respect the dogs right not to have pain
unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her. However, animals dont always have the same
rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some
rights would be irrelevant to animals. For instance, a dog doesnt have an interest in

voting and, therefore, doesnt have the right to vote because that right would be as
meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.
What is the difference between animal rights and animal
welfare? Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow those
interests to be traded away as long as the human benefits are thought to justify the
sacrifice, while animal rights theories say that animals, like humans, have interests
that cannot be sacrificed or traded away to benefit others. However, the animal rights
movement does not hold that rights are absolute -- an animals rights, just like those of
humans, must be limited and can certainly conflict.
Supporters of the animal rights movement believe that animals are not ours to
use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, while supporters of the
animal welfare movement believe that animals can be used for those purposes as long
as humane guidelines are followed.
Animals dont reason, dont understand rights, and dont always respect our
rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them? An animals inability
to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a childs or a person with a
developmental disabilitys inability to do so. Animals are not always able to choose to
change their behaviors, but adult human beings have the intelligence and ability to
choose between behaviors that hurt others and behaviors that do not hurt others. When
given the choice, it makes sense to choose compassion.
Where do you draw the line? The renowned humanitarian Albert
Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime,
would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of
the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, A man is
really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is
able to help . He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy nor
how far it is capable of feeling. We cant stop all suffering, but that doesnt mean that
we shouldnt stop any. In todays world of virtually unlimited choices, there are plenty
of kind, gentle ways for us to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate ourselves that do not
involve killing animals.
What about plants? There is currently no reason to believe that plants
experience pain because they are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings,
and brains. It is theorized that animals are able to feel pain so that they can use it for
self-protection purposes. For example, if you touch something hot and feel pain, you
will learn from the pain that you should not touch that item in the future. Since plants
cannot move from place to place and do not need to learn to avoid certain things, this
sensation would be superfluous. From a physiological standpoint, plants are
completely different from mammals. Unlike animals body parts, many perennial
plants, fruits, and vegetables can be harvested over and over again without dying.
Its almost impossible to avoid using all animal products; if youre still
causing animal suffering without realizing it, whats the point? It is impossible to

live without causing some harm. Weve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in
gnats, but that doesnt mean that we should intentionally cause unnecessary harm. You
might accidentally hit someone with your car, but that is no reason to run someone
over on purpose.
How can you justify the millions of dollars of property damage caused by the
Animal Liberation Front (ALF)? Throughout history, some people have felt the need
to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French
Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to
answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people
who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as
stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty
buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF raids have given us proof of
horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have
resulted in criminal charges being filed against laboratories for violations of the
Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific
condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive
laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result.
If using animals is unethical, why does the Bible say that we have dominion
over animals? Dominion is not the same as tyranny. The Queen of England has
dominion over her subjects, but that doesnt mean that she can eat them, wear them,
or experiment on them. If we have dominion over animals, surely it is to protect them,
not to use them for our own ends. There is nothing in the Bible that would justify our
modern-day practices, which desecrate the environment, destroy entire species of
wildlife, and inflict torment and death on billions of animals every year. The Bible
imparts a reverence for life, and a loving God could not help but be appalled by the
way that animals are treated today.
Animals in cages on factory farms or in laboratories dont suffer that much
because theyve never known anything else, right? Wrong! Animals on factory farms
and in laboratories are prevented from acting on even the most basic instinctual
behaviors, which causes tremendous suffering. Even animals who have been caged
since birth feel the need to move around, groom themselves, stretch their limbs or
wings, and exercise. Herd animals and flock animals become distressed when they are
forced to live in isolation or when they are put in groups that are too large for them to
be able to recognize other members. In addition, all confined animals suffer from
intense boredom -- some so severely that it can lead to self-mutilation or other selfdestructive behavior.
Animals are not as intelligent or as advanced as humans, so why cant we
use them? Possessing superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse
another human, so why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans? There are
animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative,
and able to use language than some humans, as is the case when a chimpanzee is

compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability.

Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be
denied rights?
ANIMAL TESTING
Isnt animal testing responsible for every major medical advance? Medical
historians have shown that improved nutrition and sanitation standards and other
behavioral and environmental factors -- rather than knowledge gained from animal
experiments -- are responsible for the decreasing number of deaths from common
infectious diseases since 1900 and that medicine has had little to do with increased life
expectancy. Many of the most important advances in the field of health care can be
attributed to human studies, which have led to major medical breakthroughs, such as
the development of anesthesia, the stethoscope, morphine, radium, penicillin, artificial
respiration, x-rays, antiseptics, and CAT, MRI, and PET scans; the study of
bacteriology and germ theory; the discovery of the link between cholesterol and heart
disease and the link between smoking and cancer; and the isolation of the virus that
causes AIDS. Animal testing played no role in these or many other important medical
developments.
If we didnt test on animals, how would we conduct medical
research? Human clinical and epidemiological studies, studies on cadavers, and
computer simulations are faster, more reliable, less expensive, and more humane than
animal tests. Ingenious scientists have used human brain cells to develop a model
microbrain that can be used to study tumors and have also come up with artificial
skin and bone marrow. Instead of killing animals, we can now test irritancy on egg
membranes, produce vaccines from cell cultures, and perform pregnancy tests using
blood samples. As Gordon Baxter, cofounder of Pharmagene Laboratories -- a
company that uses only human tissue and computers to develop and test its drugs -says, If you have information on human genes, whats the point of going back to
animals?
Doesnt animal experimentation help animals by advancing veterinary
science? The point is not whether animal experimentation can be useful to animals
or humans; the point is that we do not have the moral right to inflict unnecessary
suffering on those who are at our mercy. Saying that its acceptable to experiment on
animals to advance veterinary science is like saying that its acceptable to experiment
on poor children to benefit rich ones.
Dont medical students have to dissect animals? No, they dont. In fact,
more and more medical students are becoming conscientious objectors who choose to
learn by assisting experienced surgeons instead of by using animals. In Great Britain,
it is against the law for medical students to practice surgery on animals, and British
physicians are just as competent as those who were educated elsewhere. Many of the
leading U.S. medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, now use

innovative, clinical teaching methods instead of cruel animal laboratories. Harvard,

for instance, offers a cardiac-anesthesia practicum in which students observe human
heart bypass operations instead of performing terminal surgery on dogs. The Harvard
staff members who developed this practicum have recommended that it be
implemented elsewhere.
Should we throw out all the drugs that were developed and tested on
animals? Would you refuse to take them? Unfortunately, a number of things in our
society came about through the exploitation of others. For instance, many of the roads
that we drive on were built by slaves. We cant change the past; those who have
already suffered and died are lost. But what we can do is change the future by using
non-animal research methods from now on.
Doesnt the law protect animals from cruelty? There is no law in the U.S.
that prohibits any animal experiment, no matter how frivolous or painful. The Animal
Welfare Act (AWA) is very weak and poorly enforced, and it does not protect rats and
mice (the most common victims of animal experiments), cold-blooded animals, birds,
or animals who are traditionally used for food. It is basically a housekeeping act that
does not prohibit any type of animal experimentation. Under the AWA, animals can be
starved, electrically shocked, driven insane, or burned with a blowtorch -- as long as
its done in a clean laboratory.
Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save
10,000 people? No. Look at it another way: Suppose that the only way to save
10,000 people was to experiment on one mentally challenged orphan. If saving people
is the goal, wouldnt that be worth it? Most people would agree that it would be wrong
to sacrifice one human for the greater good of others because it would violate that
individuals rights, but when it comes to sacrificing animals, the assumption is that
human beings have rights and animals do not. Yet there is no logical reason to deny
animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the
common good.
ANIMALS USED FOR CLOTHING
Whats wrong with wearing leather? Arent the cows going to be slaughtered for
meat anyway? This is a common misconception concerning leather, but leather is not
simply a slaughterhouse byproduct. According to industry sources, the skins of the
animals represent the most economically important byproduct of the meat packing
industry.
When dairy cows production declines, for example, their skin is made into
leather, and the hides of their offspring, calves raised for veal, are made into highpriced calfskin. Thus, the economic success of the slaughterhouse (and the factory
farm) is directly linked to the sale of leather goods. Decreasing demand for both
animal foods and leather products will reduce the number of cows who suffer and are

killed on factory farms. There are so many alternatives to leather, why support
unnecessary cruelty?
Whats wrong with wearing wool? As with other industries in which
animals are raised for profit, the interests of the animals used in the wool industry are
rarely considered. Flocks usually consist of thousands of sheep, so providing
individual attention to their needs is virtually impossible. Many people believe that
shearing sheep helps animals who might otherwise be burdened with too much wool,
but without human interference, sheep grow just enough wool to protect themselves
from temperature extremes.
Most wool comes from Australia. Just weeks after birth, lambs ears are holepunched, their tails are chopped off, and males are castrated -- all without anesthetics.
Male lambs are castrated when they are between 2 and 8 weeks old with a rubber ring
that is used to cut off their blood supply -- one of the most painful methods of
castration possible. Many lambs die from exposure or starvation before they are 8
weeks old, and many mature sheep die from disease, lack of shelter, and neglect.
To prevent flystrike, Australian ranchers perform a barbarous operation
called mulesing, which involves carving huge strips of skin and flesh off the backs
of unanesthetized lambs legs. When shearing, speed is everything. Shearers are
usually paid by volume, not by the hour, which encourages quick and careless work.
Says one eyewitness, The shearing shed must be one of the worst places in the world
for cruelty to animals. I have seen shearers punch sheep with their shears or fists until
the sheeps noses bled. I have seen sheep with half their faces shorn off.
Is the fur industry really as cruel as people make it out to be? Its even
crueler. PETAs investigations at fur farms have found that some animals are killed by
anal electrocution, meaning that an electrically charged steel rod is inserted into their
rectums, literally frying their insides. Exposed broken bones, upper respiratory
infections, and cancerous tumors were among the wounds and diseases that animals
endured -- without veterinary treatment -- on one fur farm that we investigated.
Animals caught in steel-jaw leghold traps are in so much pain that some
actually bite off their limbs in order to escape. Unable to eat, keep warm, or defend
themselves against predators, many die horrible deaths before the trapper arrives to
kill them. Others suffer in the traps for days until they are caught and killed. To avoid
damaging the pelt, trappers often beat or stomp the animals to death. Most states have
no regulations regarding methods of slaughtering these animals.
Whether enduring the excruciating pain of a leghold trap or a lifetime of agony
in a tiny cage, the animals suffer immensely.
How is down obtained? Typically, ducks and geese are lifted by their necks,
their legs are tied, and their feathers are ripped out. The struggling birds often sustain
injuries during plucking. They are then returned to their cages until they are ready to
be plucked again. This process begins at about 9 weeks of age and occurs every 6
weeks until the birds go to slaughter.

Feathers are often plucked out of ducks and geese who are raised for food.
Those raised for foie gras, especially, suffer terribly. They are force-fed up to six times
a day with a funnel that is inserted into their throats, and up to 6 pounds of a salty,
fatty corn mash is pumped into each birds stomach each day -- until the birds livers
have ballooned to four times their normal size.
Synthetic alternatives to down are not only cruelty-free, they are also cheaper
and, unlike down, retain their insulating capabilities in all weather conditions.
COMPANION ANIMALS
Does PETA believe that people shouldnt have pets? The earliest fossils that
resemble the bones of modern dogs are about 12,000 years old, so we know that
humans fascination with domesticated wolves began at least that long ago. About
5,000 years ago, Egyptians became the first to tame cats, whom they used to control
the rodent population. Since then, the breeding and care of cats and dogs has exploded
into a love affair, a sport, and a booming business. This international pastime has
created an overpopulation crisis, and as a result, every year, millions of unwanted
animals suffer at the hands of abusers, languish in shelters, and are euthanized.
Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but
powerful way to prevent some of this suffering. The most important thing that animal
guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from
breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis.
If I am able to find homes for all the kittens or puppies, why shouldnt I allow
my cat or dog to have a litter? While your intentions may be good, theres no way of
knowing what will happen to the animals once they have been adopted. This year,
millions of healthy, wonderful animals will go through the front doors of shelters -and go out the back doors in body bags. Many more will be abandoned on the streets.
All this misery and death could be prevented through spaying and neutering (surgical
sterilization). Every stray cat and neglected dog came from an animal who had not
been spayed or neutered.
Dont puppies in pet stores need homes just as much as puppies at animal
shelters? Besides, how else can I choose the breed? Many of the dogs sold in pet
shops come from puppy mills and breeding kennels. In puppy mills, female dogs are
kept in crude, outdoor cages without protection from rain, sweltering heat, bitter cold,
or biting winds. They are denied companionship and comfort and treated like breeding
machines. Their puppies are taken from them at an early age, packed into crates, and
shipped hundreds of miles to dealers, often without adequate food, water, or
ventilation. Poor breeding practices lead to numerous health problems, including
distemper, parvovirus, respiratory conditions, physical deformities, deafness, eye
diseases, and a host of other ailments.
Once puppies arrive at pet stores, life in cramped cages adds more strain to
their already stressed lives, increasing their susceptibility to disease. No law regulates

how pet shops must dispose of animals, and some stores have been caught killing
unsold dogs on the premises and throwing them into Dumpsters. While breeders churn
out millions of puppies each year, millions of animals are killed for want of a good
home. Dogs are dumped at local pounds or abandoned in the woods and on city
streets. Animal shelters are able to find loving homes for only a fraction of the animals
they receive, and the rest must be put to death. Because of the overpopulation crisis,
there is no such thing as responsible breeding.
What is PETAs position on euthanasia? Every day in the United States,
tens of thousands of puppies and kittens are born. Compare this to the 11,000 human
births each day, and its clear that there will never be enough homes for all these
animals. Shelters are stuck with the heart-rending job of dealing with unwanted
animals. People who refuse to spay and neuter their animals, those who abandon
animals when they grow tired of them, and those who patronize pet shops instead of
adopting stray animals or animals from shelters make euthanasia a tragic necessity.
Isnt it better to declaw a cat than to give him or her away? If you asked
your cats if it would be OK to put them through 10 separate, painful amputations that
would weaken their legs, shoulders, and back muscles, they would probably say no
-- and they wouldnt be alone. Many veterinarians in the U.S. and abroad refuse to
declaw cats. In fact, in Germany and some other parts of Europe, declawing is illegal.
Cats who have been declawed experience extreme pain when they awake after surgery
and have difficulty walking until their paws heal. Without their claws, cats are
virtually defenseless, and this can lead to neuroses and even skin and bladder
problems.
With the aid of a scratching post and firm, consistent instructions about where
they may and may not scratch, cats can easily be taught not to scratch furniture.
Whats wrong with chaining dogs outside? Isnt that better than having them
run loose outside? Condemning a dog to solitary confinement on a chain is so cruel
that it is illegal in some cities. Chained dogs are exposed to searing heat, bitter cold,
rain, and wind, putting them at risk for heat exhaustion, frostbite, and exposure-related
health problems. Chains can wrap around trees or other objects, water bowls can
easily tip over, and food can quickly spoil in summer or freeze in winter.
Chained dogs often become overly fearful of intruders and overly protective of
their tiny patches of ground. They are easy targets for cruel people who taunt and
tease them, and as a result, many chained dogs become defensive and untrusting. Not
surprisingly, dogs who spend much of their lives outside on chains often become
dangerous, while dogs who are well socialized and supervised rarely bite.
Perhaps worst of all, chained dogs are terribly lonely. They are pack animals
who long to love, live with, and be loved by their human families. Denying a dog
companionship is so cruel that some dogs are actually driven crazy by their loneliness.
Its best for everyone when dogs are treated as treasured family members.

Why shouldnt cats be allowed outdoors to explore and exercise? Cats

should be allowed outdoors for walks on leashes, just as dogs are, and to explore
securely fenced yards. A product called Cat Fence-In, a flexible mesh barrier that can
be placed on the tops of privacy fences to prevent cats from climbing out, can help
you keep your companions safe in your yard.
Like dogs or small children, cats who are let outdoors without supervision are
vulnerable to the dangers of cars, other animals, cruel people, and disease. Feline
leukemia, feline AIDS (FIV), feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), toxoplasmosis,
distemper, heartworms, and rabies can be difficult to detect and, in the case of FIP and
distemper, impossible to test for. Most of these ailments are highly contagious and can
easily be passed on to other companion animals.
Many people consider free-roaming cats to be pests. They do not want cats to
urinate, defecate, dig, eat plants, or kill birds on their properties. Free-roaming cats
have been shot, poisoned, and stolen by angry neighbors.
Fortunately, cats can live happy lives indoors.
Whats wrong with keeping birds in cages? All caged birds have either been
captured or captive-bred. In the wild, these beautiful beings are never alone, and if
they are separated from their flock, even for a moment, they call wildly to their
flockmates. These social animals preen each other, fly together, play, and share eggincubation duties. Many species of birds mate for life and share parenting tasks. In the
wild, most birds will not take a second mate if they lose their first.
Life in captivity is often a death sentence for birds, who may suffer from
malnutrition, loneliness, and the stress of confinement in improper environments.
Birds are meant to fly and be with others of their own kind in a natural environment.
ENTERTAINMENT
Dont zoos teach children important lessons about wildlife? No, zoos claim
to educate people about animals, but small enclosures do not allow animals to display
their natural behaviors, and signs typically tell visitors little more than the names of
the animals, where they can be found, and what they eat.
Animals normal behaviors are seldom discussed -- much less observed -- at
zoos because their natural needs are rarely met in zoo environments. Many animals
who live in large herds or family groups in the wild are kept alone or, at most, in pairs
at zoos. Natural hunting and mating behaviors are virtually eliminated by regulated
feeding and breeding regimens. Animals at zoos lack privacy and have little
opportunity for mental stimulation or physical exercise. These conditions cause them
to exhibit abnormal, self-destructive behaviors called zoochosis.
Many zoo officials focus on profits rather than the well-being of the animals.
A former director of the Atlanta Zoo once remarked that he was too far removed
from the animals; theyre the last thing I worry about with all the other problems.
Zoos teach people that it is acceptable to keep animals in captivity, where they are

bored, cramped, lonely, far from their natural homes, and at the mercy and whim of
people.
Dont zoos help preserve endangered species? Most animals in zoos are not
endangered or being prepared for release into natural habitats. In fact, it is nearly
impossible to release captive-bred animals into the wild. A report by the World
Society for the Protection of Animals showed that only 1,200 out of the 10,000 zoos
worldwide are registered for captive breeding and wildlife conservation and that only
2 percent of the worlds threatened or endangered species are registered in breeding
programs.
Rather than nurturing animals to thrive in natural settings, zoos place very
unnatural restrictions on their residents. For example, in zoos, polar bears are typically
confined to spaces that are only one-millionth the size of their minimum home range
in the wild. Animals who roam across large distances in nature often exhibit dementia
and stereotypical behaviors from boredom when placed in zoo enclosures, endlessly
pacing or swimming in circles.
Ultimately, we will only save endangered species by preserving their habitats
and protecting them from hunters -- not by breeding a few individuals in captivity.
Instead of supporting zoos, we should support groups like the International Primate
Protection League, the Born Free Foundation, the African Wildlife Foundation, and
other organizations that work to preserve habitats, and we should help nonprofit
sanctuaries, like Primarily Primates and the Performing Animal Welfare Society, that
rescue and care for exotic animals without selling or breeding them.
Arent racehorses treated well so that theyll perform better? Sadly, for
many equine athletes, injury and death are always just a hoofbeat away. One study on
racetrack injuries concluded that one horse in every 22 races suffered an injury that
prevented him or her from finishing the race, and another study estimated that 800
thoroughbreds die from injuries every year in North America. Over time, selective
breeding has made thoroughbreds legs far too fragile for their bodies. Most
thoroughbreds are owned by corporations that are only interested in the money that
the animals can make for them, and such owners dont hesitate to sell horses to
slaughterhouse kill buyers when they break down.
I love seeing animals at the circus, and they dont seem to mind performing,
so why is PETA against the use of animals in circuses? In his book, The Circus
Kings, Ringling Bros. founder Henry Ringling North noted that at circuses, tigers and
lions are chained to their pedestals, and ropes are put around their necks to choke
them down and make them obey. All sorts of other brutalities are used to force them to
respect their trainer and learn their tricks. They work from fear.
He also wrote that trainers commonly break bears noses or burn their paws to
force them to stand on their hind legs and that monkeys and chimpanzees are struck
with clubs while they scream.

The fact is, animals do not naturally ride bicycles, stand on their heads,
balance on balls, or jump through rings of fire. To force them to perform these
confusing and physically uncomfortable tricks, trainers use whips, tight collars,
muzzles, electric prods, bullhooks, and other painful tools of the trade.
We applaud trapeze artists, jugglers, clowns, tightrope walkers, and acrobats,
but lets leave animals in peace. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, India, Switzerland, and
the U.K. have all banned or restricted the use of animals in entertainment -- its time
for the U.S. to do the same.
Whats wrong with rodeos? In order to make them perform, normally
docile cows and horses are beaten, kicked, and shocked while they are in their chutes
and holding pens. Bucking broncos and steers are provoked with electric prods,
sharp sticks, caustic ointments, and the pinching bucking strap so that the animals
are frantic by the time they are released into the arena. Calves, who are roped while
they are running, have their necks snapped back by the lasso, which often results in
neck and back injuries, bruises, broken bones, and internal bleeding.
After their short and painful careers, animals in rodeos are sent to the
slaughterhouse. Dr. C.G. Haber, a veterinarian who spent 30 years as a federal meat
inspector, described the animals discarded from rodeos for slaughter as being so
extensively bruised that the only areas in which the skin was attached [to the flesh]
were the head, neck, leg, and belly. I have seen animals with six to eight ribs broken
from the spine and, at times, puncturing the lungs. I have seen as much as 2 to 3
gallons of free blood accumulated under the detached skin.
WILDLIFE
Without hunting, wouldnt deer and other animals overpopulate and die of
starvation? Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are natures way of
ensuring that the strong survive. Natural predators help keep prey species strong by
killing only the sick and weak. Hunters, however, kill any animal they come across or
any animal whose head they think would look good mounted above the fireplace -often the large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong. And hunting
creates the ideal conditions for overpopulation. After hunting season, the abrupt drop
in population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth
rate.
If we were really concerned about keeping animals from starving, we would
not hunt but instead take steps to reduce the animals fertility. We would also preserve
wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and other natural predators. Ironically, many deer
herds and duck populations are purposely manipulated to produce more and more
animals for hunters to kill.
Isnt hunting OK as long as I eat what I kill? Did the fact that Jeffrey
Dahmer ate his victims justify his crimes? What is done with a corpse after its murder
doesnt lessen the victims suffering.

Furthermore, hunters are harming animals other than the ones they kill and
take home. Those who dont die outright often suffer disabling injuries. Additionally,
the stress that hunting inflicts on animals -- the noise, the fear, and the chase -severely restricts their ability to eat adequately and store the fat and energy that they
need to survive the winter.
Hunting also disrupts migration and hibernation. And for animals like wolves,
who mate for life and have close-knit families, hunting can severely harm entire
communities.
What about people who have to hunt to survive? We have no quarrel with
subsistence hunters and fishers who truly have no choice in order to survive.
However, in this day and age, meat, fur, and leather are not a necessary part of
survival for the vast majority of us.
Unfortunately, many sport hunters have borrowed from aboriginal tradition
and manipulated it into a justification for killing animals for recreation or profit.
Is recreational fishing OK if the fish are released after being
caught? Unfortunately, people who practice catch and release fishing cause no less
harm to fish than do other anglers. Fish who are caught and then returned to the water
suffer such severe physiological stress that they often die of shock, or their injuries
may make them easy targets for predators.
Fish often swallow a hook so deeply that to remove it, the fishers shove their
fingers or pliers down the fishs throat and, along with the hook, rip out some of the
fishs throat and guts. We can appreciate nature and bond with friends and family
without hurting animals.
VEGETARIANISM AND VEGANISM
The animals have to die sometime, so whats wrong with eating
them? Humans die, too, but that doesnt give you the right to kill them or cause them
a lifetime of suffering.
Why should I feel bad about eating meat? I didnt kill the animal. You may
not have killed the animal yourself, but you hired the killer. Whenever you purchase
meat, the killing was done for you, and you paid for it.
What will we do with all the chickens, cows, and pigs if everyone becomes a
vegetarian? It is unrealistic to expect that everyone will stop eating animals
overnight. As the demand for meat decreases, fewer animals will be raised for food.
Farmers will stop breeding so many animals and will turn to other types of
agriculture. When there are fewer of these animals, they will be able to live more
natural lives.
If everyone became vegetarian, many animals would never even be born.
Isnt that worse for them? Life on factory farms is so miserable that it is hard to
imagine that we are doing animals a favor by bringing them into that type of existence
and then confining them, tormenting them, and slaughtering them.

If everyone only ate vegetables and grains, would there be enough to

eat? Yes. We feed so much grain to animals to fatten them for consumption that if
we all became vegetarians, we could produce enough food to feed everyone on Earth.
In the U.S., animals raised for food are fed 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other
grains that we grow. The worlds cattle consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric
needs of 8.7 billion people -- more than the entire human population.
Animals kill other animals for food, so why shouldnt we? Most animals
who kill for food could not survive if they didnt, but that is not the case for humans.
In fact, we would be better off if we didnt eat meat. Many animals, including some of
our closest primate relatives, are vegetarians. We should look to them, rather than to
carnivores, as models of healthy eating.
Arent humans natural carnivores? Actually, a vegetarian diet suits the
human body better than a diet that includes meat. Carnivorous animals have claws,
short digestive tracts, and long, curved fangs. Humans have flat, flexible nails, and our
so-called canine teeth are minuscule compared to those of carnivores and even
compared to vegetarian primates like gorillas and orangutans. Our tiny canine teeth
are better suited to biting into fruits than tearing through tough hides. We have flat
molars and long digestive tracts that are suited to diets of vegetables, fruits, and
grains. Eating meat is hazardous to our health and contributes to heart disease, cancer,
and many other health problems.
Dont humans have to eat meat to stay healthy? Both the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and the American Dietetic Association have endorsed vegetarian diets.
Studies have also shown that vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels than meateaters and are far less likely to die of heart disease or cancer. The consumption of
meat and dairy products has been conclusively linked with diabetes, arthritis,
osteoporosis, clogged arteries, obesity, asthma, and impotence.
Dont vegetarians have difficulty getting enough protein? In Western
countries, our problem is that we get too much protein, not too little. Most Americans
get at least twice as much protein as they need, and too much protein, especially
animal protein, can increase your risk of osteoporosis and kidney disease.
You can get enough protein from whole wheat bread, oatmeal, beans, corn,
peas, mushrooms, or broccoli -- almost every food contains protein. Unless you eat a
great deal of junk food, its almost impossible to eat as many calories as you need for
good health without getting enough protein.
Dont farmers treat their animals well so theyll produce more milk or
eggs? Animals on factory farms gain weight, lay eggs, or produce milk not because
they are well cared for, comfortable, and content but because their bodies have been
manipulated with medications, hormones, genetics, and management techniques. In
addition, animals raised for food are slaughtered when they are extremely young,
usually before disease and misery decimate them. Factory farmers raise such huge

numbers of animals for food that it is less expensive for them to absorb some losses
than it is for them to provide humane conditions.
Dont dairy cows need to be milked? In order for a cow to produce milk, she
must have a calf. Each dairy cow is impregnated every year so that she continues to
produce a steady supply of milk. In nature, the mothers calf would drink her milk,
eliminating the need for her to be milked by humans, but on factory farms, calves are
taken away from their mothers when they are just a day or two old so that humans can
have the milk that nature intended for the calves. Female calves are slaughtered
immediately or raised to be dairy cows. Male calves are confined for 16 weeks to tiny
veal crates that are so small that they cannot even turn around.
Because of the high demand for dairy products, cows are genetically
engineered and fed growth hormones to force them to produce quantities of milk that
are well beyond their natural limits. Even the few farmers who choose not to raise
animals intensively must get rid of the calves, who would otherwise drink the milk,
and send the mothers off to slaughter when their milk production wanes.
Chickens lay eggs naturally, so whats wrong with eating eggs? The real
cruelty of egg production lies in the treatment of the laying hens, who are perhaps
the most abused of all factory-farmed animals. Each egg from a factory farm
represents about 34 hours of misery and came from a hen who was packed into a cage
the size of a filing-cabinet drawer with as many as five other chickens. At factory
farms, cages are stacked many tiers high, and feces from the top rows fall onto the
chickens below. Hens become lame and develop osteoporosis because they are forced
to remain immobile and because they lose a great deal of calcium when they
repeatedly produce egg shells. Some birds feet grow around the wire cage floors, and
they starve to death because they are unable to reach the food trough. At just 2 years
of age, most hens are spent and are sent to the slaughterhouse. Egg hatcheries dont
have any use for male chicks, so they are suffocated, decapitated, crushed, or ground
up alive.
Can fish feel pain? Research has shown that fish can feel pain. According to
Dr. Donald Bloom, animal welfare advisor to the British government, Anatomically,
physiologically, and biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in
birds and mammals. Fish have fully developed brains and nervous systems and very
sensitive mouths. Fish use their tongues and mouths like humans use their hands -- to
catch or gather food, build nests, and hide their offspring from danger. Fish also
experience fear. An Australian study found that when fish are chased, confined, or
otherwise threatened, they react with increased heart and breathing rates and a burst of
adrenaline, just as humans do.
Source: PETA, Frequently Asked Questions, www.peta.org, January 1, 2005.
QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

Please answer all of the following questions for review.

[Overview]
1. What are some of the problems associated with animal research?
2. What is the Great Ape project?
3. What is animal enterprise terrorism?
4. What is the problem with the clear line position on the status of animals?
5. What is the problem with the equality position on the status of animals?
6. What is the sliding scale position on the status of animals?
7. What is the public policy distinction between animal rights and animal welfare?
8. What are the criticisms of the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act?
9. What are the three conservative arguments regarding animals?
10. What are the three liberal arguments regarding animals?
[PETA]
11. What is PETAs position on animal testing?
12. What is PETAs position on companion animals, such as chained dogs, outdoor
cats, and caged birds?
13. What is PETAs position on using animals for entertainment, such as zoos and
rodeos?
14. What is PETAs economic argument for vegetarianism?
QUESTIONS FOR ANALYSIS
Please select only one question for analysis from those below and answer it.
1. Discuss the four mechanisms of pain perception and whether they are relevant to
the moral status of animals.
2. Explain Kants view of our indirect obligations towards animals and discuss
whether this goes far enough in acknowledging the moral status of animals.
3. Discuss the sliding scale position on the moral status of animals and whether you
agree with it.
4. Discuss whether animal rights advocacy groups are a good thing or a bad thing.
5. Explain Switzerlands law regarding treatment of animals and discuss whether you
agree with it.

Animal Rights
vs Animal Welfare
AR or AW?
Do you
know the
difference?

AR vs AW WHAT
Opinions, Guardianship,Propert
YOU
Editorials,
y
SHOULD
Articles
& Legal Status
KNOW

AR
Groups

HSUS

Quotes
from
HSUS
leaders

ANIMAL RIGHTS VS ANIMAL WELFARE - What you should

know
OVERVIEW
Animal Welfare supports humane treatment and use of animals and believes that humans
have a responsibility for their care. Animal Welfare includes responsible care of animals
used by humans for service, research, food, education, those kept in zoos or sanctuaries,
and especially those animals kept by pet owners. Animal welfare is based on a principle of
ownership of animals, a common sense approach that animals should be treated well and
that animal cruelty is wrong. Animal welfare sets standards and guidelines for animal use
and management based on sound veterinary and animal husbandry research and
practices.
Animal Rights (AR) is a radical ideology that attempts to elevate species of animals to
equality with humans by applying human interpretations of morality. A core tenet of animal
rights philosophy is that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans
have no right to dominate over, use, breed, or eat nonhuman species.
Basic principles of animal rights philosophy are:
The ability of animals to feel pain and pleasure puts them
on a plane of moral equivalence with humans. This moral
significance of animals necessitates that we reject the use
and treatment of animals as resources or as property. Use
of animals for food, research, and entertainment must be
abolished and not merely regulated. (Peter Singer) (1)
Animals have a life of their own that is of importance to
them apart from their utility to us; therefore, logic implies
that animals have the same right as humans to pursue
their life without human interference.
The line between human and non-human animals is an
artificial construct designed to facilitate and justify the
exploitation of non-human animals. (2)

This philosophy was modernized by controversial Australian-born utilitarian ethicist Peter

Singer (Princeton University). Singer coined the phrase speciesism meaning a prejudicial or
biased attitude of members of one's own species against those members of another
species. Central to understanding his philosophy are two points: Singer believes
conservative mainstream fundamentalist views that separate humans and animals are the
most harmful to the concept of animal liberation. Singer rejects as false Judeo-Christian
beliefs in the sanctity of life and that man was created in the image of God, and urges his
followers [to] extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us
recognize should be extended to all members of our own species. (3)
Differentiating between these two definitions certainly seems to be no problem, then why
are the terms often used interchangeably, and why does confusion exist in the public eye?
In a speech to the Animal Agriculture Alliance, Wes Jamison, PhD, an associate professor
of agriculture at Dordt College said the animal rights movement, which has its roots in
Europe, is here to stay. Dr Jamison says four social conditions cause the movement:
urbanization, humanization of animals (anthropomorphism), acceptance of evolutionary
theory, and affinity for equal rights among species (egalitarianism). Today's urban society,
whose main contact with animals is pets that they view as family members, creates a readymade audience for animal rights activists. In the late 1990s many animal rights groups
started using legislative, regulatory, and judicial processes to work toward their goals.
According to Dr. Jamison, this is where animal rights groups are having a quiet and very
significant impact on the way people use and view animals. They have advantages. They
have better organization, they have intense activism, and they have local civic support. (4)
Many modern animal advocates see the abolition of animal exploitation as a long-term goal,
but they see welfarist reform, which seeks to reduce animal suffering, as setting the course
for the interim strategy. (5)
In other words, it is easy to identify the extreme elements within the movement, such as
Animal Liberation Front members who set fires, bomb buildings, release animals and
destroy property. What is not easy to identify are the majority of rightists working
incrementally through non-profit organizations toward the goal of animal liberation. By
publicly identifying themselves as champions to end animal cruelty, these groups are able
to raise tremendous amounts of money from the animal-loving public. In turn these funds
can be used to further the underlying agenda of philosophical indoctrination.
Animal Rights groups routinely use false and unsubstantiated allegations of animal abuse
or non-existent problems to raise funds, attract media attention, and bring supporters into
the movement.
An example of this is the continuing campaign against breeding of dogs due to an
"overpopulation crisis". The public is told repeatedly never buy animals from pet stores
or breeders -- with millions of animals dying in shelters, there is no reason for any
animal to be bred --don't breed, don't buy while shelter animals die.
The real truth about animal abandonment is that it has dramatically decreased since 1973
and only a small portion of the total owned animal population are abandoned and
euthanized.
Year

Total Pet

% of Pet

Population

Euthanize
d in
Population
Shelters***

1973*

65 million

13.5
million

21%

1982*

92 million

8-10
million

9-11%

1992* 110 million 5-6 million

5%

2000*

120
million

4-6 million

3-5%

2001*

141
million

4.4 million

3.12%

*From HSUS State of the Animals 2001

**American Pet Products Manufacturers Assoc. National Pet Owners Survey & Animal
People Shelter Survey
***Shelters include owner requested euthanasia in their statistics which is not a part of
abandoned animals euthanized.
According to HSUS State of the Animals 2001, "There was, however, general consensus
among most animal related organizations that the term pet overpopulation was not only
difficult to define, but that it was also probably no longer an accurate catchphrase to
describe the reasons for animals leaving their original homes, especially for dogs."
Animal rights groups choose to ignore facts for the purpose of framing an overpopulation
issue to their advantage in the public eye in order to raise sympathy dollars and convince
legislators that anti-breeding legislation is required. Eventually facts and truth become
irrelevant in the discussion and increasingly difficult to present to counter the anti-breeding
campaign.
SOCIAL MOVEMENT, CULT OR RELIGION?
According to the Animals & Society Institute, which calls itself a think tank for the animal
rights movement, there are five stages to a social movement. Stage 1-Public education;
Stage 2-Public Policy Development; Stage 3-Legislation; Stage 4-Litigation; Stage 5Acceptance. As a movement, many activists teach their followers to: equate human
discrimination and slavery issues with use and ownership of animals and propagandize
connections between the exploitation and abuse of women and animals under a male
dominated society.
Does the movement have the hallmark of being a cult? One would think the answer to this
would be a definitive yes by looking at the subject matter for lectures at annual Animal
Rights Conferences. A short list of topics from AR2005 includes:
The Making of an Activist (getting rid of emotional garbage and
becoming who you want to be) - Alex Hershaft, Scott Smith;
Waging Effective Campaigns (defining objectives, scope,
resources, tactics, action plan, review process) - David Hayden,
Kevin Jonas, Lauren Ornelas, Barbara Stagno;

Engaging Religion (Christian, Jewish, Moslem, and minor religious

denominations) - Cassandra Flechsig, Roberta Kalechofsky, Rick
Kump, Scott Smith; and
Winning Hearts and Minds - (changing behavior by altering feelings
and beliefs) - Alex Hershaft, Lawrence Carter-Long (6)
Engaging Youth (school groups, cafeteria vegan options, rock
concerts, literature distribution) - Rick Kump, George Matejka, Jack
Norris

The animal rightists with blind conviction in their belief and desire to convert the world to
veganism work tirelessly to impose their doctrine on the public. Can this then be considered
a religion? In The False Philosophy-Peter Singer, Jenny Teichman writes: "Even if Singer is
not religious, he does have a kind of theology. His ideas resemble those of religions that
say that one has to belong to a special group -- the baptized, the circumcised, the elect, or
whatever."
What is crucial to understand about the animal rights ideology is the determination of
believers to force their doctrine onto the public at all costs, and the legal system is the new
arena.
USE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM
Animal rightists believe that animals should no longer be regarded legally or morally as
property or as resources for human use. To accomplish this animal rights advocates believe
either a change in legal status is needed or animals should outright be regarded as
persons. Abolishing the property status of animals within the legal system is considered by
many animal rights philosophers and advocates as the means to achieve their goal of
liberation for animals.
Professor Gary Francione (Rutgers School of Law) states "I argue that animals should have
one right: the right not to be our property. Indeed, I argue that a "person" is any being who
is entitled to this one right and all sentient beings should be regarded as "persons", or as
holders of this one right not to be property. If we accepted that animals have this one right,
we would be committed to abolishing animal exploitation because our use of animals for
food, experiments, product testing, entertainment and clothing assumes that animals are
nothing but property. If we accepted that animals have this one right, we would stop,
completely, bringing domestic animals into existence." (7)
The current property status of animals is generally considered the biggest stumbling block,
and there are several routes discussed by animal rights groups as a means to overcome
this and obtain animal-human equality. One is to elevate the legal interests of animals that
are of special importance to people. For example, establishing pet trusts within the legal
system and awarding large sums of money in veterinary malpractice suits demonstrating
that certain pets hold more value to people than other owned property.
The legal system changes through the decision of judges or by legislatures enacting
statutes. Viewpoints and values in society also influence changes in the law. For example,
changing the language of the law, i.e. owner to guardian reflects a belief that animals are
not property. The Guardianship Campaign initiated by In Defense of Animals founder Elliott
Katz pledges - "I believe that animals are not commodities or property to be bought, sold,
disposed of, or discarded". While being hailed as merely a means to allow people to
express their deep commitment to their pets, in reality this language may legally remove

ownership rights and have far reaching effects into other areas of law and government. (8)
(9)
LEADER IN THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT - HSUS
Established in 1954, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) began as an animal
welfare organization. Over the years HSUS assimilated leaders and ideas from the animal
rights movement, moving closer to the complete animal rights ideology it maintains today.
Through effective marketing and campaigns directed at the public's natural love of animals
to solicit funds, HSUS has grown to be a household word and an industry giant worth close
to $120 million. What drives this mammoth organization? Is it animal welfare goals of
humane treatment and stewardship or animal rights philosophy which would eliminate from
our lives the use of animals in any fashion?
To understand the goals, you must examine the beliefs of the leaders, not the campaigns
that claim to be for the protection of animals.
Wayne Pacelle. President, Humane Society of the United States; former Executive Dir. &
National Dir., the Fund For Animals; former president, Animal Rights Alliance; former
chairman, Animal Rights Network Inc.; former editor, The Animals Agenda magazine.
Pacelle, a strict vegan who converted to the animal rights philosophy after reading Peter
Singer's Animal Liberation, joined HSUS in 1994 after working at the anti-hunting group the
Fund for Animals for six years. There he helped Paul Watson and his violent Sea Shepherd
Conservation Society raise money for ships, and assisted Alex Pacheco and PETA as they
ran an undercover investigation of a primate research lab.
Miyun Park. Staffer. Washington, DC activist hired by HSUS in 2005, was acknowledged in
1999 as a financial benefactor of No Compromise magazine, a self-described militant,
direct action magazine for Animal Liberation Front (ALF) supporters. In the investigation
leading to the 2005 animal-enterprise terrorism trial of six SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal
Cruelty) activists, Park was among those named in at least six federal wiretap warrants.
Leslie Alexander. HSUS board member. In 1998 the Alexanders were guests of honor at
PETA headquarters. Quoting PETA: "This year, the Alexanders helped PETA with one of the
most generous gifts we have ever received. The gift came when we were facing a lawsuit
from Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS); their generosity enabled PETA to persevere and win
our battle against HLS, as well as making other victories possible. The Alexanders have our
deepest appreciation." Leslie and wife Nanci are owners of the Houston Rockets; wife
Nanci also runs the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida.
John P Goodwin. HSUS grassroots coordinator. Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade; former
Animal Liberation Front member arrested and convicted for arson and vandalism of fur
retailers in multiple states during the 1990s.
Quoting Paul Shapiro, HSUS staffer, Compassion Over Killing co-founder, "nothing is more
important than promoting veganism.", 2004 National Student Animal Rights Conference.
Finally quoting Michael Markarian. Executive VP Humane Society of the United States; Past
President, Fund for Animals; Board member Institute for Animals and Society: "...your
everyday meat-eaters and cosmetics users; they are not vivisectors, they are not
slaughterhouse operators, and they have basic feelings of compassion. But they are
accustomed to eating, wearing, and using animal products, and they need to be convinced
to give them up. They can be won over; slowly but surely they are being won over ..."
The goals of HSUS are definable by reading their position statements which can be

accessed from their website: www.hsus.org

~ [The HSUS] supports the enactment and enforcement of animal control ordinances
designed to regulate, deter, and reduce companion animal breeding,
~ The HSUS opposes the sale of dogs, cats, and other animals through pet stores and
other commercial operations
~ The HSUS opposes rodeos as they are commonly organized
~ The HSUS opposes the use of captive wild animals as performers in circuses, film and
television, and commercials
~ The HSUS opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or sport because of
the animal trauma, suffering, and death that result.
The HSUS Animal Protection Litigation Section has a staff of eight full-time lawyers,
numerous law clerks, administrative staff, outside counsel, and pro-bono attorneys, making
their section the largest in-house animal protection litigation department in the country. The
Animal Protection Litigation Section also serves as a training ground for the next generation
of animal lawyers and law students. As part of that mission, the section operates the Animal
Law Litigation Project in Washington, DC -- a joint-venture with George Washington
University School of Law. The project, the first such joint animal law clinic in the country,
offers highly qualified law students a chance to work with HSUS's legal staff.
HSUS is currently working on over 3 dozen animal cases throughout the U.S., including
suits against Ringling Brothers, the California State Board of Equalization, the State of New
Jersey Department of Agriculture, U.S. Park Service, and 5 suits against USDA.
HSUS was victorious in the November 7th Arizona ballot initiative Proposition 204 which
banned gestation crates for breeding pigs and confinement of veal calves. Interestingly,
there is only one large pig farm in Arizona and no calves are raised for veal making the
state an easy target for waging war against this husbandry practice. The ballot measure
was opposed by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and led to a break in
negotiations between AVMA and HSUS on any future welfare initiatives.
The unanimous decision came during AVMA's Executive Board meeting in April, when
group leaders nixed plans to send Congress a joint letter pushing issues ranging from a
stance against animal fighting to promoting animal welfare in the United States. The deal
breaker: HSUS' support of an Arizona ballot initiative to ban sow gestation stalls, a move
that crosses many allied veterinarians. Although HSUS commands a powerful lobbying
force in Washington, AVMA ended its budding partnership with the $100-million association
in response to concern from food animal counterparts, Executive Board Chairman Dr. Bud
Hertzog says. (10)
The ballot initiative technique was used in 2002 in Florida to ban use of gestation crates by
Floridas two pork producers. HSUS and partner Farm Sanctuary unloaded in excess of
$1M flooding the media in support of the proposal; included in the expenditures was
payment to a firm in Nevada to collect signatures. Money, propaganda and little opposition
(since only 2 farmers raised pigs) resulted in urban voters - with no concept of animal
management - approving a constitutional amendment "protecting" pigs.
Final result - Florida lawmakers are embarrassedly looking at the ease with which pigs
gained rights in the state constitution. Florida state Senate President Jim King (R) told
United Press International that, "The pregnant pig issue was the straw that broke the
camel's back for most of us." That feeling was helped along by the fact that rather than try
to comply with the bill, the two farmers who actually would have been covered by the new
requirement chose instead to slaughter all of their pigs and get out of the business.

Surprisingly, some people still believe that HSUS helps animals by operating and/or
supporting animal shelters when in reality that is not the case.
In 2003, in revenue, additions and transfers, HSUS made $76,923,670. Of that amount,
sheltering programs received $10,551,527 and it was shared with animal habitat and wildlife
programs. Now, assuming it was an even split, sheltering programs received
$3,517,175.66.
That's a lot of money, but not when you consider a good sized shelter can cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year to run, three million is really a drop in the bucket. They spent
$21,145,769.00 in fundraising and membership development. Six times what they put into
their shelter programs, which is what most people think HSUS does with money donated to
them. (11)
According to HSUS 2004 financials, 20.6% of their direct donation income of $78.5 million
is spent on management and fundraising. The largest expenditure, 65.6% or $51.5 million is
in a broad category labeled program services. Under program services expenses include
salaries accounting for $9 million and benefits, taxes $2.4 million.
Working through the 45-page statement, finally is a narrative on the activities comprising
program services: Public education funds of $34.5 million are spent on their media
department, magazine, and the animal channel, while only twenty-eight thousand dollars is
spent in direct grants. (12)
EXPANSION - HSUS & DDAL MERGER
On September 1, 2006 a merger was announced between HSUS and Doris Day Animal
League (DDAL), expanding again the size, strength and expertise of HSUS - already a giant
in the animal rights world.
The HSUS press release states the merger "will result in increased public policy activity and
coordination on animal welfare issues and further streamline operations among national
animal advocacy groups." Sara Amundson, DDAL legislative director, is slated to be
executive director of the Humane Society Legislative Fund.
HSUS and DDAL have worked together in the past on several issues such as ending
greyhound racing, opposing use of animals in testing, and on laws to regulate breeding and
sales of dogs and cats.
The press release on the merger quotes HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle as saying, "Our
members often wonder why groups and individuals with a common purpose do not join
together, and we are heeding their call to do just that." Although DDAL is small in
comparison (2005 Form 990 lists $3.5 million income), the merger adds a well known face,
experienced staff, and legislative connections for the use of HSUS management.
How similar are the goals and views of HSUS and DDAL?
HSUS and DDAL worked jointly on federal legislation to regulate dog and cat breeding by
lobbying for Senator Rick Santorum's Puppy Protection (PPA) Act in 2001. The PPA had
three main points: mandating how often breeding could be done; writing engineering
standards to cover veterinary care, housing facilities, socialization, and training; and a
license revocation clause. This extreme legislation failed twice in the Senate.
Not to be deterred, the bill was re-introduced in 2005 as the Pet Animal Welfare Statue (aka
PAWS) labeled the Puppy Mill bill to gain sympathy support. This radical, controversial,

unfunded, and poorly thought out legislation succeeded only in eventually dividing support
even among the sponsors when the idea of having USDA outsource the inspection process
was publicized.
DDAL's aim through the initial anti-breeder legislation was to mandate licensing for every
person in the US that even bred a single litter of dogs and cats. Their passion was so
intense to regulate (thereby diminishing or eliminating breeding) that they filed suit against
USDA (DDAL vs Venemen, Anne) claiming the intent of the Animal Welfare Act was to
regulate retail sellers as well as commercial dealers. The USDA prevailed in this litigation.
It is unconscionable that HSUS / DDAL leaders and lobbyists sitting in a sterile, vegan
environment theorizing and issuing propaganda should have credible input with the federal
government to suggest regulations and conditions that impact the future of dog, cat, and
small animal breeding within private citizens homes.
In-home small animal breeders are already under siege from local and state laws due in
part by increased urbanization, but also as a result of grassroots efforts by local antibreeding HSUS and PETA affiliates. Federal oversight, an additional layer of regulation and
increased burden on USDA funding is both unnecessary and wasteful of government
resources.
DDAL's website contains various campaigns against use of animals in research, racing, and
entertainment, links to vegan dining and cruelty-free shopping, as well as their mission
statements. One of the mission statements is to network with other animal protection
groups to promote common goals. The PPA and PAWS are examples of this networking, as
is working against use of animals in medical research and against use of animals for
entertainment.
HSUS and DDAL were joint sponsors along with the Animal Protection Institute, and others
for the Taking Action for Animals Conference (September 2005). Keynote presenter at the
conference was ethicist, Peter Singer, founder of The Great Ape Project (GAP), who is well
known for his statements and beliefs on animal equality.
"Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more
valuable than the lives of some humans." -- Peter Singer, , Animal Liberation: A New Ethic
for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd edition, 1990.
Another example of networking with animal rights/protection groups is DDAL's partnering
with the Chimp Collaboratory, founded in 2000 with a grant from the Glaser Foundation.
Quoting from the Chimp Collaboratory website, Glaser Foundation Director Martin Collier
states, "The chimpanzee is an especially compelling yet imperiled species. Because of our
genetic similarity and unique relationship to chimpanzees, they can lead the way in
breaking down barriers that separate us from them, human from non-human animals." (13)
It can only be assumed that DDAL will continue to work on rights and personhood for apes
under the HSUS banner and bank account.
WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN FOR ANIMAL OWNERS?
With the massive funding behind HSUS, teams of attorneys, campaign contributions to
sympathetic legislators, the ability to entrench their animal rights ideology in universities
across America and enormous outpouring of propaganda to the public through the media, it
is imperative that animal owners, legislators and the general public learn to thoroughly
examine and understand animal related legislation proposed at all levels of government.

If questions arise when animal-related legislation is proposed by animal protection groups,

seek the advice of hands-on professionals within that particular industry -- not philosophers
and ethicists.
Simply stated, if your car engine was knocking would you ask a chemist or a mechanic for
advice? If your dog is ill, would you seek out a philosopher or a veterinarian?
The animal rights movement is about control not animal welfare. Supporting legislation
based on emotion and philosophical interpretation provides a platform in our legal system
for incremental increases toward animal status changes.
Daniel T. Oliver in Animal Rights: The Inhumane Crusade, writes: "The animal rights
movement is, quite simply, an animal non-use movement. Unlike traditional humane
organizations, which seek to prevent cruelty and improve the treatment of animals, animal
rights organizations seek to end the use and ownership of animals. Some people
mistakenly believe that animal rights groups are just humane organizations that have gone
overboard in their concern for animals - that they care so deeply for animals that they
overlook human welfare." According to Oliver, "the animal rights movement will continue to
harm both people and animals as long as Americans fail to understand its actual agenda."
Footnotes
1. Animal Liberation. Peter Singer, 1975
2. Toward total animal liberation. Pattrice Le-Muire Jones, Founder Eastern Shore Chicken
Sanctuary. Address delivered at the Animal Rights 2002 Conference Plenary session on
Engaging Other Communities
3. Peter Singer: Architect of the Culture of Death. Donald Demarco.
4. The Animal Rights Struggle. Journal of the American Veterinary Association May 2004
5. Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Three Different View of The Rights/Welfare
Relationship. Professor Gary Francione, Rutgers University School of Law
6. Winning hearts and minds. Animal Rights 2005
7. Interview with Gary Francione first published in Vegan Voice http://www.animallib.org.au/more_interviews/francione/
8. Ownership of Animals vs Guardianship of Animals. American Veterinary Law Association
White Paper 2002
9. Council of State Governments Resolution on Animal Guardianship and Liability
Legislation
10. Executive Board sinks HSUS joint venture. DVM June 2006.
11. What is the Humane Society of the United States? Christopher Aust, August 2004
12. HSUS website www.hsus.org
13. Martin Collier, Director The Chimpanzee Collaboratory - The Face Of Change
Additional Resources
Where Animal Rights Went Wrong. Dr. Jo-Anne Pontone. HPR, March 2002
Scientists Brace for Animal Activism. The Scientist, Nov. 2002
Suggested Reading
Animal Rights: the Inhumane Crusade by Daniel T. Oliver
The Hijacking of the Humane Movement: Animal Extremism by Patti Strand
Animal Rights: History and Scope of a Radical Social Movement by Harold D. Guither
Websites for further information
Americans for Medical Progress

Center for Consumer Freedom

Foundation for Biomedical Research
National Animal Interest Alliance
North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance www.ncraoa.org
The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA)
U.S. Sportsmens Alliance
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Hearing: Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality
May, 2004
U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment Hearing: Oversight on Eco-terrorism
specifically examining the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front
NCRAOA
North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance, November 2006
Download this editorial

Seals and public morals: space for

morality-based trade restrictions?
Posted on June 24, 2014 by Robert Wardle in Public Law

The World Trade Organizations (WTO) Appellate Body has handed down its decision in
the long-running EC-Seal Products trade dispute. The trade measure at issue banned
the placing on the European Union (EU) market of products derived from seals, but
importantly included exceptions for products the result of indigenous communities
hunts, products the result of marine resource management and for travellers importing
personal quantities of seal products. It was the totality of the measure, that is the ban
and the exceptions, which led to the trade dispute with Canada and Norway, whose seal
farmers in practice failed to meet the requirements of the exceptions to allow their seal
trade to continue with the EU.
Of particular interest has been the EUs attempt to justify the measure under General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) article XX(a) as necessary to protect public
morals. While the Appellate Body did not disturb the panels findings that seal welfare
was a legitimate public moral concern and also found that the EU measure made a
contribution to addressing that concern, the measure as a whole was found not to be
GATT-compliant. The ultimate problem with the seals measure with regards to its
article XX compliance was in its implementation particularly the operation of the
exceptions and thus its consistency with the chapeau to article XX.
The chapeau requires trade restricting measures under article XX not to be applied in a
manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
between countries. The Appellate Body found the regime failed this chapeau test
because in its application, the excepted indigenous communities seal products were no
more likely to achieve the outcome of seal welfare than those from commercial hunts,

the exceptions requirements were problematically vague and discretionary and further
the EU had not taken enough steps to ensure Canadian Inuit communities could access
the exceptions in the same way they had for Greenlandic Inuit communities. The EU
now has the opportunity to adjust the measures operation so as to rectify these flaws.
Although the seal products dispute concerned animal rights, the public morals exception
has been mooted as a means by which human rights can be protected under the GATT,
and the seals decision leaves open this opportunity. The panel and Appellate Body have
provided significant guidance, in interpreting the seal products measure, as to how a
human rights measure could be designed and implemented so as not to fall foul of the
requirements including both the panel and the Appellate Bodys acceptance, as in
previous disputes invoking public morals, that the content of such morals is for states
themselves to define and the threshold for evidencing that an issue is in fact a public
moral concern within that country is not problematically high. Further, the detailed
analysis of the chapeau requirements, traditionally the stumbling block of measures
attempting to make use of article XX, provides important design and implementation
guidance that would be crucial to the success of a human rights measure.
But two factors the seal measure had in its favour namely, the substantial cute and
cuddly factor which contributed to the public moral concern itself and thus the EUs
willingness to legislate for the ban, and the conclusion that it is almost prohibitively
difficult to hunt seals in a manner free from animal cruelty would likely create
problems for human rights protection. This is because rights concerns in the context of
goods production often relate to people who are far removed from the consciences of
consumers across the globe, and often do not relate to inherently immoral products but
instead to possible production methods, or their social or political context in source
countries. And a further question which remains and was explicitly avoided in ECSeal Products is whether the public morals exception can be invoked by states where
the content of the public moral concern exists exclusively outside the territory of the
regulating state something probable in any attempt to protect human rights. If it
cannot, this will substantially damage the ability of the provision to operate as a de facto
human rights clause, as the sorts of states likely to invoke human rights as a trade
restriction justification are less likely to be the sorts of states whose own conduct would
infringe public morals, thus making a requisite territorial nexus between a public morals
problem and a public morals solution unlikely.
Nevertheless, until such a measure is tested before the WTOs dispute settlement body,
it remains open for rights to be protected under the public morals clause. The decision
in EC-Seal Products has provided important guidance for how such a measure could be

both designed and implemented so as to be consistent with members obligations under

the WTO agreements, while still offering a significant contribution to human rights
protection.

Archive-name: ar-faq
Last-modified: 95/Apr/29
Version: ar_faq.txt 2.08a

-------------------------Questions

Animal Rights
Frequently Asked
(AR FAQ)

------------------------------------INTRODUCTION
-----------Welcome to the Animal Rights Frequently Asked
Questions text (AR FAQ).
This FAQ is intended to satisfy two basic
goals: a) to provide a source
of information and encouragement for people
exploring the issues involved
in the animal rights movement, and b) to answer
the common questions and
justifications offered up by AR opponents. It
is unashamedly an advocacy
vehicle for animal rights. Opponents of AR are
invited to create a FAQ
that codifies their views; we do not attempt to
do so here.
The FAQ restricts itself specifically to AR
issues; nutrition and
other vegetarian/veganism issues are
intentionally avoided because they
are already well covered in the existing
vegetarianism and veganism FAQs
maintained by Michael Traub. To obtain these
FAQs, contact Michael at
his e-mail address given below.
The FAQ was created through a collaboration
of authors. The answers have
been attributed via initials, as follows:
TA
Ted Altar
taltar@beaufort.sfu.ca
JE
Jonathan Esterhazy
jester@cc.umanitoba.ca
DG
Donald Graft
dgraft@gate.net
JEH
John Harrington
jeh@bisoym.com
DVH
Dietrich Von Haugwitz
vonha001@mc.duke.edu
LJ
Leor Jacobi

leor@mellers1.psych.berkeley.edu
LK
Larry Kaiser
lkaiser@umich.edu
JK
Jeremy Keens
keens@pitvax.xx.rmit.edu.au
BL
Brian Luke
luke@checkov.hm.udayton.edu
PM
Peggy Madison
madison@alpha.acast.nova.edu
BRO
Brian Owen
brian6@vaxc.middlesex.ac.uk
JSD
Janine Stanley-Dunham
janine@wlb.hwwilson.com
JLS
Jennifer Stephens
jlstephe@uncc.edu
MT
Michael Traub
traub@btcs.bt.co.uk
AECW
Allen ECW
aecw001@mayfair.demon.co.uk
The current FAQ maintainer is Donald Graft
(see address above). Ideas and
criticisms are actively solicited and will be
very gratefully received. The
material included here is released to the
public domain. We request that it
be distributed without alteration to respect
the author attributions.
This FAQ contains 96 questions. If they are
not all present, then a mailer
has probably truncated it. Contact the FAQ
maintainer for a set of split-up
files.
DG
------GENERAL
----------------------------#1
What is all this Animal Rights (AR) stuff
and why should
it concern me?
----------------------The fundamental principle of the AR movement
is that nonhuman animals
deserve to live according to their own natures,
free from harm, abuse, and
exploitation. This goes further than just
saying that we should treat
animals well while we exploit them, or before
we kill and eat them. It
says animals have the RIGHT to be free from
human cruelty and

exploitation, just as humans possess this

right. The withholding of this
right from the nonhuman animals based on their
species membership is
referred to as "speciesism".
Animal rights activists try to extend the
human circle of respect and
compassion beyond our species to include other
animals, who are also
capable of feeling pain, fear, hunger, thirst,
loneliness, and kinship.
When we try to do this, many of us come to the
conclusion that we can no
longer support factory farming, vivisection,
and the exploitation of
animals for entertainment. At the same time,
there are still areas of
debate among animal rights supporters, for
example, whether ANY research
that harms animals is ever justified, where the
line should be drawn for
enfranchising species with rights, on what
occasions civil disobedience
may be appropriate, etc. However, these areas
of potential disagreement do
not negate the abiding principles that join us:
compassion and concern
for the pain and suffering of nonhumans.
One main goal of this FAQ is to address the
common justifications that
arise when we become aware of how
systematically our society abuses and
exploits animals. Such "justifications" help
remove the burden from our
consciences, but this FAQ attempts to show that
they do not excuse the
harm we cause other animals. Beyond the scope
of this FAQ, more detailed
arguments can be found in three classics of the
AR literature.
The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan (ISBN
0-520-05460-1)
In Defense of Animals, Peter Singer (ISBN
0-06-097044-8)
Animal Liberation, Peter Singer (ISBN 0380-71333-0, 2nd Ed.)
While appreciating the important
contributions of Regan and Singer, many
animal rights activists emphasize the role of
empathetic caring as the
actual and most appropriate fuel for the animal
rights movement in
contradistinction to Singer's and Regan's
philosophical rationales. To the

reader who says "Why should I care?", we can

point out the following
reasons:
One cares about minimizing suffering.
One cares about promoting compassion in
human affairs.
One is concerned about improving the health
of humanity.
One is concerned about human starvation and
malnutrition.
One wants to prevent the radical disruption
of our planet's ecosystem.
One wants to preserve animal species.
One wants to preserve wilderness.
The connections between these issues and the
AR agenda may not be obvious.
Please read on as we attempt to clarify this.
DG
The day may come when the rest of the animal
creation may acquire those
rights which never could have been withholden
from them but by the hand
of tyranny.
Jeremy Bentham
(philosopher)
Life is life--whether in a cat, or dog or
man. There is no difference
there between a cat or a man. The idea of
difference is a human
conception for man's own advantage...
Sri Aurobindo
(poet and philosopher)
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics,
which is the goal of all
evolution. Until we stop harming all other
living beings, we are still
savages.
Thomas Edison
(inventor)
The time will come when men such as I will
look upon the murder of
animals as they now look on the murder of men.
Leonardo Da Vinci
(artist and scientist)
SEE ALSO #2-#3, #26, #87-#91
----------------------#2
Is the Animal Rights movement different
from the Animal Welfare

movement? The Animal Liberation movement?

----------------------The Animal Welfare movement acknowledges the
suffering of nonhumans and
attempts to reduce that suffering through
"humane" treatment, but it does
not have as a goal elimination of the use and
exploitation of animals. The
Animal Rights movement goes significantly
further by rejecting the
exploitation of animals and according them
rights in that regard. A person
committed to animal welfare might be concerned
that cows get enough space,
proper food, etc., but would not necessarily
have any qualms about killing
and eating cows, so long as the rearing and
slaughter are "humane".
The Animal Welfare movement is represented by
such organizations as the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, and the Humane Society.
Having said this, it should be realized that
some hold a broader
interpretation of the AR movement. They would
argue that the AW groups do,
in fact, support rights for animals (e.g., a
dog has the right not to be
kicked). Under this interpretation, AR is
viewed as a broad umbrella
covering the AW and strict AR groups. This
interpretation has the advantage
of moving AR closer to the mainstream.
Nevertheless, there is a valid
distinction between the AW and AR groups, as
described in the first paragraph.
Animal Liberation (AL) is, for many people, a
synonym for Animal Rights
(but see below). Some people prefer the term
"liberation" because it brings
to mind images of other successful liberation
movements, such as the movement
for liberation of slaves and liberation of
women, whereas the term "rights"
often encounters resistance when an attempt is
made to apply it to nonhumans.
The phrase "Animal Liberation" became popular
with the publication of Peter
Singer's classic book of the same name.
This use of the term liberation should be
distinguished from the literal
meaning discussed in question #88, i.e., an
Animal Liberationist is not
necessarily one who engages in forceful civil
disobedience or unlawful

actions.
Finally, intellectual honesty compels us to
acknowledge that the account
given here is rendered in broad strokes (but is
at least approximately
correct), and purposely avoids describing
ongoing debate about the meaning
of the terms "Animal Rights", "Animal
Liberation", and "Animal Welfare",
debate about the history of these movements,
and debate about the actual
positions of the prominent thinkers. To depict
the flavor of such debates,
the following text describes one coherent
position. Naturally, it will be
attacked from all sides!
Some might suggest that a subtle distinction
can be made between the Animal
Liberation and Animal Rights movements. The
Animal Rights movement, at least
as propounded by Regan and his adherents, is
said to require total abolition
of such practices as experimentation on
animals. The Animal Liberation
movement, as propounded by Singer and his
adherents, is said to reject the
absolutist view and assert that in some cases,
such experimentation can be
morally defensible. Because such cases could
also justify some experiments
on humans, however, it is not clear that the
distinction described reflects
a difference between the liberation and rights
views, so much as it does a
broader difference of ethical theory, i.e.,
absolutism versus utilitarianism.
DG
Historically, animal welfare groups have
attempted to improve the lot of
animals in society. They worked against the
popular Western concept of
animals as lacking souls and not being at all
worthy of any ethical
consideration. The animal rights movement set
itself up as an abolitionist
alternative to the reform-minded animal
welfarists. As the animal rights
movement has become larger and more
influential, the animal exploiters have
finally been forced to respond to it. Perhaps
inspired by the efforts of Tom
Regan to distinguish AR from AW, industry
groups intent on maintaining the
status quo have embraced the term "animal
welfare". Pro-vivisection,

hunting, trapping, agribusiness, and animal

entertainment groups now refer
to themselves as "animal welfare" supporters.
Several umbrella groups whose
goal is to defend these practices have also
arisen.
This classic case of public-relations
doublespeak acknowledges the issue
of cruelty to animals in name only, while
allowing for the continued use and
abuse of animals. The propaganda effect is to
stigmatize animal rights
supporters as being extreme while attempting to
portray themselves as the
reasonable moderates. Nowadays, the cause of
"animal welfare" is invoked by
the animal industry at least as often as it is
used by animal protection
groups.
LJ
SEE ALSO: #1, #3, #87-#88
----------------------#3
What exactly are rights and what rights
can we give animals?
----------------------Despite arguably being the foundation of the
Western liberal tradition,
the concept of "rights" has been a source of
controversy and confusion
in the debate over AR. A common objection to
the notion that animals have
rights involves questioning the origin of those
rights. One such argument
might proceed as follows:
Where do these rights come from? Are you in
special communication
with God, and he has told you that animals
have rights? Have the
rights been granted by law? Aren't rights
something that humans
must grant?
It is true that the concept of "rights" needs
to be carefully explicated.
It is also true that the concept of "natural
rights" is fraught with
philosophical difficulties. Complicating things
further is the confusion
between legal rights and moral rights.
One attempt to avoid this objection is to
accept it, but argue that
if it is not an obstacle for thinking of humans

as having rights, then it

should not be an obstacle for thinking of
animals as having rights. Henry
Salt wrote:
Have the lower animals "rights?"
Undoubtedly--if men have. That is
the point I wish to make evident in this
opening chapter... The
fitness of this nomenclature is disputed,
but the existence of some
real principle of the kind can hardly be
called in question; so that
the controversy concerning "rights" is
little else than an academic
battle over words, which leads to no
practical conclusion. I shall
assume, therefore, that men are possessed
of "rights," in the sense
of Herbert Spencer's definition; and if any
of my readers object to
this qualified use of the term, I can only
say that I shall be
perfectly willing to change the word as
soon as a more appropriate
one is forthcoming. The immediate question
that claims our attention
is this--if men have rights, have animals
their rights also?
Satisfying though this argument may be, it
still leaves us unable to
respond to the sceptic who disavows the notion
of rights even for humans.
Fortunately, however, there is a
straightforward interpretation of
"rights" that is plausible and allows us to
avoid the controversial
rights rhetoric and underpinnings. It is the
notion that a "right" is the
flip side of a moral imperative. If, ethically,
we must
refrain from an act performed on a being, then
that being can be said to
have a "right" that the act not be performed.
For example, if our ethics
tells us that we must not kill another, then
the other has a right not to
be killed by us. This interpretation of rights
is, in fact, an intuitive
one that people both understand and readily
endorse. (Of course, rights so
interpreted can be codified as legal rights
through appropriate
legislation.)
It is important to realize that, although

there is a basis for speaking

of animals as having rights, that does not
imply or require that they
possess all the rights that humans possess, or
even that humans possess all
the rights that animals possess. Consider the
human right to vote. (On the
view taken here, this would derive from an
ethical imperative to give humans
influence over actions that influence their
lives.) Since animals lack the
capacity to rationally consider actions and
their implications, and to
understand the concept of democracy and voting,
they lack the capacity to
vote. There is, therefore, no ethical
imperative to allow them to do so,
and thus they do not possess the right to vote.
Similarly, some fowls have a strong
biological need to extend and flap
their wings; right-thinking people feel an
ethical imperative to make
it possible for them to do so. Thus, it can be
said that fowl have the right
to flap their wings. Obviously, such a right
need not be extended to humans.
The rights that animals and humans possess,
then, are determined by their
interests and capacities. Animals have an
interest in living, avoiding pain,
and even in pursuing happiness (as do humans).
As a result of the ethical
imperatives, they have rights to these things
(as do humans). They can
exercise these rights by living their lives
free of exploitation and
abuse at the hands of humans.
DG
SEE ALSO: #1-#2
----------------------#4
Isn't AR hypocritical, e.g., because you
don't give rights to
insects or plants?
----------------------The general hypocrisy argument appears in
many forms. A typical form
is as follows:
"It is hypocritical to assert rights for a
cow but not for a plant;
therefore, cows cannot have rights."
Arguments of this type are frequently used

against AR. Not much

analysis is required to see that they carry
little weight. First, one
can assert an hypothesis A that would carry as
a corollary hypothesis
B. If one then fails to assert B, one is
hypocritical, but this does
not necessarily make A false. Certainly, to
assert A and not B would
call into question one's credibility, but it
entails nothing about the
validity of A.
Second, the factual assertion of hypocrisy is
often unwarranted. In
the above example, there are grounds for
distinguishing between cows
and plants (plants do not have a central
nervous system), so the charge
of hypocrisy is unjustified. One may disagree
with the criteria, but
assertion of such criteria nullifies the charge
of hypocrisy.
Finally, the charge of hypocrisy can be
reduced in most cases to
simple speciesism. For example, the quote above
can be recast as:
"It is hypocritical to assert rights for a
human but not for a plant;
therefore, humans cannot have rights."
To escape from this reductio ad absurdum of
the first quote, one
must produce a crucial relevant difference
between cows and humans,
in other words, one must justify the speciesist
assignment of rights
to humans but not to cows. (In question #24, we
apply a similar reduction
to the charge of hypocrisy related to abortion.
For questions dealing
specifically with insects and plants, refer to
questions #39 through #46.)
Finally, we must ask ourselves who the real
hypocrites are. The following
quotation from Michael W. Fox describes the
grossly hypocritical treatment
of exploited versus companion animals.
DG
Farm animals can be kept five to a cage two
feet square, tied up
constantly by a two-foot-long tether, castrated
without anesthesia, or
branded with a hot iron. A pet owner would be
no less than prosecuted for

treating a companion animal in such a manner;

an American president was, in
fact, morally censured merely for pulling the
ears of his two beagles.
Michael W. Fox
(Vice President of HSUS)
SEE ALSO: #24, #39-#46
----------------------#5
What right do AR people have to impose
their beliefs on others?
----------------------There is a not-so-subtle distinction between
imposition of one's views
and advertising them. AR supporters are
certainly not imposing their views
in the sense that, say, the Spanish Inquisition
imposed its views, or the
Church imposed its views on Galileo. We do,
however, feel a moral duty to
present our case to the public, and often to
our friends and acquaintances.
There is ample precedent for this: protests
against slavery, protests
against the Vietnam War, condemnation of
racism, etc.
One might point out that the gravest
imposition is that of the exploiter
of animals upon his innocent and defenseless
victims.
DG
If liberty means anything at all, it means
the right to tell people what
they do not want to hear.
George Orwell
(author)
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth
and they think it's hell.
Harry S. Truman
(33rd U.S. President)
SEE ALSO: #11, #87-#91
----------------------#6
Isn't AR just another facet of political
correctness?
----------------------If only that were true! The term "politically
correct" generally refers
to a view that is in sync with the societal
mainstream but which some might

be inclined to disagree with. For example, some

people might be inclined
to dismiss equal treatment for the races as
mere "political correctness".
The AR agenda is, currently, far from being a
mainstream idea.
Also, it is ridiculous to suppose that a
view's validity can be
overturned simply by attaching the label
"politically correct" or
"politically incorrect".
DG
----------------------#7
Isn't AR just another religion?
----------------------No. The dictionary defines "religion" as the
appeal to a supernatural
power. (An alternate definition refers to
devotion to a cause; that is
a virtue that the AR movement would be happy to
avow.)
People who support Animal Rights come from
many different religions
and many different philosophies. What they
share is a belief in the
importance of showing compassion for other
individuals, whether
human or nonhuman.
LK
----------------------#8
Doesn't it demean humans to give rights to
animals?
----------------------A tongue-in-cheek, though valid, answer to
this question is given by
David Cowles-Hamar: "Humans are animals, so
animal rights are human rights!"
In a more serious vein, we can observe that
giving rights to women and
black people does not demean white males. By
analogy, then, giving rights to
nonhumans does not demean humans. If anything,
by being morally consistent,
and widening the circle of compassion to
deserving nonhumans, we ennoble
humans. (Refer to question #26 for other
relevant arguments.)
DG
The greatness of a nation and its moral
progress can be judged by the way
its animals are treated.

Mahatma Gandhi
(statesman and philosopher)
It is man's sympathy with all creatures that
first makes him truly a man.
Albert Schweitzer
(statesman, Nobel 1952)
For as long as men massacre animals, they
will kill each other. Indeed, he
who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot
reap joy and love.
Pythagoras
(mathematician)
SEE ALSO: #26
----------------------#9
Weren't Hitler and Goebbels in favor of
animal rights?
----------------------This argument is absurd and almost unworthy
of serious consideration.
The questioner implies that since Hitler and
Goebbels allegedly held views
supportive of animal rights (e.g., Hitler was a
vegetarian for some time),
the animal rights viewpoint must be wrong or
dubious.
The problem for this argument is simple: bad
people and good people can
both believe things correctly. Or put in
another way, just because a person
holds one bad belief (e.g., Nazism), that
doesn't make all his beliefs
wrong. A few examples suffice to illustrate
this. The Nazis undertook smoking
reduction campaigns. Is it therefore dubious to
discourage smoking?
Early Americans withheld respect and liberty
for black people. Does that
mean that they were wrong in giving respect and
liberty to others?
Technically, this argument is an "ignoratio
elenchus fallacy", arguing
from irrelevance.
Finally, many scholars are doubtful that
Hitler and Goebbels supported
AR in any meaningful way.
DG
SEE ALSO: #54
----------------------#10
Do you really believe that "a rat is a

pig is a dog is a boy"?

----------------------Taken alone and literally, this notion is
absurd. However, this
quote has been shamelessly removed from its
original context and
misrepresented by AR opponents. The original
context of the quote is
given below. Viewed within its context, it is
clear that the quote
is neither remarkable nor absurd.
DG
When it comes to having a central nervous
system, and the ability to
feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a rat is a pig
is a dog is a boy.
Ingrid Newkirk
(AR activist)
SEE ALSO: #47
-------------------ANIMALS AND MORALITY
-----------------------------------------#11 There is no correct or incorrect in
morals; you have yours and I
have mine, right?
----------------------This position, known as moral relativism, is
quite ancient but became
fashionable at the turn of the century, as
reports on the customs of
societies alien to those found in Europe became
available. It fell out of
fashion, after the Second World War, although
it is occasionally revived.
Ethical propositions, we are asked to believe,
are no more than statements
of personal opinion and, therefore, cannot
carry absolute weight.
The main problem with this position is that
ethical relativists are
unable to denounce execrable ethical practices,
such as racism. On what
grounds can they condemn (if at all) Hitler's
ideas on racial purity?
Are we to believe that he was uttering an
ethical truth when advocating
the Final Solution?
In addition to the inability to denounce

practices of other societies,

the relativists are unable to counter the
arguments of even those whose
society they share. They cannot berate someone
who proposes to raise
and kill infants for industrial pet food
consumption, for example,
if that person sees it as morally sound.
Indeed, they cannot articulate
the concept of societal moral progress, since
they lack a basis for
judging progress. There is no point in turning
to the relativists for
advice on ethical issues such as euthanasia,
infanticide, or the use of
fetuses in research.
Faced with such arguments, ethical
relativists sometimes argue that
ethical truth is based on the beliefs of a
society; ethical truth is
seen as nothing more than a reflection of
societal customs and habits.
Butchering animals is acceptable in the West,
they would say, because
the majority of people think it so.
They are on no firmer ground here. Are we to
accept that chattel
slavery was right before the US Civil War and
wrong thereafter? Can all
ethical decisions be decided by conducting
opinion polls?
It is true that different societies have
different practices that
might be seen as ethical by one and unethical
by the other. However,
these differences result from differing
circumstances. For example, in
a society where mere survival is key, the
diversion of limited food to
an infant could detract significantly from the
well-being of the
existing family members that contribute to food
gathering. Given that,
infanticide may be the ethically correct
course.
The conclusion is that there is such a thing
as ethical truth
(otherwise, ethics becomes vacuous and devoid
of proscriptive force).
The continuity of thought, then, between those
who reject the evils of
slavery, racial discrimination, and gender
bias, and those who denounce
the evils of speciesism becomes striking.
AECW

Many AR advocates (including myself) believe

that morality is relative.
We believe that AR is much more cogently argued
when it is argued from the
standpoint of your opponent's morality, not
some mythical, hard-to-define
universal morality. In arguing against moral
absolutism, there is a very
simple objection: Where does this absolute
morality come from? Moral
absolutism is an argument from authority, a
tautology. If there were such
a thing as "ethical truth", then there must be
a way of determining it, and
obviously there isn't. In the absence of a
known proof of "ethical truth",
I don't know how AECW can conclude it exists.
An example of the method of leveraging a
person's morality is to ask the
person why he has compassion for human beings.
Almost always he will agree
that his compassion does not stem from the fact
that: 1) humans use language,
2) humans compose symphonies, 3) humans can
plan in the far future, 4) humans
have a written, technological culture, etc.
Instead, he will agree that it
stems from the fact that humans can suffer,
feel pain, be harmed, etc. It is
then quite easy to show that nonhuman animals
can also suffer, feel pain, be
harmed, etc. The person's arbitrary
inconsistency in not according moral
status to nonhumans then stands out starkly.
JEH
There is a middle ground between the
positions of AECW and JEH. One can
assert that just as mathematics is necessarily
built upon a set of
unprovable axioms, so is a system of ethics. At
the foundation of a system
of ethics are moral axioms, such as
"unnecessary pain is wrong". Given
the set of axioms, methods of reasoning (such
as deduction and induction),
and empirical facts, it is possible to derive
ethical hypotheses. It is
in this sense that an ethical statement can be
said to be true. Of course,
one can disagree about the axioms, and
certainly such disagreement renders
ethics "relative", but the concept of ethical
truth is not meaningless.
Fortunately, the most fundamental ethical
axioms seem to be nearly

universally accepted, usually because they are

necessary for societies to
function. Where differences exist, they can be
elucidated and discussed,
in a style similar to the "leveraging"
described by JEH.
DG
To a man whose mind is free there is
something even more intolerable
in the sufferings of animals than in the
sufferings of man. For with the
latter it is at least admitted that suffering
is evil and that the man
who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of
animals are uselessly
butchered every day without a shadow of
remorse. If any man were to
refer to it, he would be thought ridiculous.
And that is the unpardonable
crime.
Romain Rolland
(author, Nobel 1915)
SEE ALSO: #5
----------------------#12 The animals are raised to be eaten; so
what is wrong with that?
----------------------This question has always seemed to me to be a
fancy version of "But
we want to do these things, so what is wrong
with that?" The idea that
an act, by virtue of an intention of ours, can
be exonerated morally is
totally illogical.
But worse than that, however, is the fact
that such a belief is a
dangerous position to take because it can
enable one to justify some
practices that are universally condemned. To
see how this is so,
consider the following restatement of the basis
of the question:
"Suffering can be excused so long as we breed
them for the purpose."
Now, cannot an analogous argument be used to
defend a group of
slave holders who breed and enslave humans and
justify it by saying "but
they're bred to be our workers"? Could not the
Nazis defend their
murder of the Jews by saying "but we rounded
them up to be killed"?

DG
Shame on such a morality that is worthy of
pariahs, and that fails to
recognize the eternal essence that exists in
every living thing, and
shines forth with inscrutable significance from
all eyes that see
the sun!
Arthur
Schopenhauer (philosopher)
SEE ALSO: #13, #61
----------------------#13 But isn't it true that the animals
wouldn't exist if we didn't raise
them for slaughter?
----------------------There are two ways to interpret this
question. First, the questioner
may be referring to "the animals" as a species,
in which case the argument
might be more accurately phrased as follows:
"The ecological niche of cows is to be
farmed; they get continued
survival in this niche in return for our
using them."
Second, the questioner may be referring to "the
animals" as individuals,
in which case the phrasing might be:
"The individual cows that we raise to eat
would not have had a
life had we not done so."
We deal first with the species interpretation
and then with the
individuals interpretation. The questioner's
argument applies
presumably to all species of animals; to make
things more concrete,
we will take cows as an example in the
following text.
It is incorrect to assert that cows could
continue to exist only if
we farm them for human consumption. First,
today in many parts of India
and elsewhere, humans and cows are engaged in a
reciprocal and reverential
relationship. It is only in recent human
history that this relationship
has been corrupted into the one-sided

exploitation that we see today.

There IS a niche for cows between
slaughter/consumption and extinction.
(The interested reader may find the book Beyond
Beef by Jeremy Rifkin
quite enlightening on this subject.)
Second, several organizations have programs
for saving animals
from extinction. There is no reason to suppose
that cows would not
qualify.
The species argument is also flawed because,
in fact, our intensive
farming of cattle results in habitat
destruction and the loss of other
species. For example, clearing of rain forests
for pasture has led to
the extinction of countless species. Cattle
farming is destroying
habitats on six continents. Why is the
questioner so concerned about
the cow species while being unconcerned about
these other species?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that
he wants to continue
to eat the cows?
Finally, a strong case can be made against
the species argument from
ethical theory. Arguments similar to the
questioner's could be
developed that would ask us to accept practices
that are universally
condemned. For example, consider a society that
breeds a special race
of humans for use as slaves. They argue that
the race would not exist
if they did not breed them for use as slaves.
Does the reader accept
this justification?
Now we move on to the individuals
interpretation of the question. One
attempt to refute the argument is to answer as
follows:
"It is better not to be born than to be
born into a life of
misery and early death."
To many, this is sufficient. However, one could
argue that the fact that the
life is miserable before death is not
necessary. Suppose that the cows are
treated well before being killed painlessly and
eaten. Is it not true that
the individual cows would not have enjoyed
their short life had we not

raised them for consumption? Furthermore, what

if we compensate the taking
of the life by bringing a new life into being?
Peter Singer originally believed that this
argument was absurd because
there are no cow souls waiting around to be
born. Many people accept this
view and consider it sufficient, but Singer now
rejects it because he accepts
that to bring a being to a pleasant life does
confer a benefit on that being.
(There is extensive discussion of this issue in
the second edition of Animal
Liberation.) How then are we to proceed?
The key is that the AR movement asserts that
humans and nonhumans have a
right to not be killed by humans. The ethical
problem can be seen clearly
by applying the argument to humans. Consider
the case of a couple that gives
birth to an infant and eats it at the age of
nine months, just when their
next infant is born. A 9-month old baby has no
more rational knowledge of
its situation or future plans than does a cow,
so there is no reason to
distinguish the two cases. Yet, certainly, we
would condemn the couple. We
condemn them because the infant is an
individual to whom we confer the right
not to be killed. Why is this right not
accorded to the cow? I think the
answer is that the questioner wants to eat it.
DG
It were much better that a sentient being
should never have existed,
than that it should have existed only to endure
unmitigated misery.
Percy Bysshe
Shelley (poet)
SEE ALSO: #12
----------------------#14 Don't the animals we use have a happier
life since they are fed and
protected?
----------------------The questioner makes two assumptions here.
First, that happiness or
contentment accrues from being fed and
protected, and second, that
the animals are, in fact, fed and protected.
Both of these premises can

be questioned.
Certainly the animals are fed; after all,
they must be fattened for
consumption. It is very difficult to see any
way that, say,
factory-farmed chickens are "protected". They
are not protected from
mutilation, because they are painfully
debeaked. They are not protected
from psychological distress, because they are
crowded together in
unnatural conditions. And finally, they are not
protected from predation,
because they are slaughtered and eaten by
humans.
We can also question the notion that
happiness accrues from feeding
and protection alone. The Roman galley slaves
were fed and protected
from the elements; nevertheless, they would
presumably trade their
condition for one of greater uncertainty to
obtain happiness. The same
can be said of the slaves of earlier America.
Finally, an ethical argument is relevant
here. Consider again the
couple of question #13. They will feed and
protect their infant up to
the point at which they consume it. We would
not accept this as a
justification. Why should we accept it for the
chicken?
DG
SEE ALSO: #13
----------------------#15 Is the use of service animals and beasts
of burden considered
exploitative?
----------------------A simple approach to this question might be
to suggest that we all must
work for a living and it should be no different
for animals. The problem is
that we want to look at the animals as like
children, i.e., worthy of the
same protections and rights, and, like them,
incapable of being morally
responsible. But we don't force children into
labor! One can make a
distinction, however, that goes something like
this: The animals are
permanently in their diminished state (i.e.,
incapable of voluntarily

assenting to work); children are not. We do not

impose a choice of work for
children because they need the time to develop
into their full adult and
moral selves. With the animals, we choose for
them a role that allows them
to contribute; in return, we do not abuse them
by eating them, etc. If this
is done with true concern that their work
conditions are appropriate and not
of a sweat-shop nature, that they get enough
rest and leisure time, etc.,
this would constitute a form of stewardship
that is acceptable and beneficial
to both sides, and one that is not at odds with
AR philosophy.
DG
----------------------#16 Doesn't the Bible give Humanity dominion
over the animals?
----------------------It is true that the Bible contains a passage
that confers on humanity
dominion over the animals. The import of this
fact derives from the
assumption that the Bible is the word of God,
and that God is the ultimate
moral authority. Leaving aside for the moment
consideration of the meaning
of dominion, we can take issue with the idea of
seeking moral authority from
the Bible. First, there are serious problems
with the interpretation of
Biblical passages, with many verses
contradicting one another, and with
many scholars differing dramatically over the
meaning of given verses.
Second, there are many claims to God-hood
among the diverse cultures of
this world; some of these Gods implore us to
respect all life and to not
kill unnecessarily. Whose God are we to take as
the ultimate moral
authority?
Finally, as Tom Regan observes, many people
do not believe in a God and
so appeals to His moral authority are empty for
such people. For such
people, the validity of judgments of the
supposed God must be cross-checked
with other methods of determining
reasonableness. What are the cross-checks
for the Biblical assertions?
These remarks apply equally to other

assertions of Biblical approval of

human practices (such as the consumption of
animals).
Even if we accept that the God of the Bible
is a moral authority, we
can point out that "dominion" is a vague term,
meaning "stewardship" or
"control over". It is quite easy to argue that
appropriate stewardship
or control consists of respecting the life of
animals and their right
to live according to their own nature. The jump
from dominion to approval
of our brutal exploitation of animals is not
contained in the cited
Biblical passage, either explicitly or
implicitly.
DG
----------------------#17 Morals are a purely human construction
(animals don't understand
morals); doesn't that mean it is not
rational to apply our morality
to animals?
----------------------The fallaciousness of this argument can be
easily demonstrated by making
a simple substitution: Infants and young
children don't understand morals,
doesn't that mean it is not rational to apply
our morality to them? Of course
not. We refrain from harming infants and
children for the same reasons that
we do so for adults. That they are incapable of
conceptualizing a system of
morals and its benefits is irrelevant.
The relevant distinction is formalized in the
concept of "moral agents"
versus "moral patients". A moral agent is an
individual possessing the
sophisticated conceptual ability to bring moral
principles to bear in
deciding what to do, and having made such a
decision, having the free will
to choose to act that way. By virtue of these
abilities, it is fair to hold
moral agents accountable for their acts. The
paradigmatic moral agent is the
normal adult human being.
Moral patients, in contrast, lack the
capacities of moral agents and thus
cannot fairly be held accountable for their
acts. They do, however, possess
the capacity to suffer harm and therefore are

proper objects of consideration

for moral agents. Human infants, young
children, the mentally deficient or
deranged, and nonhuman animals are instances of
moral patienthood.
Given that nonhuman animals are moral
patients, they fall within the
purview of moral consideration, and therefore
it is quite rational to accord
them the same moral consideration that we
accord to ourselves.
DG
SEE ALSO: #19, #23, #36
----------------------#18 If AR people are so worried about killing,
why don't they become
fruitarians?
----------------------Killing, per se, is not the central concern
of AR philosophy, which is
concerned with the avoidance of unnecessary
pain and suffering. Thus, because
plants neither feel pain nor suffer, AR
philosophy does not mandate
fruitarianism (a diet in which only fruits are
eaten because they can be
harvested without killing the plant from which
they issue).
DG
SEE ALSO: #42-#46
----------------------#19 Animals don't care about us; why should we
care about them?
----------------------The questioner's position--that, in essence,
we should give rights only
to those able to respect ours--is known as the
reciprocity argument. It is
unconvincing both as an account of the way our
society works and as a
prescription for the way it should work.
Its descriptive power is undermined by the
simple observation that we
give rights to a large number of individuals
who cannot respect ours.
These include some elderly people, some people
suffering from degenerative
diseases, some people suffering from
irreversible brain damage, the
severely retarded, infants, and young children.

An institution that, for

example, routinely sacrificed such individuals
to test a new fertilizer
would certainly be considered to be grievously
violating their rights.
The original statement fares no better as an
ethical prescription.
Future generations are unable to reciprocate
our concern, for example, so
there would be no ethical harm done, under such
a view, in dismissing
concerns for environmental damage that
adversely impacts future
generations.
The key failing of the questioner's position
lies in the failure to
properly distinguish between the following
capacities:
The capacity to understand and respect
others' rights (moral agency).
The capacity to benefit from rights (moral
patienthood).
An individual can be a beneficiary of rights
without being a moral
agent. Under this view, one justifies a
difference of treatments of two
individuals (human or nonhuman) with an
objective difference that is
RELEVANT to the difference of treatment. For
example, if we wished to
exclude a person from an academic course of
study, we could not cite the
fact that they have freckles. We could cite the
fact that they lack
certain academic prerequisites. The former is
irrelevant; the latter is
relevant. Similarly, when considering the right
to be free of pain and
suffering, moral agency is irrelevant; moral
patienthood IS relevant.
AECW
The assumption that animals don't care about
us can also be
questioned. Companion animals have been known
to summon aid when
their owners are in trouble. They have been
known to offer comfort
when their owners are distressed. They show
grief when their human
companions die.
DG
SEE ALSO: #17, #23, #36

----------------------#20 A house is on fire and a dog and a baby

are inside. Which do you
save first?
----------------------The one I choose to save first tells us
nothing about the ethical
decisions we face. I might decide to save my
child before I saved yours,
but this certainly does not mean that I should
be able to experiment on
your child, or exploit your child in some other
way. We are not in an
emergency situation like a fire anyway. In
everyday life, we can choose to
act in ways that protect the rights of both
dogs and babies.
LK
Like anyone else in this situation, I would
probably save the one to
which I am emotionally more attached. Most
likely it would be the child.
Someone might prefer to save his own beloved
dog before saving the baby
of a stranger. However, as LK states above,
this tells us nothing about
any ethical principles.
DVH
----------------------#21 What if I made use of an animal that was
already dead?
----------------------There are two ways to interpret this
question. First, the questioner
might really be making the excuse "but I didn't
kill the animal", or
second, he could be asking about the morality
of using an animal that
has died naturally (or due to a cause
unassociated with the demand for
animal products, such as a road kill). For the
first interpretation, we
must reject the excuse. The killing of animals
for meat, for example,
is done at the request (through market demand),
and with the financial
support (through payment), of the end
consumers. Their complicity is
inescapable. Society does not excuse the
receiver of stolen goods because
he "didn't do the burglary".

For the second interpretation, the use of

naturally killed animals,
there seems to be no moral difficulty involved.
Many would, for esthetic
reasons, still not use animal products thus
obtained. (Would you use the
bodies of departed humans?) Certainly, natural
kills cannot satisfy the
great demand for animal products that exists
today; non-animal and
synthetic sources are required.
Other people may avoid use of naturally
killed animal products because
they feel that it might encourage a demand in
others for animal products,
a demand that might not be so innocently
satisfied.
DG
This can be viewed as a question of respect
for the dead. We feel
innate revulsion at the idea of grave
desecration for this reason.
Naturally killed animals should, at the very
least, be left alone rather
than recycled as part of an industrial process.
This was commonly
practiced in the past, e.g., Egyptians used to
mummify their cats.
AECW
You have just dined, and however scrupulously
the slaughterhouse is
concealed in the graceful distance of miles,
there is complicity.
Ralph Waldo
Emerson (author)
----------------------#22 Where should one draw the line: animals,
insects, bacteria?
----------------------AR philosophy asserts that rights are to be
accorded to creatures that
have the capacity to experience pain, to
suffer, and to be a "subject of
a life". Such a capacity is definitely not
found in bacteria. It is
definitely found in mammals. There is debate
about such animals as molluscs
and arthropods (including insects). One should
decide, based upon available
evidence and one's own conscience, where the
line should be drawn to adhere
to the principle of AR described in the first

sentence.
Questions #39 and #43 discuss some of the
evidence relevant to drawing
the line.
DG
SEE ALSO: #39, #43
----------------------#23 If the killing is wrong, shouldn't you
stop predators from killing
other animals?
----------------------This is one of the more interesting arguments
against animal rights. We
prevent human moral patients from harming
others, e.g., we prevent children
from hitting each other, so why shouldn't we do
the same for nonhuman moral
patients (refer to question #17 for a
definition of moral patienthood)? If
anything, the duty to do so might be considered
more serious because
predation results in a serious harm--death.
A first answer entails pointing out that
predators must kill to survive;
to stop them from killing is, in effect, to
kill them.
Of course, we could argue that intervening on
a massive scale to prevent
predation is totally impractical or impossible,
but that is not morally
persuasive.
Suppose we accept that we should stop a cat
from killing a bird. Then we
realize that the bird is the killer of many
snakes. Should we now reason
that, in fact, we shouldn't stop the cat? The
point is that humans lack the
broad vision to make all these calculations and
determinations.
The real answer is that intervening to stop
predation would destroy the
ecosystems upon which the biosphere depends,
harming all of life on earth.
Over millions of years, the biosphere has
evolved complex ecosystems that
depend upon predation for their continued
functioning and stability. Massive
intervention by humans to stop predation would
inflict serious and
incalculable harm on these ecosystems, with
devastating results for all life.
Even if we accept that we should prevent
predation (and we don't accept

that), it does not follow that, because we do

not, we are therefore justified
in exploiting moral patients ourselves. When we
fail to stop widespread
slaughter of human beings in foreign countries,
it does not follow that we,
ourselves, believe it appropriate to
participate in such slaughter. Similarly,
our failure to prevent predation cannot be
taken as justification of our
exploitation of animals.
DG
SEE ALSO: #17, #19, #36, #64
----------------------#24 Is the AR movement against abortion? If
not, isn't that hypocritical?
----------------------Attempts are frequently made to tie Animal
Rights exponents to one side
or the other of the abortion debate. Such
attempts are misguided. Claims
that adherence to the ethics of AR determine
one's position on embryo
rights are plainly counter-intuitive, unless
one is also prepared to argue
that being a defender of human rights compels
one to a particular position
on abortion. Is it the case that one cannot
consistently despise torture,
serfdom, and other barbaric practices without
coming to a particular
conclusion on abortion?
AR defenders demand that the rights currently
held by humans be extended
to all creatures similar in morally relevant
ways. For example, since
society does not accept that mature, sentient
human moral patients (refer
to question #17 for a brief description of the
distinction between patients
and agents) may be routinely annihilated in the
name of science, it
logically follows that comparable nonhuman
animals should be given the same
protection. On the other hand, abortion is
still a moot point. It is
plainly illogical to expect the AR movement to
reflect anything other than
the full spectrum of opinion found in society
at large on the abortion issue.
Fundamentally, AR philosophers are content
with submitting sufficient
conditions for the attribution of rights to

individuals, conditions that

explain the noncontroversial protections
afforded today to humans. They
neither encourage nor discourage attempts to
widen the circle of protection
to fetuses.
AECW
There is a range of views among AR supporters
on the issue of abortion
versus animal rights. Many people believe, as
does AECW, that the issues
of abortion and AR are unrelated, and that the
question is irrelevant to the
validity of AR. Others, such as myself, feel
that abortion certainly is
relevant to AR. After all, the granting of
rights to animals (and humans)
is based on their capacity to suffer and to be
a subject-of-a-life. It
seems clear that late-term fetuses can suffer
from the abortion procedure.
Certain physiological responses, such as
elevated heart rates, and the
existence of a functioning nervous system
support this view.
It also can be argued that the fetus is on a
course to become a
subject-of-a-life, and that by aborting the
fetus we therefore harm it.
Some counter this latter argument by claiming
that the "potential" to
become subject-of-a-life is an invalid grounds
for assigning rights, but
this is a fine philosophical point that is
itself subject to attack. For
example, suppose a person is in a coma that,
given enough time, will
dissipate--the person has the potential to be
sentient again. Does the
person lose his rights while in the coma?
While the arguments adduced may show that
abortion is not irrelevant
to AR, they do not show that abortion is
necessarily wrong. The reason
is that it is possible to argue that the rights
of the fetus are in
conflict with the rights of the woman, and that
the rights of the woman
dominate. All may not agree with this tradeoff, but it is a consistent,
non-hypocritical stance that is not in conflict
with AR philosophy.
See question #4 for an analysis of hypocrisy
arguments in general.
DG

SEE ALSO: #4
----------------------#25 Doesn't the ethical theory of
contractarianism show that animals
have no rights?
----------------------Contractarianism is an ethical theory that
attempts to account for our
morality by appealing to implicit mutually
beneficial agreements, or
contracts. For example, it would explain our
refusal to strike each other
by asserting that we have an implied contract:
"You don't hit me and I
won't hit you." The relevance of
contractarianism to AR stems from the
supposition that nonhuman animals are incapable
of entering into such
contracts, coupled with the assertion that
rights can be attributed only
to those individuals that can enter into such
contracts. Roughly, animals
can't have rights because they lack the
rational capacity to assent to a
contract requiring them to respect our rights.
Contractarianism is perhaps the most
impressive attempt to refute the AR
position; therefore, it is important to
consider it in some detail. It is
easily possible to write a large volume on the
subject. We must limit
ourselves to considering the basic arguments
and problems with them. Those
readers finding this incomplete or nonrigorous
are advised to consult the
primary literature.
We begin by observing that contractarianism
fails to offer a compelling
account of our moral behavior and motives. If
the average person is asked why
they think it wrong to steal from their
neighbor, they do not answer that by
refraining from it they ensure that their
neighbor will not steal from them.
Nor do they answer that they have an implicit
mutual contract with their
neighbor. Instead of invoking contracts, people
typically assert some variant
of the harm principle; e.g., they don't steal
because it would harm the
neighbor. Similarly, we do not teach children
that the reason why they should
not steal is because then people will not steal

from them.
Another way to point up the mismatch between
the theory of contractarianism
and our actual moral behavior is to ask if,
upon risking your own life to
save my child from drowning, you have done this
as a result of a contractual
obligation. Certainly, one performs such acts
as a response to the distress
of another being, not as a result of
contractual obligations.
Contractarianism can thus be seen as a theory
that fails to account for our
moral behavior. At best, it is a theory that
its proponents would recommend
to us as preferable. (Is it seen as preferable
because it denies rights to
animals, and because it seems to justify
continued exploitation of animals?)
Arguably the most serious objection to
contractarianism is that it can be
used to sanction arrangements that would be
almost universally condemned.
Consider a group of very rich people that
assemble and create a contract
among themselves the effect of which is to
ensure that wealth remains in
their control. They agree by contract that even
repressive tactics can be
used to ensure that the masses remain in
poverty. They argue that, by virtue
of the existence of their contract, that they
do no wrong. Similar contracts
could be drawn up to exclude other races,
sexes, etc.
John Rawls attempts to overcome this problem
by supposing that the
contractors must begin from an "initial
position" in which they are not yet
incarnated as beings and must form the contract
in ignorance of their final
incarnation. Thus, it is argued, since a given
individual in the starting
position does not know whether, for example,
she will be incarnated as a rich
woman or a poor woman, that individual will not
form contracts that are based
on such criteria. In response, one can begin to
wonder at the lengths to
which some will go in creating ad hoc
adjustments to a deficient theory. But
more to the point, one can turn around this ad
hoc defense to support the AR
position. For surely, if individuals in the
initial position are to be truly
ignorant of their destiny, they must assume

that they may be incarnated as

animals. Given that, the contract that is
reached is likely to include strong
protections for animals!
Another problem with Rawls' device is that
probabilities can be such that,
even given ignorance, contracts can result that
most people would see as
unjust. If the chance of being incarnated as a
slave holder is 90 percent, a
contract allowing slavery could well result
because most individuals would
feel they had a better chance of being
incarnated as a slave holder. Thus,
Rawls' device fails even to achieve its
purpose.
It is hard to see how contractarianism can
permit movement from the status
quo. How did alleged contracts that denied
liberty to slaves and excluded
women from voting come to be renegotiated?
Contractarianism also is unable to adequately
account for the rights we
give to those unable to form contracts, i.e.,
infants, children, senile
people, mental deficients, and even animals to
some extent. Various means
have been advanced to try to account for the
attribution of rights to such
individuals. We have no space to deal with all
of them. Instead, we briefly
address a few.
One attempt involves appealing to the
interests of true rights holders.
For example, I don't eat your baby because you
have an interest in it and I
wouldn't want you violating such an interest of
mine. But what if no-one
cared about a given infant? Would that make it
fair game for any use or
abuse? Certainly not. Another problem here is
that many people express an
interest in the protection of all animals. That
would seem to require others
to refrain from using or abusing animals. While
this result is attractive to
the AR community, it certainly weakens the
argument that contractarianism
justifies our use of animals.
Others want to let individuals "ride" until
they are capable of respecting
the contract. But what of those that will never
be capable of doing so, e.g.,
senile people? And why can we not let animals
ride?
Some argue a "reduced-rights" case. Children

get a reduced rights set

designed to protect them from themselves, etc.
The problem here is that with
animals the rights reduction is way out of
proportion. We accept that we
cannot experiment on infants or kill and eat
them due to their reduced rights
set. Why then are such extreme uses acceptable
for nonhumans?
Some argue that it is irrelevant whether a
given individual can enter into
a contract; what is important is their
theoretical capacity to do so. But,
future generations have the capacity but
clearly cannot interact reciprocally
with us, so the basis of contractarianism is
gutted (unless we assert that we
have no moral obligations to leave a habitable
world for future generations).
Peter Singer asks "Why limit morality to those
who have the capacity to enter
into agreements, if in fact there is no
possibility of their ever doing so?"
There are practical problems with
contractarianism as well. For example,
what can be our response if an individual
renounces participation in any
implied moral contracts, and states that he is
therefore justified in
engaging in what others would call immoral
acts? Is there any way for us to
reproach him? And what are we to do about
violations of the contract? If an
individual steals from us, he has broken the
contract and we should therefore
be released from it. Are we then morally
justified in stealing from him? Or
worse?
In summary, contractarianism fails because a)
it fails to accurately account
for our actual, real-world moral acts and
motives, b) it sanctions contractual
arrangements that most people would see as
unjust, c) it fails to account for
the considerations we accord to individuals
unable to enter into contracts,
and d) it has some impractical consequences.
Finally, there is a better
foundation for ethics--the harm principle. It
is simple, universalizable,
devoid of ad hoc devices, and matches our real
moral thinking.
TA/DG
SEE ALSO: #11, #17, #19, #96

---------------PRACTICAL ISSUES
-------------------------------------#26 Surely there are more pressing practical
problems than AR, such
as homelessness; haven't you got better
things to do?
----------------------Inherent in this question is an assumption
that it is more important
to help humans than to help nonhumans. Some
would dismiss this as a
speciesist position (see question #1). It is
possible, however, to
invoke the scale-of-life notion and argue that
there is greater suffering
and loss associated with cruelty and neglect of
humans than with animals.
This might appear to constitute a prima-facie
case for expending one's
energies for humans rather than nonhumans.
However, even if we accept
the scale-of-life notion, there are sound
reasons for expending time
and energy on the issue of rights for nonhuman
animals.
Many of the consequences of carrying out the
AR agenda are highly
beneficial to humans. For example, stopping the
production and consumption
of animal products would result in a
significant improvement of the
general health of the human population, and
destruction of the environment
would be greatly reduced.
Fostering compassion for animals is likely to
pay dividends in terms
of a general increase of compassion in human
affairs. Tom Regan puts it
this way:
...the animal rights movement is a part of,
not antagonistic to,
the human rights movement. The theory that
rationally grounds the
rights of animals also grounds the rights of
humans. Thus those
involved in the animal rights movement are
partners in the struggle
to secure respect for human rights--the
rights of women, for
example, or minorities, or workers. The

animal rights movement

is cut from the same moral cloth as these.
Finally, the behavior asked for by the AR
agenda involves little
expenditure of energy. We are asking people to
NOT do things: don't
eat meat, don't exploit animals for
entertainment, don't wear furs.
These negative actions don't interfere with our
ability to care for
humans. In some cases, they may actually make
more time available for
doing so (e.g., time spent hunting or visiting
zoos and circuses).
DG
Living cruelty-free is not a full-time job;
rather, it's a way of life.
When I shop, I check ingredients and I consider
if the product is tested
on animals. These things only consume a few
minutes of the day. There is
ample time left for helping both humans and
nonhumans.
JLS
I am in favor of animal rights as well as
human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being.
Abraham Lincoln
(16th U.S. President)
To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less
precious than that of a
human being.
Mahatma Gandhi
(statesman and philosopher)
Our task must be to free ourselves...by
widening our circle of compassion
to embrace all living creatures and the whole
of nature and its beauty.
Albert Einstein
(physicist, Nobel 1921)
SEE ALSO: #1, #87, #95
----------------------#27 If everyone became vegetarian and gave up
keeping pets,
what would happen to all the animals?
----------------------As vegetarianism grows, the number of animals
bred for food gradually

will decline, since the market will no longer

exist for them.
Similarly, a gradual decrease would accompany
the lessening demand for
the breeding of companion animals. In both
cases, those animals that
remain will be better cared for by a more
compassionate society.
LK
SEE ALSO: #75
----------------------#28 Grazing animals on land not suited for
agriculture increases the food
supply; how can that be considered wrong?
----------------------There are areas in the world where grazing of
livestock is possible but
agriculture is not. If conditions are such that
people living in these
areas cannot trade for crops and must raise
livestock to survive, few
would question the practice. However, such
areas are very small in
comparison to the fertile and semi-arid regions
currently utilized for
intensive grazing, and they do not appreciably
contribute to the world
food supply. (Some would argue that it is
morally preferable not to live in
such areas.)
The real issue is the intensive grazing in
the fertile and semi-arid
regions. The use of such areas for livestock
raising reduces the world
food supply. Keith Acker writes as follows in
his "A Vegetarian
Sourcebook":
Land, energy, and water resources for
livestock agriculture range
anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than
those necessary to
produce an equivalent amount of plant
foods. And livestock
agriculture does not merely use these
resources, it depletes them.
This is a matter of historical record. Most
of the world's soil,
erosion, groundwater depletion, and
deforestation--factors now
threatening the very basis of our food
system--are the result of this
particularly destructive form of food

production.
Livestock agriculture is also the single
greatest cause of world-wide
deforestation both historically and currently
(between 1967 and 1975,
two-thirds of 70 million acres of lost forest
went to grazing). Between
1950 and 1975 the area of human-created pasture
land in Central America
more than doubled, almost all of it at the
expense of rain forests.
Although this trend has slowed down, it still
continues at an alarming and
inexorable pace.
Grazing requires large tracts of land and the
consequences of
overgrazing and soil erosion are very serious
ecological problems. By
conservative estimates, 60 percent of all U.S.
grasslands are overgrazed,
resulting in billions of tons of soil lost each
year. The amount of U.S.
topsoil lost to date is about 75 percent, and
85 percent of that is
directly associated with livestock grazing.
Overgrazing has been the
single largest cause of human-made deserts.
One could argue that grazing is being
replaced by the "feedlot
paradigm". These systems graze the livestock
prior to transport to a
feedlot for final "fattening" with grains grown
on crop lands. Although
this does reduce grazing somewhat, it is not
eliminated, and the feedlot
part of the paradigm still constitutes a highly
inefficient use of crops
(to feed a human with livestock requires 16
times the grain that would be
necessary if the grain was consumed directly).
It has been estimated that
in the U.S., 80 percent of the corn and 95
percent of the oats grown are
fed to livestock.
TA
I grew up in cattle country--that's why I
became a vegetarian. Meat stinks,
for the animals, the environment, and your
health.
k.d. lang
(musician)
----------------------#29 If we try to eliminate all animals

products, we'll be moving back to

the Stone Age; who wants that?
----------------------On the contrary! It is a dependency upon
animal products that could be
seen as returning us to the technologies and
mind set of the Stone Age.
For example, Stone Age people had to wear furs
in Northern climates to
avoid freezing. That is no longer the case,
thanks to central heating
and the ready availability of plenty of good
plant and human-made fabrics.
If we are to characterize the modern age, it
could be in terms of the
greater freedoms and options made possible by
technological advance and
social progress. The Stone Age people had few
options and so were forced
to rely upon animals for food, clothing, and
materials for their implements.
Today, we have an abundance of choices for
better foods, warmer clothing,
and more efficient materials, none of which
need depend upon the killing
of animals.
TA
It seems to me that the only Stone Age we are
in any danger of entering
is that constituted by the continuous
destruction of animals' habitats
in favor of the Portland-cement concrete
jungle!
DG
SEE ALSO: #60, #62, #95
----------------------#30 It's virtually impossible to eliminate all
animal products from one's
consumption; what's the point if you still
cause animal death without
knowing it?
----------------------Yes, it is very difficult to eliminate all
animal products from one's
consumption, just as it is impossible to
eliminate all accidental killing
and infliction of harm that results from our
activities. But this cannot
justify making it "open season" for any kind of
abuse of animals. The
reasonable goal, given the realities, is to

minimize the harms one causes.

The point, then, is that a great deal of
suffering is prevented.
DG
SEE ALSO: #57-#58
----------------------#31 Wouldn't many customs and traditions, as
well as jobs, be lost if
we stopped using animals?
----------------------Consider first the issue of customs and
traditions. The plain truth is
that some customs and traditions deserve to die
out. Examples abound
throughout history: slavery, Roman gladiatorial
contests, torture, public
executions, witch burning, racism. To these the
AR supporter adds animal
exploitation and enslavement.
The human animal is an almost infinitely
adaptable organism. The loss of
the customs listed above has not resulted in
any lasting harm to
humankind. The same can be confidently
predicted for the elimination of
animal exploitation. In fact, humankind would
likely benefit from a
quantum leap of compassion in human affairs.
As far as jobs are concerned, the economic
aspects are discussed in
question #32. It remains to point out that for
a human, what is at stake is
a job, which can be replaced with one less
morally dubious. What is at
stake for an animal is the elimination of
torture and exploitation, and
the possibility for a life of happiness, free
from human oppression and
brutality.
DG
People often say that humans have always
eaten animals, as if this is a
justification for continuing the practice.
According to this logic, we
should not try to prevent people from murdering
other people, since this
has also been done since the earliest of times.
Isaac Bashevis
Singer (author, Nobel 1978)
SEE ALSO: #32

----------------------#32 The animal product industries are big

business; wouldn't the economy
be crippled if they all stopped?
----------------------One cannot justify an action based on its
profitability. Many crimes and
practices that we view as repugnant have been
or continue to be
profitable: the slave trade, sale of child
brides, drug dealing, scams of
all sorts, prostitution, child pornography.
A good example of this, and one that points
up another key
consideration, is the tobacco industry. It is a
multibillion-dollar
industry, yet vigorous efforts are proceeding
on many fronts to put it out
of business. The main problem with it lies in
its side-effects, i.e., the
massive health consequences and deaths that it
produces, which easily
outweigh the immediate profitability. There are
side effects to animal
exploitation also. Among the most significant
are the pollution and
deforestation associated with large-scale
animal farming. As we see in
question #28, these current practices
constitute a nonsustainable use of
the planet's resources. It is more likely true
that the economy will be
crippled if the practices continue!
Finally, the profits associated with the
animal industries stem from
market demand and affluence. There is no reason
to suppose that this
demand cannot be gradually redirected into
other industries. Instead of
prime beef, we can have prime artichokes, or
prime pasta, etc. Humanity's
demand for gourmet food will not vanish with
the meat. Similarly, the
jobs associated with the animal industries can
be gradually redirected
into the industries that would spring up to
replace the animal
industries. (Vice President Gore made a similar
point in reference to
complaints concerning loss of jobs if logging
was halted. He commented
that the environmental movement would open up a
huge area for jobs that
had heretofore been unavailable.)
DG

It is my view that the vegetarian manner of

living by its purely physical
effect on the human temperament would most
beneficially influence the lot of
mankind.
Albert Einstein
(physicist, Nobel 1921)
SEE ALSO: #28, #31
---------------------ARGUMENTS FROM BIOLOGY
-------------------------------------------#33 Humans are at the pinnacle of evolution;
doesn't that give them
the right to use animals as they wish?
----------------------This is one of many arguments that attempt to
draw ethical conclusions
from scientific observations. In this case, the
science is shaky, and the
ethical conclusion is dubious. Let us first
examine the science.
The questioner's view is that evolution has
created a linear ranking of
general fitness, a ladder if you will, with
insects and other "lower"
species at the bottom, and humans (of course!)
at the top. This idea
originated as part of a wider, now discredited
evolutionary system called
Lamarckism. Charles Darwin's discovery of
natural selection overturned
this system. Darwin's picture, instead, is of a
"radiating bush" of
species, with each evolving to adapt more
closely to its environment,
along its own radius. Under this view, the idea
of a pinnacle becomes
unclear: yes, humans have adapted well to their
niche (though many would
dispute this, asserting the nonsustainable
nature of our use of the
planet's resources), but so have bacteria
adapted well to their niche. Can
we really say that humans are better adapted to
their niche than bacteria,
and would it mean anything when the niches are
so different?
Probably, what the questioner has in mind in
using the word "pinnacle"

is that humans excel in some particular trait,

and that a scale can be
created relative to this trait. For example, on
a scale of mental
capability, humans stand well above bacteria.
But a different choice of
traits can lead to very different results.
Bacteria stand "at the
pinnacle" when one looks at reproductive
fecundity. Birds stand "at
the pinnacle" when one looks at flight.
Now let us examine the ethics. Leaving aside
the dubious idea of a
pinnacle of evolution, let us accept that
humans are ranked at the top on
a scale of intelligence. Does this give us the
right to do as we please
with animals, simply on account of their being
less brainy? If we say yes,
we open a Pandora's box of problems for
ourselves. Does this mean that
more intelligent humans can also exploit less
intelligent humans as they
wish (shall we all be slaves to the Einsteins
of the world)? Considering
a different trait, can the physically superior
abuse the weak? Only a
morally callous person would agree with this
general principle.
AECW
SEE ALSO: #34, #37
----------------------#34 Humans are at the top of the food chain;
aren't they therefore
justified in killing and eating anything?
----------------------No; otherwise, potential cannibals in our
society could claim the same
defense for their practice. That we can do
something does not mean that it
is right to do so. We have a lot of power over
other creatures, but with
great powers come even greater
responsibilities, as any parent will
testify.
Humans are at the top of the food chain
because they CHOOSE to eat
nonhuman animals. There is thus a suggestion of
tautology in the
questioner's position. If we chose not to eat
animals, we would not be
at the top of the food chain.
The idea that superiority in a trait confers

rights over the inferior is

disposed of in question #33.

AECW

SEE ALSO: #33

----------------------#35 Animals are just machines; why worry about
them?
----------------------Centuries ago, the philosopher Rene Descartes
developed the idea that
all nonhuman animals are automatons that cannot
feel pain. Followers of
Descartes believed that if an animal cried out
this was just a reflex,
the sort of reaction one might get from a
mechanical doll. Consequently,
they saw no reason not to experiment on animals
without anesthetics.
Horrified observers were admonished to pay no
attention to the screams
of the animal subjects.
This idea is now refuted by modern science.
Animals are no more "mere
machines" than are human beings. Everything
science has learned about
other species points out the biological
similarities between humans and
nonhumans. As Charles Darwin wrote, the
differences between humans and
other animals are differences of degree, not
differences of kind. Since
both humans and nonhumans evolved over millions
of years and share
similar nervous systems and other organs, there
is no reason to think
we do not share a similar mental and emotional
life with other animal
species (especially mammals).
LK
----------------------#36 In Nature, animals kill and eat each
other; so why should it be wrong
for humans?
----------------------Predatory animals must kill to eat. Humans,
in contrast, have a choice;
they need not eat meat to survive.
Humans differ from nonhuman animals in being
capable of conceiving of, and
acting in accordance with, a system of morals;
therefore, we cannot seek

moral guidance or precedent from nonhuman

animals. The AR philosophy asserts
that it is just as wrong for a human to kill
and eat a sentient nonhuman as
it is to kill and eat a sentient human.
To demonstrate the absurdity of seeking moral
precedents from nonhuman
animals, consider the following variants of the
question:
"In Nature, animals steal food from each
other; so why should it be
wrong for humans [to steal]?"
"In Nature, animals kill and eat humans; so
why should it be wrong for
humans [to kill and eat humans]?"
DG
SEE ALSO: #23, #34, #64
----------------------#37 Natural selection and Darwinism are at
work in the world; doesn't
that mean it's unrealistic to try to
overcome such forces?
----------------------Assuming that Animal Rights concepts somehow
clash with Darwinian forces,
the questioner must stand accused of selective
moral fatalism: our sense of
morality is clearly not modeled on the laws of
natural selection. Why,
then, feel helpless before some of its effects
and not before others?
Male-dominance, xenophobia, and war-mongering
are present in many human
societies. Should we venture that some
mysterious, universal forces must be
at work behind them, and that all attempts at
quelling such tendencies should
be abandoned? Or, more directly, when people
become sick, do we abandon them
because "survival of the fittest" demands it?
We do not abandon them; and we
do not agonize about trying to overcome natural
selection.
There is no reason to believe that the
practical implications of the Animal
Rights philosophy are maladaptive for humans.
On the contrary, and for
reasons explained elsewhere in this FAQ,
respecting the rights of animals
would yield beneficial side-effects for humans,
such as more-sustainable

agricultural practices, and better

environmental and health-care policies.
AECW
The advent of Darwinism led to a substitution
of the idea of individual
organisms for the old idea of immutable
species. The moral individualism
implied by AR philosophy substitutes the idea
that organisms should be
treated according to their individual
capacities for the (old) idea that it
is the species of the animal that counts. Thus,
moral individualism actually
fits well with evolutionary theory.
DG
SEE ALSO: #63-62
----------------------#38 Isn't AR opposed to environmental
philosophy (as described, for
example, in "Deep Ecology")?
----------------------No. It should be clear from many of the
answers included in this FAQ, and
from perusal of many of the books referenced in
question #92, that the
philosophy and goals of AR are complementary to
the goals of the mainstream
environmental movement. Michael W. Fox sees AR
and environmentalism as
two aspects of a dialectic that reconciles
concerns for the rights of
individuals (human and nonhuman) with concerns
for the integrity of the
biosphere.
Some argue that a morality based on
individual rights is necessarily
opposed to one based on holistic environmental
views, e.g., the sanctity
of the biosphere. However, an environmental
ethic that attributes some
form of rights to all individuals, including
inanimate ones, can be
developed. Such an ethic, by showing respect
for the individuals that make
up the biosphere, would also show respect for
the biosphere as a whole, thus
achieving the aims of holistic
environmentalism. It is clear that a rights
view is not necessarily in conflict with a
holistic view.
In reference to the concept of deep ecology
and the claim that it bears

negatively on AR, Fox believes such claims to

be unfounded. The following
text is excerpted from "Inhumane Society", by
Michael W. Fox.
DG
Deep ecologists support the philosophy of
preserving the natural
abundance and diversity of plants and animals
in natural ecosystems...
The deep ecologists should oppose the
industrialized, nonsubsistence
exploitation of wildlife because...it is
fundamentally unsound ecologically,
because by favoring some species over others,
population imbalances and
extinctions of undesired species would be
inevitable.
In their book "Deep Ecology", authors Bill
Devall and George Sessions...
take to task animal rights philosopher Tom
Regan, who with others of like
mind "expressed concern that a holistic
ecological ethic...results in a
kind of totalitarianism or ecological
fascism"...In an appendix, however,
George Sessions does suggest that philosophers
need to work toward
nontotalitarian solutions...and that "in all
likelihood, this will require
some kind of holistic ecological ethic in which
the integrity of all
individuals (human and nonhuman) is respected".
Ironically, while the authors are so critical
of the animal rights
movement, they quote Arne Naess (...arguably
the founder of the deep
ecology movement)...For instance, Naess states:
"The intuition of
biocentric equality is that all things in the
biosphere have an equal
right to live and blossom and to reach their
own forms of unfolding and
self-realization..."
Michael W. Fox
(Vice President of HSUS)
SEE ALSO: #28, #59
-----------------INSECTS AND PLANTS
---------------------------------------#39 What about insects? Do they have rights

too?
----------------------Before considering the issue of rights, let
us first address the
question "What about insects?". Strictly
speaking, insects are small
invertebrate animals of the class Insecta,
having an adult stage
characterized by three pairs of legs, a
segmented body with three major
divisions, and usually two pairs of wings.
We'll adopt the looser
definition, which includes similar invertebrate
animals such as spiders,
centipedes, and ticks.
Insects have a ganglionic nervous system, in
contrast to the central
nervous system of vertebrates. Such a system is
characterized by local
aggregates of neurons, called ganglia, that are
associated with, and
specialized for, the body segment with which
they are co-located. There
are interconnections between ganglia but these
connections function not so
much as a global integrating pathway, but
rather for local segmental
coordination. For example, the waves of leg
motion that propagate along
the body of a centipede are mediated by the
intersegmental connections.
In some species the cephalic ganglia are
large and complex enough to
support very complex behavior (e.g., the
lobster and octopus). The
cuttlefish (not an insect but another
invertebrate with a ganglionic
nervous system) is claimed by some to be about
as intelligent as a dog.
Insects are capable of primitive learning and
do exhibit what many would
characterize as intelligence. Spiders are known
for their skills and
craftiness; whether this can all be dismissed
as instinct is arguable.
Certainly, bees can learn in a limited way.
When offered a reward from a
perch of a certain color, they return first to
perches of that color. They
also learn the location of food and transmit
that information to their
colleagues. The learning, however, tends to be
highly specialized and
applicable to only limited domains.
In addition to a primitive mental life as

described above, there is some

evidence that insects can experience pain and
suffering. The earthworm
nervous system, for example, secretes an opiate
substance when the
earthworm is injured. Similar responses are
seen in vertebrates and are
generally accepted to be a mechanism for the
attenuation of pain. On the
other hand, the opiates are also implicated in
functions not associated
with analgesia, such as thermoregulation and
appetite control. Nevertheless,
the association of secretion with tissue injury
is highly suggestive.
Earthworms also wriggle quite vigorously when
impaled on a hook. In
possible opposition to this are other
observations. For example, the
abdomen of a feeding wasp can be clipped off
and the head may go on
sucking (presumably in no distress?).
Singer quotes three criteria for deciding if
an organism has the
capacity to suffer from pain: 1) there are
behavioral indications, 2)
there is an appropriate nervous system, and 3)
there is an evolutionary
usefulness for the experience of pain. These
criteria seem to satisfied
for insects, if only in a primitive way.
Now we are equipped to tackle the issue of
insect rights. First, one
might argue that the issue is not so compelling
as for other animals
because industries are not built around the
exploitation of insects. But
this is untrue; large industries are built
around honey production, silk
production, and cochineal/carmine production,
and, of course, mass insect
death results from our use of insecticides.
Even if the argument were
true, it should not prevent us from attempting
to be consistent in the
application of our principles to all animals.
Insects are a part of the
Animal Kingdom and some special arguments would
be required to exclude
them from the general AR argument.
Some would draw a line at some level of
complexity of the nervous
system, e.g., only animals capable of operant
conditioning need be
enfranchised. Others may quarrel with this line
and place it elsewhere.

Some may postulate a scale of life with an

ascending capacity to feel pain
and suffer. They might also mark a cut-off on
the scale, below which
rights are not actively asserted. Is the cutoff above insects and the
lower invertebrates? Or should there be no cutoff? This is one of the
issues still being actively debated in the AR
community.
People who strive to live without cruelty
will attempt to push the line
back as far as possible, giving the benefit of
the doubt where there is
doubt. Certainly, one can avoid unnecessary
cruelty to insects.
The practical issues involved in
enfranchising insects are dealt with in
the following two questions.
DG
I want to realize brotherhood or identity not
merely with the beings
called human, but I want to realize identity
with all life, even with
such things as crawl upon earth.
Mahatma Gandhi
(statesman and philosopher)
What is it that should trace the insuperable
line? ...The question
is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk?
but, Can they suffer?
Jeremy Bentham
(philosopher)
SEE ALSO: #22, #40-#41, #47
----------------------#40 Do I have to be careful not to walk on
ants?
----------------------The Jains of India would say yes! Some of
their more devout members
wear gauze masks to avoid inhaling and killing
small insects and
microbes.
Regardless of how careful we are, we will
cause some suffering as a
side-effect of living. The goal is to avoid
unnecessary suffering and
to minimize the suffering we cause. This is a
far cry from wanton,
intentional infliction of cruelty. I refer here
to the habit of some of

pulling off insects' wings for fun, or of

torching a congregation of
ants for pleasure.
This question is an issue for the individual
conscience to decide. Perhaps
one need not walk around looking out for ants
on the ground, but should one
be seen and it is easy to alter one's stride to
avoid it, where is the harm
in doing so?
DG
SEE ALSO: #39, #41
----------------------#41 There is some evidence of consciousness in
insects; aren't you
descending to absurdity to tell people not
to kill insects?
----------------------Enfranchising insects does not mean it is
never justifiable to kill
them. As with all threats to a being, the rule
of self-defense applies.
If insects are threatening one's well-being in
a nontrivial way, AR
philosophy would not assert that it is wrong to
eliminate them.
Pesticides and herbicides are often used for
mass destruction of insect
populations. While this might be defended on
the self-defense principle,
one should be aware of the significant adverse
impact on the environment,
on other non-threatening animals, and indeed on
our own health. (Refer to
question #59 for more on the use of
insecticides.)
It is not absurd to attempt to minimize the
amount of suffering
that we inflict or cause.
DG
We should begin to feel for the flies and
other insects struggling to
be free from sticky fly paper. There are humane
alternatives.
Michael W. Fox
(Vice President of HSUS)
SEE ALSO: #39-#40, #59
----------------------#42 Isn't it hypocritical to kill and eat
plants?

----------------------It would be hypocritical IF the same criteria

or morally relevant
attributes that are used to justify animal
rights also applied to
plants. The criteria cited by the AR movement
are "pain and suffering"
and being "subjects-of-a-life". An assessment
of how plants measure up
to these criteria leads to the following
conclusions.
First, our best science to date shows that
plants lack any semblance
of a central nervous system or any other system
design for such complex
capacities as that of conscious suffering from
felt pain.
Second, plants simply have no evolutionary
need to feel pain. Animals
being mobile would benefit from the ability to
sense pain; plants would
not. Nature does not gratuitously create such
complex capacities as that
of feeling pain unless there is some benefit
for the organism's
survival.
The first point is dealt with in more detail
in questions #43 and #44.
The general hypocrisy argument is discussed in
question #4.
TA
SEE ALSO: #4, #39-#44
----------------------#43 But how can you prove that plants don't
feel pain?
----------------------Lest we forget the ultimate point of what
follows, let us not forget the
central thesis of AR. Simply stated: to the
extent other animals share
with us certain morally relevant attributes,
then to that extent we confer
upon them due regard and concern. The two
attributes that are arguably
relevant are: a) our capacity for pain and
suffering, and b) the capacity
for being the "subject-of-a-life", i.e., being
such that it matters to one
whether one's life fares well or ill.
Both of these qualities require the existence
of mental states. Also
note that in order to speak of "mental states"

proper, we would denote, as

common usage would dictate, that such states
are marked by consciousness.
It is insufficient to mark off mental states by
only the apparent presence
of purposefulness or intentionality since, as
we shall see below, many
material objects possess purposeful-looking
behaviors.
So then, how do we properly attribute the
existence of mental states to
other animals, or even to ourselves for that
matter? We cannot infer the
presence of felt pain simply by the presence of
a class of behaviors that
are functional for an organism's amelioration
or avoidance of noxious
stimuli. Thermostats obviously react to thermal
changes in the environment
and respond in a functionally appropriate
manner to restore an initial
"preferred" state. We would be foolish,
however, to attribute to
thermostats a capability to "sense" or "feel"
some kind of thermal "pain".
Even placing quotes around our terms doesn't
protect us from absurdity.
Clearly, the behavioral criterion of even
functional avoidance/defense
reactions is simply not sufficient nor even
necessary for the proper
attribution of pain as a felt mental state.
Science, including the biological sciences,
are committed to the working
assumption of scientific materialism or
physicalism (see "The Metaphysical
Foundations of Modern Science", E. A. Burtt,
1924). We must then start
with the generally accepted scientific
assumption that matter is the only
existent or real primordial constituent of the
universe.
Let it be said at the outset that scientific
materialism as such does
not preclude the existence of emergent or
functional qualities like that
of mind, consciousness, and feeling (or even,
dare I say it, free will),
but all such qualities are dependent upon the
existence of organized
matter. If there is no hardware, there is
nothing for the software to run
on. If there is no intact, living brain, there
is no mind. It should also
be said that even contemporary versions of
dualism or mind-stuff theories

will also make embodiment of mental states

dependent on the presence of
sufficiently organized matter.
To briefly state the case, cognitive
functions like consciousness and
mind are seen as emergent properties of
sufficiently organized matter.
Just as breathing is a function of a complex
system of organs referred to
as the respiratory system, so too is
consciousness a function of the
immensely complex information-processing
capabilities of a central nervous
system. It is possible, in theory, that future
computers, given a
sufficiently complex and orderly organization
of hardware and clever
software, could exhibit the requisite emergent
qualities. While such
computers do not exist, we DO know that certain
living organisms on this
planet possess the requisite complexity of
specialized and highly
organized structure for the emergence of mental
states.
In theory, plants could possess a mental
state like pain, but if, and
only if, there were a requisite complexity of
organized plant tissue that
could serve to instantiate the higher order
mental states of consciousness
and felt pain.
There is no morphological evidence that such
a complexity of tissue
exists in plants. Plants lack the specialized
structures required for
emergence of mental states. This is not to say
that they cannot exhibit
complex reactions, but we are simply overinterpreting such reactions if
we designate them as "felt pain".
With respect to all mammals, birds, and
reptiles, we know that they
possess a sufficiently complex neural structure
to enable felt pain plus
an evolutionary need for such consciously felt
states. They possess
complex and specialized sense organs, they
possess complex and specialized
structures for processing information and for
centrally orchestrating
appropriate behaviors in accordance with mental
representations,
integrations, and reorganizations of that
information. The proper
attribution of felt pain in these animals is

well justified. It is not for

plants, by any stretch of the imagination.
TA
The absurdity (and often disingenuity) of the
plant-pain promoters can be
easily exposed by asking them the following two
questions:
1) Do you agree that animals like dogs and
cats should receive
pain-killing drugs prior to surgery?
2) Do you believe that plants should
receive pain-killing drugs
prior to pruning?
DG
SEE ALSO: #42, #44
----------------------#44 Aren't there studies that show that plants
can scream, etc.?
----------------------How can something without vocal apparatus
scream? Perhaps the questioner
intends to suggest that plants somehow express
feelings or emotions. This
notion is popularized in the book "The Secret
Life of Plants", by Tompkins
and Bird, 1972. The book describes
"experiments" in which plants are
claimed to respond to injury and even to the
thoughts and emotions of
nearby humans. The responses consist of changes
in the electrical
conductivity of their leaves. The truth is,
however, that nothing but a
dismal failure has resulted from attempts to
replicate these experiments.
For some definitive reviews, see Science, 1975,
189:478 and The Skeptical
Inquirer, 1978, 2(2):57.
But what about plant responses to insect
invasion? Does this suggest
that plants "feel" pain? No published book or
paper in a scientific
journal has been cited as indeed making this
claim that "plants feel
pain". There is interesting data suggesting
that plants react to local
tissue damage and even emit signaling molecules
serving to stimulate
chemical defenses of nearby plants. But how is
this relevant to the claim
that plants feel and suffer from pain? Where

are the replicated

experiments and peer-reviewed citations for
this putative fact? There are
none.
Let us, for the sake of argument, consider
the form of logic employed by
the plant-pain promoters:
premise 1:
Plants are responsive to
"sense" impressions.
premise 2:
As defined in the dictionary,
anything
responsive to sense
impressions is sentient.
conclusion 1: Plants are sentient.
premise 3:
Sentient beings are conscious
of sense impressions.
conclusion 2: Plants are conscious of sense
impressions.
premise 4:
To be conscious of a noxious
stimuli is unpleasant.
conclusion 3: Noxious stimuli to plants are
unpleasant, i.e., painful.
There is a major logical sleight-of-hand
here. The meaning of the term
"sentient" changes between premise 2
("responsive to sense impressions")
and premise 3 ("conscious of sense
impressions"). Thus, equivocation on
the usage of "sentient" is used to bootleg the
false conclusion 3. There
is also an equivocation on the meaning of
"painful" ("unpleasant" versus
the commonly understood meaning).
TA
If we can bring ourselves to momentarily
assume (falsely) that plants
feel pain, then we can easily argue that by
eliminating animal farming,
we reduce the total pain inflicted on plants,
leading to the ironic
conclusion that plant pain supports the AR
position. This is discussed
in more detail in question #46.
DG
SEE ALSO: #42-#43, #46
----------------------#45 But even if plants don't feel pain, aren't
you depriving them of
their life? Why isn't that enough to accord
moral status to plants?
-----------------------

The philosophy of Animal Rights is generally

regarded as encompassing
only sentient creatures. Plants are just one of
many non-sentient, living
creatures. To remain consistent, granting moral
status to plants would
lead one to grant it to all life. It may be
thought that a philosophy
encompassing all life would be best, but
granting moral status to all
living creatures leads to rather implausible
views.
For example, concern for life would lead one
to oppose the distribution
of spermicides, even to overpopulated Third
world countries. The morality
of any sexual intercourse could be questioned
as well, since thousands of
sperm cells die in each act. Also, the sheer
variety of life forms creates
difficulties; for example, arguments have been
made to show that some
computer programs--such as computer viruses-may well be called alive.
Should one grant them moral status?
There are questions even in the case of
plants. The use of weed-killers
in a garden would need defending. And if
killing plants is wrong, why
isn't merely damaging them in some other way
also wrong? Is trimming
hedgerows wrong?
The problems raised above are not attempts to
discourage efforts to
develop an ethics of the environment. They
simply point out that according
moral status to all living creatures is fraught
with difficulties.
Nevertheless, some people do, indeed, argue
that the taking of life
should be minimized where possible; this
constitutes a kind of moral
status for life. Interestingly, such a view,
far from undermining the AR
view, actually supports it. To see why, refer
to question #46.
AECW
SEE ALSO: #46, #59
----------------------#46 Isn't it better to eat animals, because
that way you kill the least
number of living beings.
-----------------------

There are at least two problems with this

question. First, there is the
assumption that killing is the factor sought to
be minimized, but as
explained in question #18, killing is not the
central concern of AR; rather,
it is pain and suffering, neither of which can
be attributed to plants.
Second, the questioner overlooks that
livestock must be raised on a diet
of plant foods, so consumption of animals is
actually a once-removed
consumption of plants. The twist, of course, is
that passing plants through
animals is a very inefficient process; losses
of up to 80-90 percent are
typical. Thus, it could be argued that, if
one's concern is for killing,
per se, then the vegetarian diet is preferable
(at least for today's
predominant feedlot paradigm).
DG
SEE ALSO: #18, #28, #45
----------------------#47 Nature is a continuum; doesn't that mean
you cannot draw a line, and
where you draw yours is no better than
where I draw mine?
----------------------Most people will accept that the diversity of
Nature is such that one is
effectively faced with a continuum. Charles
Darwin was right to state that
differences are of degree, not of kind.
One should take issue, however, with the
belief that this means that a
line cannot be drawn for the purpose of
granting rights. For example,
while there is a continuum in the use of force,
from the gentle nudge of
the adoring mother to the hellish treatment
visited upon concentration
camp prisoners, clearly, human rights are
violated in one case and not the
other. People accept that the ethical buck
stops somewhere between the two
extremes.
Similarly, while it is true that the
qualities relevant to the
attribution of rights are found to varying
extents in members of the
animal kingdom, one is entitled to draw the

line somewhere. After all,

society does it as well; today, it draws the
line just below humans.
Now, such a line (below humans) cannot be
logically defensible, since
some creatures are excluded that possess the
relevant qualities to a
greater degree than current rights-holders (for
example, a normal adult
chimpanzee has a "higher" mental life than a
human in a coma, yet we still
protect only the human from medical
experimentation). Therefore, any line
that is drawn must allow some nonhuman animals
to qualify as
rights-holders.
Moreover, the difficulty of drawing a line
does not by itself justify
drawing one at the wrong place. On the
contrary, this difficulty means
that from an ethical point of view, the line
should be drawn a) carefully,
and b) conservatively. Because the speciesist
line held by AR opponents
violates moral precepts held as critical for
the viability of any ethical
system, and because some mature nonhumans
possess morally relevant
characteristics comparable to some human
rights-bearers, one must come to
the conclusion that the status quo fails on
both counts, and that the
arrow of progress points toward a moral outlook
that encompasses nonhuman
as well as human creatures.
In addition, it should be noted that when a
new line is drawn that is
more in step with ethical truth (something
quite easy to do), in no way
should one feel that the wanton destruction of
non rights-holders is
thereby encouraged. It is desirable that a
moral climate be created that
gives due consideration to the interests and
welfare of all creatures,
whether they are rights-holders or not.
AECW
The idea that a continuum makes drawing a
line impossible or that one
line is therefore no better than another is
easily refuted. For example,
the alcohol concentration in the blood is a
continuum, but society draws
a line at 0.10 percent for drunk driving, and
clearly that is a better

line than one drawn at, say, 0.00000001

percent.
DG
SEE ALSO: #22, #39-#41
------FARMING
----------------------------#48 The animals are killed so fast that they
don't feel any pain or
even know they're being killed; what's
wrong with that?
----------------------This view can only be maintained by those
unfamiliar with modern meat
production methods. Great stress occurs during
transport in which
millions die miserably each year. And the
conveyor-belt approach to the
slaughtering process causes the animals to
struggle for their lives as
they experience the agony of the fear of death.
Only people who have never
watched the process can believe that they don't
feel any pain or aren't
aware that they're being killed.
One point that many people are unaware of is
that poultry is exempted from
the requirements of the Humane Slaughter Act.
Egg-laying hens are typically
not stunned before slaughter. Also exempt from
the act are animals killed
under Kosher conditions (see question #49).
But even if no suffering were involved, the
killing of sensitive,
intelligent animals on a vast scale (over six
billion each year in the
U.S. alone) cannot be regarded as morally
correct, especially since today
it is demonstrably clear that eating animal
flesh is not only unnecessary
but even harmful for people. Fellow-mammals are
not like corn or carrots.
To treat them as if they were is to perpetuate
an impoverished morality
which is based not on rationality but merely
tradition.
DVH
Even the climactic killing process itself is
not so clean as one is led

to believe. Every method carries strong doubts

about its "humaneness".
For example, consider electrocution. We
routinely give anesthetics to
people receiving electro-shock therapy due to
its painful effects.
Consider the pole-axe. It requires great skill
to deliver a perfect,
instantly fatal blow. Few possess the skill,
and many animals suffer from
the ineptness with which the process is
administered. Consider Kosher
slaughter, where an animal is hoisted and bled
to death without prior
stunning. Often joints are ruptured during the
hoisting, and the death is
a slow, conscious one. The idea of a clean,
painless kill is a fantasy
promulgated by those with a vested interest in
the continuance of the
practices.
DG
----------------------#49 What is factory farming, and what is wrong
with it?
----------------------Factory farming is an industrial process that
applies the philosophy and
practices of mass production to animal farming.
Animals are considered not as
individual sentient beings, but rather as a
means to an end--eggs, meat,
leather, etc. The objective is to maximize
output and profit. The animals
are manipulated through breeding, feeding,
confinement, and chemicals to
lay eggs faster, fatten more quickly, or make
leaner meat. Costs are
minimized by recycling carcasses through feed,
minimizing unit space, not
providing bedding (which gets soiled and needs
cleaning), and other
practices.
Battery-hen egg production is perhaps the
most publicized form. Hens are
"maintained" in cages of minimal size, allowing
for little or no movement
and no expression of natural behavior patterns.
Hens are painfully debeaked
and sometimes declawed to protect others in the
cramped cage. There are no
floors to the cages, so that excrement can fall
through onto a tray--the hens
therefore are standing on wire. Cages are

stacked on top of each other in

long rows, and are kept inside a climatecontrolled barn. The hens are then
used as a mechanism for turning feed into eggs.
After a short, miserable life
they are processed as boiler chickens or
recycled.
Other typical factory farming techniques are
used in pig production, where
animals are kept in concrete pens with no straw
or earth, unable to move more
than a few inches, to ensure the "best" pork.
When sows litter, piglets are
kept so the only contact between the sow and
piglets is access to the teats.
The production of veal calves is a similar
restraining process. The calves are
kept in narrow crates which prevent them from
turning; they can only stand or
lie down. They are kept in the dark with no
contact with other animals.
Factory farming distresses people because of
the treatment of the animals;
they are kept in unnatural conditions in terms
of space, possible behaviors,
and interactions with other animals. Keeping
animals in these circumstances
is not only cruel to the animals, but
diminishes the humanity of those
involved, from production to consumption.
In addition, the use of chemicals and
hormones to maximize yields, reduce
health problems in the animals, and speed
production may also be harmful to
human consumers.
JK
SEE ALSO: #12, #14, #32, #48, #50
----------------------#50 But cattle can't be factory-farmed, so I
can eat them, right?
----------------------At this time, cattle farming has not
progressed to the extremes inflicted
on some other animals--cows still have to
graze. However, the proponents of
factory farming are always considering the
possibilities of extending their
techniques, as the old-style small farm becomes
a faded memory and farming
becomes a larger and more complex industry,
competing for finance from
consumers and lenders. Cattle farming practices
such as increasing cattle

densities on feedlots, diet supplementation,

and controlled breeding are
already being implemented. Other developments
will be introduced.
However, as discussed in question #49, it is
not only the method of
farming that is of concern. Transport to the
slaughterhouse, often a long
journey in crowded conditions without access to
food and water, and the wait
at the slaughterhouse followed by the
slaughtering process are themselves
brutal and harmful. And the actual killing
process is itself not necessarily
clean or painless (see question #48).
JK
We can challenge the claim that cattle cannot
be factory-farmed; it just
isn't true. We can also challenge the claim
that if it were true, it would
justify killing and eating cattle.
A broad view of factory farming includes
practices that force adaptations
(often through breeding) that increase the
"productivity" of animal farming.
Such increases in productivity are invariably
achieved at the expense of
increased suffering of the animals concerned.
This broader view definitely
includes cattle, both that raised for meat and
for dairy production.
Veal production is paradigmatic factory
farming. David Cowles-Hamar
describes it as follows: "Veal calves are kept
in isolation in 5'x2' crates
in which they are unable even to turn around.
They are kept in darkness much
of the time. They are given no bedding (in case
they try to eat it) and are
fed only a liquid diet devoid of iron and fiber
to keep their flesh anemic
and pale. After 3-5 months they are
slaughtered."
Dairy farming also qualifies as factoryfarming. Here are some salient
facts:
* Calves are taken away at 1-3 days causing
terrible distress to both
the cows and the calves; many calves go
for veal production.
* Over 170,000 calves die each year due to
poor husbandry and appalling
treatment at markets.

* Cows are milked for 10 months and produce

10 times the milk a calf
would take naturally. Mastitis (udder
inflammation) frequently results.
* Cows are fed a high-protein diet to
increase yield; often even this is
not enough and the cow is forced to break
down body tissues, leading
to acidosis and consequent lameness.
About 25 percent of cows are
afflicted.
* At about 5 years of age, the cow is spent
and exhausted and is
slaughtered. The normal life span is
about 20 years.
Finally, we cannot accept that even if it
were not possible to factory-farm
cattle, that therefore it is morally acceptable
to kill and eat them. David
Cowles-Hamar puts it this way: "The suggestion
that animals should pay for
their freedom with their lives is moral
nonsense."
DG
SEE ALSO: #14, #48-#49
----------------------#51 But isn't it true that cows won't produce
milk (or chickens lay
eggs) if they are not content?
----------------------This is simply untrue. Lactation is a
physiological response that
follows giving birth. The cow cannot avoid
giving milk any more than
she can avoid producing urine. The same is true
of chickens and egg-laying;
the egg output is manipulated to a high level
by selective breeding,
carefully regulated conditions that simulate a
continuous summer season,
and a carefully controlled diet.
To drive this point home further, consider
that over the last five
decades, the conditions for egg-laying chickens
have become increasingly
unnatural and confining (see question #49), yet
the egg output has increased
many times over. Chickens will even continue to
lay when severely injured;

they simply cannot help it.

DG
SEE ALSO: #49, #52, #55
----------------------#52 Don't hens lay unfertilized eggs that
would otherwise be wasted?
----------------------Yes, but that is no justification for
imposing barbaric and cruel regimes
on them designed to artificially boost their
egg production. If the
questioner is wondering if it is OK to use eggs
left by free-range chickens
"to go cold", then the answer from the AR side
is that free-range egg
production is not so idyllic as one might like
to think (see question #55).
Also, such a source of eggs can satisfy only a
tiny fraction of the demand.
DG
SEE ALSO: #49, #51, #55
----------------------#53 But isn't it true that the animals have
never known anything better?
----------------------If someone bred a race of humans for slavery,
would you accept their
excuse that the slaves have never known
anything better? The point is that
there IS something better, and they are being
deprived of it.
DG
Not having known anything better does not
alleviate the suffering of the
animal. Its fundamental desires remain and it
is the frustration of those
desires that is a great part of its suffering.
There are so many examples:
the dairy cow who is never allowed to raise her
young, the battery hen who
can never walk or stretch her wings, the sow
who can never build a nest or
root for food in the forest litter, etc.
Eventually we frustrate the animal's
most fundamental desire of all--to live.
David CowlesHamar
-----------------------

#54 Don't farmers know better than citydwelling people about how
to treat animals?
----------------------This view is often put forward by farmers
(and their family members).
Typically they claim that, by virtue of
proximity to their farmed animals,
they possess some special knowledge. When
pressed to present this
knowledge, and to show how it can justify their
exploitation of animals
or discount the animals' pain and suffering,
only the tired arguments
addressed in this FAQ come forth. In short,
there is no "special knowledge".
One should also remember that those farmers
who exploit animals have a
strong vested interest in the continuance of
their practices. Would one
assert that a logger knows best about how the
forests should be treated?
Technically, this argument is an instance of
the "genetic fallacy". Ideas
should be evaluated on their own terms, not by
reference to the originators.
DG
----------------------#55 Can't we just eat free-range products?
----------------------The term "free-range" is used to indicate a
production method in which the
animals are (allegedly) not factory-farmed but,
instead, are provided with
conditions that allow them to fully express
their natural behavior. Some
people feel that free-range products are thus
ethically acceptable. There
are two cases to be considered: first, the case
where the free-range animal
itself is slaughtered for use, and second, the
case where the free-range
animal provides a product (typically, hens
providing eggs, or cows providing
milk).
Common to both cases is a problem with
misrepresentation of conditions as
"free-range". Much of what passes for freerange is hardly any better than
standard factory-farming; a visit to a large
"free-range egg farm" makes
that obvious (and see MT's comments below).
Nutritionally, free-range products are no

better than their factory-farmed

equivalents, which are wholly or partly
responsible for a list of diseases as
long as your arm.
For the case of free-range animals
slaughtered for use, we must ask why
should a free-range animal be any more
deserving of an unnecessary death than
any other animal? Throughout this FAQ, we have
argued that animals have a
right to live free from human brutality. Our
brutality cannot be excused by
our provision of a short happy life. David
Cowles-Hamar puts it this way:
"The suggestion that animals should pay for
their freedom with their lives
is moral nonsense." Another thing to think
about is the couple described
at the end of question #13. Their babies are
free-range, so it's OK to
eat them, right?
For the case of products from free-range
animals, we can identify at least
four problems: 1) it remains an inefficient use
of food resources, 2) it is
still environmentally damaging, 3) animals are
killed off as soon as they
become "unproductive", and 4) the animals must
be replaced; the nonproductive
males are killed or go to factory farms (the
worst instance of this is the
fate of male calves born to dairy cows; many go
for veal production).
BRO
What's wrong with free-range eggs? To get
laying hens you must have
fertile eggs and half of the eggs will hatch
into male chicks. These are
killed at once (by gassing, crushing,
suffocation, decompression, or
drowning), or raised as "table birds" (usually
in broiler houses) and
slaughtered as soon as they reach an economic
weight. So, for every
free-range hen scratching around the garden or
farm (who, if she were able to
bargain, might pay rent with her daily
infertile egg), a corresponding male
from her batch is enduring life in a broiler
house or has already been
subjected to slaughter or thrown away to die.
Every year in Britain alone,
more than 35 million day-old male chicks are
killed. They are mainly used for
fertilizer or dumped in landfill sites.

The hens are slaughtered as soon as their

production drops (usually after
two years; their natural life span is 5-7
years). Also, be aware that many
sites classified as free-range aren't really
free-range; they are just
massive barns with access to the outside. Since
the food and light are
inside, the hens rarely venture outside.
MT
SEE ALSO: #13, #49-#50, #52
----------------------#56 Anything wrong with honey?
----------------------Bees are often killed in the production of
honey, in the worst case the
whole hive may be destroyed if the keeper
doesn't wish to protect them over
the winter. Not all beekeepers do this, but the
general practice is one that
embodies the attitude that living things are
mere material and have no
intrinsic value of their own other than what
commercial value we can wrench
from them. Artificial insemination involving
death of the male is now also
the norm for generation of new queen bees. The
favored method of obtaining
bee sperm is by pulling off the insect's head
(decapitation sends an
electrical impulse to the nervous system which
causes sexual arousal). The
lower half of the headless bee is then squeezed
to make it ejaculate. The
resulting liquid is collected in a hypodermic
syringe.
MT
SEE ALSO: #22, #39-#41
----------------------#57 Don't crop harvest techniques and
transportation, etc., lead to the
death of animals?
----------------------The questioner's probable follow-up is to
assert that since we perform
actions that result in the death of animals for
producing crops, a form of
food, we should therefore not condemn actions
(i.e., raising and slaughter)
that result in the death of animals for

producing meat, another form of

food. How do we confront this argument?
It is clear that incidental (or accidental,
unintended) deaths of animals
result from crop agriculture. It is equally
clear that intentional deaths of
animals result from animal agriculture. Our
acceptance of acts that lead to
incidental deaths does not require the
acceptance of acts that lead to
intentional deaths. (A possible measure of
intentionality is to ask if the
success of the enterprise is measured by the
extent of the result. In our
case, the success of crop agriculture is not
measured by the number of
accidental deaths; in animal agriculture,
conversely, the success of the
enterprise is directly measured by the number
of animals produced for
slaughter and consumption.)
Having shown that the movement from
incidental to intentional is not
justified, we can still ask what justifies even
incidental deaths. We must
realize that the question does not bear on
Animal Rights specifically, but
applies to morality generally. The answer,
stripped to its essentials, is
that the rights of innocents can be overridden
in certain circumstances.
If rights are genuinely in conflict, a
reasonable principle is to violate
the rights of the fewest.
Nevertheless, when such an overriding of the
rights of innocents is
done, there is a responsibility to ensure that
the harm is minimized.
Certainly, crop agriculture is preferable to
animal agriculture in this
regard. In the latter case, we have the added
incidental harm due to
the much greater amount of crops needed to
produce animals (versus feeding
the crops directly to people), AND the
intentional deaths of the produced
animals themselves.
Finally, many argue for organic and more
labor-intensive methods of crop
agriculture that reduce incidental deaths. As
one wag puts it, we have a
responsibility to survive, but we can also
survive responsibly!
DG
SEE ALSO: #58-#59

----------------------#58 Modern agriculture requires us to push

animals off land to convert
it to crops; isn't this a violation of the
animals' rights?
----------------------Pushing animals off their habitats to pursue
agriculture is a less
serious instance of the actions discussed in
question #57, which deals with
animal death as a result of agriculture. Refer
to that question for
relevant discussion.
An abiding theme is that vegetarianism versus
meat eating, and crop
agriculture versus animal agriculture, tend to
minimize the amount of
suffering. For example, more acreage is
required to support animal
production than to support crop production (for
the same nutritional
capability). Thus, animal production encroaches
more on wildlife than does
crop agriculture. We cannot eliminate our
adverse effects, but we can
try to minimize them.
DG
SEE ALSO: #57, #59
----------------------#59 Don't farmers have to kill pests?
----------------------We could simply say that less pests are
killed on a vegetarian diet and
that killing is not even necessary for pest
management, but because the
issue is interesting, we answer more fully!
This question is similar to question #57 in
that the questioner's likely
follow-up is to ask why it is acceptable to
kill pests for food but not to
kill animals for food. It differs from question
#57 in that the defense
that the killing is incidental is not available
because pests are killed
intentionally. We can respond to this argument
in two ways. First, we can
argue that the killing is justifiable, and
second, we can argue that it
is not necessary and should be avoided. Let's
look at these in turn.
Our moral systems typically allow for

exceptions to the requirement that

we not harm others. One major exception is for
self-defense. If we are
threatened, we have the right to use force to
resist the threat. To the
extent that pests are a threat to our food
supplies, our habitats, or
our health, we are justified in defending
ourselves. We have the
responsibility to use appropriate force, but
sometimes this requires
action fatal to the threatening creatures.
Even if the killing of pests is seen as wrong
despite the self-defense
argument, we can argue that crop agriculture
should be preferred over
animal agriculture because it involves the
minimization of the required
killing of pests (for reasons described in
question #57).
Possibly overshadowing these moral arguments,
however, is the argument that
the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers,
and herbicides is not only
not necessary but extremely damaging to the
planet, and should therefore
be avoided. Let us first look at the issue of
necessity, followed by the
issue of environmental damage.
David Cowles-Hamar writes: "For thousands of
years, peoples all over the
world have used farming methods based on
natural ecosystems where potential
pest populations are self-regulating. These
ideas are now being explored
in organic farming and permaculture." Michael
W. Fox writes: "Integrated
pest management and better conservation of
wilderness areas around crop lands
in order to provide natural predators for crop
pests are more ecologically
sensible alternatives to the continuous use of
pesticides." The point is
that there are effective alternatives to the
agrichemical treadmill.
In addition to the agricultural methods
described above, many pest
problems can be prevented, certainly the most
effective approach. For
example, some major pest threats are the result
of accidental or intentional
human introduction of animals into a habitat.
We need to be more careful
in this regard. Another example is the use of
rodenticides. More effective
and less harmful to the environment would be an

approach that relies on

maintenance of clean conditions, plugging of
entry holes, and nonlethal
trapping followed by release into the wild.
The effects of the intensive use of
agrichemicals on the environment are
very serious. It results in nation-wide ground
water pollution. It results
in the deaths of beneficial non-target species.
The development of
resistant strains requires the use of stronger
chemicals with resulting
more serious effects on the environment.
Agrichemicals are generally more
highly concentrated in animal products than in
vegetables. It is thus
enlightened self-interest to eschew animal
consumption!
Organic farming and related methods eschew
agrichemicals in favor of
natural, sustainable methods.
DG
SEE ALSO: #57-#58
------------------------LEATHER, FUR, AND FASHION
----------------------------------------------#60 What is wrong with leather and how can we
do without it?
----------------------Most leather goods are made from the
byproducts of the slaughterhouse, and
some is purpose-made, i.e., the animal is grown
and slaughtered purely for
its skin. So, by buying leather products, you
will be contributing to the
profits of these establishments and augmenting
the economic demand for
slaughter.
The Nov/Dec 1991 issue of the Vegetarian
Journal has this to say about
leather: "Environmentally turning animal hides
into leather is an energy
intensive and polluting practice. Production of
leather basically involves
soaking (beamhouse), tanning, dyeing, drying,
and finishing. Over 95 percent
of all leather produced in the U.S. is chrometanned. The effluent that must
be treated is primarily related to the
beamhouse and tanning operations. The

most difficult to treat is effluent from the

tanning process. All wastes
containing chromium are considered hazardous by
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Many other pollutants
involved in the processing
of leather are associated with environmental
and health risks. In terms of
disposal, one would think that leather products
would be biodegradable, but
the primary function for a tanning agent is to
stabilize the collagen or
protein fibers so that they are no longer
biodegradable."
MT
For alternatives to leather, consult the
excellent Leather Alternatives FAQ
maintained by Tom Swiss (tms@tis.com).
DG
----------------------#61 I can accept that trapping is inhumane,
but what about fur ranches?
----------------------Leaving aside the raw fact that the animals
must sacrifice their
lives for human vanity, we are left with many
objections to fur ranching.
A common misconception about fur "ranches" is
that the animals do not
suffer. This is entirely untrue. These animals
suffer a life of misery
and frustration, deprived of their most basic
needs. They are kept in
wire-mesh cages that are tiny, overcrowded, and
filthy. Here they are
malnourished, suffer contagious diseases, and
endure severe stress.
On these farms, the animals are forced to
forfeit their natural
instincts. Beavers, who live in water in the
wild, must exist on cement
floors. Minks in the wild, too, spend much of
their time in water,
which keeps their salivation, respiration, and
body temperature
stable. They are also, by nature, solitary
animals. However, on these
farms, they are forced to live in close contact
with other animals.
This often leads to self-destructive behavior,
such as pelt and tail
biting. They often resort to cannibalism.
The methods used on these farms reflect not

the interests and welfare

of the animals but the furriers' primary
interest--profit. The end of
the suffering of these animals comes only with
death, which, in order
to preserve the quality of the fur, is
inflicted with extreme cruelty
and brutality. Engine exhaust is often pumped
into a box of animals.
This exhaust is not always lethal, and the
animals sometimes writhe in
pain as they are skinned alive. Another common
execution practice,
often used on larger animals, is anal
electrocution. The farmers attach
clamps to an animal's lips and insert metal
rods into its anus. The
animal is then electrocuted. Decompression
chambers, neck snapping,
and poison are also used.
The raising of animals by humans to serve a
specific purpose cannot
discount or excuse the lifetime of pain and
suffering that these
animals endure.
JLS
Cruelty is one fashion statement we can all
do without.
Rue McClanahan
(actress)
The recklessness with which we sacrifice our
sense of decency to
maximize profit in the factory farming process
sets a pattern for cruelty
to our own kind.
Jonathan Kozol
(author)
SEE ALSO: #12, #14, #48-#49
----------------------#62 Anything wrong with wool, silk, down?
----------------------What's wrong with wool? Scientists over the
years have bred a Merino sheep
which is exaggeratedly wrinkled. The more
wrinkles, the more wool.
Unfortunately, greater profits are rarely in
the sheep's best interests. In
Australia, more wrinkles mean more perspiration
and greater susceptibility to
fly-strike, a ghastly condition resulting from
maggot infestation in the

sweaty folds of the sheep's over-wrinkled skin.

To counteract this, farmers
perform an operation without anesthetic called
"mulesing", in which sections
of flesh around the anus are sliced away,
leaving a painful, bloody wound.
Without human interference, sheep would grow
just enough wool to protect
them from the weather, but scientific breeding
techniques have ensured that
these animals have become wool-producing
monstrosities.
Their unnatural overload of wool (often half
their body weight) brings
added misery during summer months when they
often die from heat exhaustion.
Also, one million sheep die in Australia alone
each year from exposure to
cold after shearing.
Every year, in Australia alone, about ten
million lambs die before they
are more than a few days old. This is due
largely to unmanageable numbers of
sheep and inadequate stockpersons.
Of UK wool, 27 percent is "skin wool", pulled
from the skins of slaughtered
sheep and lambs.
What's wrong with silk? It is the practice to
boil the cocoons that still
contain the living moth larvae in order to
obtain the silk. This produces
longer silk threads than if the moth was
allowed to emerge. The silkworm can
certainly feel pain and will recoil and writhe
when injured.
What's wrong with down? The process of liveplucking is widespread. The
terrified birds are lifted by their necks, with
their legs tied, and then
have all their body feathers ripped out. The
struggling geese sustain
injuries and after their ordeal are thrown back
to join their fellow victims
until their turn comes round again. This
torture, which has been described as
"extremely cruel" by veterinary surgeons, and
even geese breeders, begins
when the geese are only eight weeks old. It is
then repeated at eight-week
intervals for two or three more sessions. The
birds are then slaughtered.
The "lucky" birds are plucked dead, i.e.,
they are killed first and then
plucked.
MT

------------------HUNTING AND FISHING

----------------------------------------#63 Humans are natural hunter/gatherers;
aren't you trying to repress
natural human behavior?
----------------------Yes. Failing to repress certain "natural
behaviors" would create an
uncivilized society. Consider this: It would be
an expression of natural
behavior to hunt anything that moves (e.g., my
neighbor's dogs or horses)
and to gather anything I desire (e.g., my
employer's money or furniture).
It would even be natural behavior to indulge in
unrestrained sexual
appetites or to injure a person in a fit of
rage or jealousy.
In a civilized society, we restrain our
natural impulses by two codes:
the written law of the land, and the unwritten
law of morality. And this
also applies to hunting. It is unlawful in many
places and at many times,
and the majority of Americans regard sport
hunting as immoral.
DVH
Many would question the supposition that
humans are natural hunters.
In many societies, the people live quite
happily without hunting. In
our own society, the majority do not hunt, not
because they are repressing
their nature--they simply have no desire to do
so. Those that do hunt often
show internal conflicts about it, as evidenced
by the myths and rituals
that serve to legitimize hunting, cleanse the
hunter, etc. This suggests
that hunting is not natural, but actually goes
against a deeper part of
our nature, a desire not to do harm.
BL
The squirrel that you kill in jest, dies in
earnest.
Henry David
Thoreau (essayist and poet)
SEE ALSO: #37, #64-#67

----------------------#64 The world is made up of predators and

prey; aren't we just another
predator?
----------------------No. Our behavior is far worse than that of
"just another predator". We
kill others not just for nourishment but also
for sport (recreation!), for
the satisfaction of our curiosity, for fashion,
for entertainment, for
comfort, and for convenience. We also kill each
other by the millions for
territory, wealth, and power. We often torture
and torment others before
killing them. We conduct wholesale slaughter of
vast proportions, on land
and in the oceans. No other species behaves in
a comparable manner, and
only humans are destroying the balance of
nature.
At the same time, our killing of nonhuman
animals is unnecessary, whereas
nonhuman predators kill and consume only what
is necessary for their
survival. They have no choice: kill or starve.
The one thing that really separates us from
the other animals is our
moral capacity, and that has the potential to
elevate us above the status
of "just another predator". Nonhumans lack this
capacity, so we shouldn't
look to them for moral inspiration and
guidance.
DVH
SEE ALSO: #37, #63, #67
----------------------#65 Doesn't hunting control wildlife
populations that would otherwise get
out of hand?
----------------------Hunters often assert that their practices
benefit their victims. A
variation on the theme is their common
assertion that their actions keep
populations in check so that animals do not die
of starvation ("a clean
bullet in the brain is preferable to a slow
death by starvation"). Following
are some facts and questions about hunting and
"wildlife management" that

reveal what is really happening.

Game animals, such as deer, are
physiologically adapted to cope with
seasonal food shortages. It is the young that
bear the brunt of starvation.
Among adults, elderly and sick animals also
starve. But the hunters do not
seek out and kill only these animals at risk of
starvation; rather, they seek
the strongest and most beautiful animals (for
maximum meat or trophy
potential). The hunters thus recruit the forces
of natural selection against
the species that they claim to be defending.
The hunters restrict their activities to only
those species that are
attractive for their meat or trophy potential.
If the hunters were truly
concerned with protecting species from
starvation, why do they not perform
their "service" for the skunk, or the field
mouse? And why is hunting not
limited to times when starvation occurs, if
hunting has as a goal the
prevention of starvation? (The reason that deer
aren't hunted in early spring
or late winter--when starvation occurs--is that
the carcasses would contain
less fat, and hence, be far less desirable to
meat consumers. Also, hunting
then would be unpopular to hunters due to the
snow, mud, and insects.)
So-called "game management" policies are
actually programs designed
to eliminate predators of the game species and
to artificially provide
additional habitat and resources for the game
species. Why are these predator
species eliminated when they would provide a
natural and ecologically sound
mechanism for controlling the population of
game species? Why are such
activities as burning, clear-cutting, chemical
defoliation, flooding, and
bulldozing employed to increase the populations
of game animals, if hunting
has as its goal the reduction of populations to
prevent starvation? The truth
is that the management agencies actually try to
attain a maximum sustainable
yield, or harvest, of game animals.
The wildlife managers and hunters
preferentially kill male animals, a
policy designed to keep populations high. If
overpopulation were really a
concern, they would preferentially kill

females.
Another common practice that belies the claim
that wildlife management has
as a goal the reduction of populations to
prevent starvation is the practice
of game stocking. For example, in the state of
New York the Department of
Environmental Conservation obtains pheasants
raised in captivity and then
releases them in areas frequented by hunters.
For every animal killed by a hunter, two are
seriously injured and left
to die a slow death. Given these statistics, it
is clear that hunting fails
even in its proclaimed goal--the reduction of
suffering.
The species targeted by hunters, both the
game animals and their predators,
have survived in balance for millions of years,
yet now wildlife managers
and hunters insist they need to be "managed".
The legitimate task of wildlife
management should be to preserve viable,
natural wildlife populations and
ecosystems.
In addition to the animal toll, hunters kill
hundreds of human beings
every year.
Finally, there is an ethical argument to
consider. Thousands of human
beings die from starvation each and every day.
Should we assume that the
reader will one day be one of them, and
dispatch him straight away?
Definitely not. AR ethics asserts that this
same consideration should be
accorded to the deer.
DG
Unless hunting is part of a controlled
culling process, it is unlikely to
be of benefit in any population maintenance.
The number and distribution of
animals slaughtered is unrelated to any
perceived maldistribution of species,
but is more closely related to the
predilections of the hunters.
Indeed, hunting, whether for "pleasure" or
profit, has a history more
closely associated with bringing animals close
to, or into, extinction, rather
than protecting from overpopulation. Examples
include the buffalo and the
passenger pigeon. With the advent of modern
"wildlife management", we see
a transition to systems designed to

artificially increase the populations

of certain species to sustain a yield or
harvest for hunters.
The need for population control of animals
generally arises either from the
introduction of species that have become pests
or from indigenous animals
that are competing for resources (such as the
kangaroo, which competes with
sheep and cattle). These imbalances usually
have a human base. It is more
appropriate to examine our resource uses and
requirements, and to act more
responsibly in our relationship with the
environment, than to seek a
"solution" to self-created problems through the
morally dubious practice of
hunting.
JK
...the American public is footing the bill
for predator-control programs
that cause the systematic slaughter of refuge
animals. Raccoons and red fox,
squirrel and skunks are but a few of the many
egg-eating predators trapped
and destroyed in the name of "wildlife
management programs". Sea gulls are
shot, fox pups poisoned, and coyotes killed by
aerial gunners in low-flying
aircraft. This wholesale destruction is taking
place on the only Federal
lands set aside to protect America's wildlife!
Humane Society of
the United States
The creed of maximum sustainable yield
unmasks the rhetoric about "humane
service" to animals. It must be a perverse
distortion of the ideal of humane
service to accept or engage in practices the
explicit goal of which is to
insure that there will be a larger, rather than
a smaller, number of animals
to kill! With "humane friends" like that, wild
animals certainly do not need
any enemies.
Tom Regan
(philosopher and AR activist)
The real cure for our environmental problems
is to understand that our job
is to salvage Mother Nature...We are facing a
formidable enemy in this
field. It is the hunters...and to convince them
to leave their guns on the

wall is going to be very difficult.

Jacques Cousteau
(oceanographer)
SEE ALSO: #66
-----------------------------#66 Aren't hunting fees the major source of
revenue for wildlife management
and habitat restoration?
-----------------------------We have seen in question #65 that practices
described as "wildlife
management" are actually designed to increase
the populations of game species
desirable to hunters. Viewed in this light, the
connection between hunting
fees and the wildlife agencies looks more like
an incestuous relationship
than a constructive one designed to protect the
general public's interests.
Following are some more facts of interest in
this regard.
Only 7 percent of the population hunt, yet
all pay via taxation for hunting
programs and services. Licenses account for
only a fraction of the cost of
hunting programs at the national level. For
example, the US Fish and Wildlife
Service programs get up to 90 percent of their
revenues from general tax
revenues. At the state level, hunting fees make
up the largest part, and a
significant part is obtained from Federal funds
obtained from excise taxes on
guns and ammunition. These funds are
distributed to the states based on the
number of hunters in the state! It is easy to
see, then, how the programs are
designed to appease and satisfy hunters.
It is important to remember that state game
officials are appointed, not
elected, and their salaries are paid through
the purchase of hunting fees.
This ensures that these officials regard the
hunters as their constituents.
David Favre, Professor of Wildlife Law at the
Detroit College of Law,
describes the situation as follows:
The primary question asked by many within
these special [state] agencies
would be something like, "How do we provide
the best hunting experience
for the hunters of our state?" The

literature is replete with surveys of

hunter desires and preferences in an
attempt to serve these constituents.
...Three factors support the status quo
within the agency. First, as with
most bureaucracies, individuals are
hesitant to question their own
on-going programs...Second, besides the
normal bureaucratics, most state
game agencies have a substantial group of
individuals who are strong
advocates for the hunters of the state.
They are not neutral but very
supportive of the hunting ethic and would
not be expected to raise broader
questions. Finally, and in many ways most
importantly, is the funding
mechanism...Since a large proportion of the
funds which run the department
and pay the salaries are from hunters and
fishermen, there is a strong
tendency for the agency to consider itself
not as representing and working
for the general public but that they need
only serve their financial
sponsors, the hunters and fishermen of the
state. If your financial
support is dependent on the activity of
hunting, obviously very few are
going to question the ecological or ethical
problems therewith.
Many would argue that these funding
arrangements constitute a prostitution
of the public lands for the benefit of the few.
We can envision possible
alternatives to these arrangements. Other users
of parks and natural
resources, such as hikers, bird watchers,
wildlife enthusiasts, eco-tourists,
etc., can provide access to funds necessary for
real habitat restoration and
wildlife management, not the perverted brand
that caters to the desires of
hunters. As far as acquisition and protection
of land is concerned,
organizations such as the Nature Conservancy
play an important role. They
can do much more with even a fraction of the
funding currently earmarked to
subsidize hunting ($500 million per year).
DG/JK
SEE ALSO: #65
-----------------------

#67 Isn't hunting OK as long as we eat what we

kill?
----------------------Some vegetarians accept that where farmers or
small landholders breed,
maintain, and then kill their own livestock
there is an argument for their
eating that meat. There would need, at all
stages, to be a humane life and
death involved. Hunting seems not to fit within
this argument because the
kill is often not "clean", and the hunter has
not had any involvement in the
birth and growth of the animal.
As the arguments in the FAQ demonstrate,
however, there is a wider context
in which these actions have to be considered.
Animals are sentient creatures
who share many of our characteristics. The
question is not only whether it is
acceptable to eat an animal (which we perhaps
hunted and killed), but if it
is an appropriate action to take--stalking and
murdering another animal,
or eating the product of someone else's
killing. Is it a proper action for
a supposedly rational and ethical man or woman?
JK
This question reminds one of question #12,
where it is suggested that
killing and eating an animal is justified
because the animal is raised for
that purpose. The process leading up to the
eating is used to justify the
eating. In this question, the eating is used to
justify the process leading
up to it. Both attempts are totally illogical.
Imagine telling the police not
to worry that you have just stalked and killed
a person because you ate the
person!
DG
SEE ALSO: #12, #21, #63-#64
----------------------#68 Fish are dumb like insects; what's wrong
with fishing?
----------------------Fish are not "dumb" except in the sense that
they are unable to speak.
They have a complex nervous system based around
a brain and spinal cord

similar to other vertebrates. They are not as

intelligent as humans in
terms of functioning in our social and physical
environment, but they are
very successful and effective in their own
environment. Behavioral studies
indicate that they exhibit complex forms of
learning, such as operant
conditioning, serial reversal learning,
probability learning, and avoidance
learning. Many authorities doubt that there is
a significant qualitative
difference between learning in fishes and that
in rats.
Many people who fish talk about the challenge
of fishing, and the contest
between themselves and the fish (on a one-toone basis, not in relation to
trawling or other net fishing). This implies an
awareness and intelligence
in the hunted of a level at least sufficient to
challenge the hunter.
The death inflicted by fishing--a slow
asphyxiation either in a net or
after an extended period fighting against a
barbed hook wedged somewhere
in their head--is painful and distressing to a
sentient animal. Those that
doubt that fish feel pain must explain why it
is that their brains contain
endogenous opiates and receptors for them;
these are accepted as mechanisms
for the attenuation of pain in other
vertebrates.
JK
Some people believe that it is OK to catch
fish as long as they are
returned to the water. But, when you think
about it, it's as if one is
playing with the fish. Also, handling the fish
wipes off an important
disease-fighting coating on their scales. The
hook can be swallowed, leading
to serious complications, and even if it isn't,
pulling it out of their mouth
leaves a lesion that is open to infection.
JSD
SEE ALSO: #22, #39
------------------------ANIMALS FOR ENTERTAINMENT
-------------------------

----------------------#69 Don't zoos contribute to the saving of

species from extinction?
----------------------Zoos often claim that they are "arks", which
can preserve species whose
habitat has been destroyed, or which were wiped
out in the wild for other
reasons (such as hunting). They suggest that
they can maintain the species
in captivity until the cause of the creature's
extirpation is remedied, and
then successfully reintroduce the animals to
the wild, resulting in a healthy,
self-sustaining population. Zoos often defend
their existence against
challenges from the AR movement on these
grounds.
There are several problems with this
argument, however. First, the number
of animals required to maintain a viable gene
pool can be quite high, and is
never known for certain. If the captive gene
pool is too small, then
inbreeding can result in increased
susceptibility to disease, birth defects,
and mutations; the species can be so weakened
that it would never be viable
in the wild.
Some species are extremely difficult to breed
in captivity: marine mammals,
many bird species, and so on. Pandas, which
have been the sustained focus of
captive breeding efforts for several decades in
zoos around the world, are
notoriously difficult to breed in captivity.
With such species, the zoos,
by taking animals from the wild to supply their
breeding programs, constitute
a net drain on wild populations.
The whole concept of habitat restoration is
mired in serious difficulties.
Animals threatened by poaching (elephants,
rhinos, pandas, bears and more)
will never be safe in the wild as long as
firearms, material needs, and a
willingness to consume animal parts coincide.
Species threatened by chemical
contamination (such as bird species vulnerable
to pesticides and lead shot)
will not be candidates for release until we
stop using the offending
substances, and enough time has passed for the
toxins to be processed out of
the environment. Since heavy metals and some

pesticides are both persistent

and bioaccumulative, this could mean decades or
centuries before it is safe
to reintroduce the animals.
Even if these problems can be overcome, there
are still difficulties with
the process of reintroduction. Problems such as
human imprinting, the need to
teach animals to fly, hunt, build dens, and
raise their young are serious
obstacles, and must be solved individually for
each species.
There is a small limit to the number of
species the global network of zoos
can preserve under even the most optimistic
assumptions. Profound constraints
are imposed by the lack of space in zoos, their
limited financial resources,
and the requirement that viable gene pools of
each species be preserved. Few
zoos, for instance, ever keep more than two
individuals of large mammal
species. The need to preserve scores or
hundreds of a particular species
would be beyond the resources of even the
largest zoos, and even the whole
world zoo community would be hard-pressed to
preserve even a few dozen
species in this manner.
Contrast this with the efficiency of large
habitat preserves, which can
maintain viable populations of whole complexes
of species with minimal human
intervention. Large preserves maintain every
species in the ecosystem in a
predominantly self-sufficient manner, while
keeping the creatures in the
natural habitat unmolested. If the financial
resources (both government and
charitable), and the biological expertise
currently consumed by zoos, were
redirected to habitat preservation and
management, we would have far fewer
worries about habitat restoration or preserving
species whose habitat is gone.
Choosing zoos as a means for species
preservation, in addition to being
expensive and of dubious effectiveness, has
serious ethical problems. Keeping
animals in zoos harms them, by denying them
freedom of movement and
association, which is important to social
animals, and frustrates many of
their natural behavioral patterns, leaving them
at least bored, and at worst
seriously neurotic. While humans may feel there

is some justifying benefit

to their captivity (that the species is being
preserved, and may someday
be reintroduced into the wild), this is no
compensating benefit to the
individual animals. Attempts to preserve
species by means of captivity have
been described as sacrificing the individual
gorilla to the abstract Gorilla
(i.e., to the abstract conception of the
gorilla).
JE
----------------------#70 Don't animals live longer in zoos than
they would in the wild?
----------------------In some cases, this is true. But it is
irrelevant. Suppose a zoo decides
to exhibit human beings. They snatch a peasant
from a less-developed country
and put her on display. Due to the regular
feedings and health care that the
zoo provides, the peasant will live longer in
captivity. Is this practice
acceptable?
A tradeoff of quantity of life versus quality
of life is not always decided
in favor of quantity.
DG
----------------------#71 How will people see wild animals and learn
about them without zoos?
----------------------To gain true and complete knowledge of wild
animals, one must observe
them in their natural habitats. The conditions
under which animals are
kept in zoos typically distorts their behavior
significantly.
There are several practical alternatives to
zoos for educational
purposes. There are many nature documentaries
shown regularly on
television as well as available on video
cassettes. Specials on public
television networks, as well as several cable
channels, such as The
Discovery Channel, provide accurate information
on animals in their
natural habitats. Magazines such as National
Geographic provide
superb illustrated articles, as well. And, of

course, public libraries

are a gold-mine of information.
Zoos often mistreat animals, keeping them in
small pens or cages.
This is unfair and cruel. The natural instincts
and behavior of these
animals are suppressed by force. How can anyone
observe wild animals
under such circumstances and believe that one
has been educated?
JLS
All good things are wild, and free.
Henry David
Thoreau (essayist and poet)
SEE ALSO: #69-#70
----------------------#72 What is wrong with circuses and rodeos?
----------------------To treat animals as objects for our amusement
is to treat them without
the respect they deserve. When we degrade the
most intelligent fellow
mammals in this way, we act as our ancestors
acted in former centuries.
They knew nothing about the animals'
intelligence, sensitivities,
emotions, and social needs; they saw only brute
beasts. To continue such
ancient traditions, even if no cruelty were
involved, means that we insist
on remaining ignorant and insensitive.
But the cruelty does exist and is inherent in
these spectacles. In
rodeos, there is no show unless the animal is
frightened or in pain. In
circuses, animals suffer most before and after
the show. They endure
punishment during training and are subjected to
physical and emotional
hardships during transportation. They are
forced to travel tens of
thousands of miles each year, often in extreme
heat or cold, with tigers
living in cramped cages and elephants chained
in filthy railroad cars. To
the entrepreneurs, animals are merely stock in
trade, to be replaced when
they are used up.
DVH
David Cowles-Hamar writes about circuses as
follows in his "The Manual

of Animal Rights":
Not surprisingly, a considerable amount of
"persuasion" is required
to achieve these performances, and to this
end, circuses employ
various techniques. These include
deprivation of food, deprivation
of company, intimidation, muzzling, drugs,
punishment and reward
systems, shackling, whips, electronic
goads, sticks, and the noise
of guns...Circus animals suffer similar
mental and physical problems
to zoo animals, displaying stereotypical
behavior...Physical symptoms
include shackle sores, herpes, liver
failure, kidney disease, and
sometimes death...Many of the animals
become both physically and
mentally ill.
DG
The American rodeo consists of roping,
bucking, and steer wrestling
events. While the public witnesses only the 8
seconds or so that the
animals perform, there are hundreds of hours of
unsupervised practice
sessions. Also, the stress of constant travel,
often in improperly
ventilated vehicles, and poor enforcement of
proper unloading, feeding,
and watering of animals during travel
contribute to a life of misery for
these animals.
As half a rider's score is based on the
performance of the bucking horse
or bull, riders encourage a wild ride by
tugging on a bucking strap that
is squeezed tightly around the animal's loins.
Electric prods and raking
spurs are also used to stimulate wild behavior.
Injuries range from
bruises and broken bones to paralysis, severed
tracheas, and death. Spinal
cords of calves can be severed when forced to
an abrupt stop while
traveling at 30 mph. The practice of slamming
these animals to the ground
during these events has caused the rupture of
internal organs, leading to a
slow, agonizing death.
Dr. C. G. Haber, a veterinarian with thirty
years experience as a meat
inspector for the USDA, says: "The rodeo folks

send their animals to the

packing houses where...I have seen cattle so
extensively bruised that the
only areas in which the skin was attached was
the head, neck, legs, and
belly. I have seen animals with six to eight
ribs broken from the spine
and at times puncturing the lungs. I have seen
as much as two and three
gallons of free blood accumulated under the
detached skin."
JSD
----------------------#73 But isn't it true that animals are well
cared for and wouldn't
perform if they weren't happy?
----------------------Refer to questions #72 and #74 to see that
entertainment animals are
generally not well cared for.
For centuries people have known that
punishment can induce animals to
perform. The criminal justice system is based
on the human rationality in
connecting the act of a crime or wrongdoing
with a punishment. Many
religions are also based, among other aspects,
on a fear of punishment.
Fear leads most of us to act correctly, on the
whole.
The same is true for other animals. Many
years of unnecessary and
repetitive psychology experiments with Skinner
boxes (among other gadgets)
have demonstrated that animals will learn to do
things, or act in certain
ways (that is, be conditioned) to avoid
electric shocks or other punishment.
Animals do need to have their basic food
requirements met, otherwise they
sicken and die, but they don't need to be
"happy" to perform certain acts;
fear or desire for a reward (such as food) will
make them do it.
JK
SEE ALSO: #14, #51, #72, #74
----------------------#74 What about horse or greyhound racing?
----------------------Racing is an example of human abuse of
animals merely for entertainment

and pleasure, regardless of the needs or

condition of the animals. The
pleasure derives primarily from gambling on the
outcome of the race. While
some punters express an interest in the animal
side of the equation, most
people interested in racing are not interested
in the animals but in betting;
attendance at race meetings has fallen
dramatically as off-course betting
options became available.
While some of the top dogs and horses may be
kept in good conditions, for
the majority of animals, this is not the case.
While minimum living standards
have to be met, other factors are introduced to
gain the best performances
(or in some cases to fix a race by ensuring a
loss): drugs, electrical
stimuli, whips, etc. While many of these
practices are outlawed (including
dog blooding), there are regular reports of
various illegal techniques being
used. Logic would suggest that where the volume
of money being moved around
is as large as it is in racing, there are huge
temptations to massage the
outcomes.
For horses, especially, the track itself
poses dangers; falls and fractures
are common in both flat and jump races. Often,
lame horses are doped to
allow them to continue to race, with the risk
of serious injury.
And at the end of it all, if the animal is
not a success, or does not
perform as brilliantly as hoped, it is disposed
of. Horses are lucky in that
they occasionally go to a home where they are
well treated and respected, but
the knackery is a common option (a knackery is
a purveyor of products derived
from worn-out and old livestock). (Recently, a
new practice has come to light:
owners of race horses sometimes murder horses
that do not reach their
"potential", or which are past their "prime",
and then file fraudulent
insurance claims.) The likely homes for a
greyhound are few and far between.
JK
Race horses are prone to a disease called
exercise-induced pulmonary
hemorrhage (EIPH). It is characterized by the
presence of blood in the lungs

and windpipe of the horse following intense

exercise. An Australian study
found 42 percent of 1,180 horses to be
suffering from EIPH.
A large percentage of race horses suffer from
lameness. Fractures of the
knee are common, as are ligament sprain, joint
sprain, and shin soreness.
Steeple chasing is designed to make the
horses fall which sometimes results
in the death of the horse either though a
broken neck or an "incurable"
injury for which the horse is killed by a
veterinarian.
David CowlesHamar
SEE ALSO: #72-#73
----------------COMPANION ANIMALS
--------------------------------------#75 What about keeping pets?
----------------------In a perfect world, all of our efforts would
go toward protecting the
habitats of other species on the planet and we
would be able to maintain a
"hands off" approach in which we did not take
other species into our
family units, but allowed them to develop on
their own in the wild. However,
we are far from such a Utopia and as
responsible humans must deal with the
results of the domestication of animals. Since
many animals domesticated
to be pets have been bred but have no homes,
most AR supporters see
nothing wrong with having them as companion
animals. As a matter of fact,
the AR supporter may well provide homes for
more unwanted companion
animals than does the average person!
Similarly, animals domesticated for
agricultural purposes should be cared for.
However, animals in the wild should be left
there and not brought into
homes as companions. A cage in someone's house
is an unnatural
environment for an exotic bird, fish, or
mammal. When the novelty wears
off, wild pets usually end up at shelters,

zoos, or research labs. Wild

animals have the right to be treated with
respect, and that includes
leaving them in their natural surroundings.
LK
A loving relationship with a proper companion
animal, a relationship
that adequately provides for the animal's
physical and psychological needs,
is not at all inconsistent with the principles
and advocacy of animal rights.
Indeed, animal rights advocates have been
leaders in drawing attention to
some of the abuses and neglects of our
"beloved" pets. Many of the taken for
granted practices do need to be reexamined and
changed. The questions that
animal rights raises about companion animals
are important questions:
* Can we maintain animals as companions and
still properly address their
needs? Obviously, we can't do this for
all animals. For example,
keeping birds in cages denies those
creatures their capacity and
inherent need to fly.
* Is manipulating companion animals for our
needs in the the best
interests of the nonhuman animal as well?
Tail docking would thus be
a practice to condemn in this regard.
* Might some of our taken-for-granted
practices of pet keeping be really
a form of exploitation? Animals in
circuses or panhandlers using
animals on the street to get money from
passersby would arguably be
cases of exploitation.
* Which attitudes of human caretakers are
truly expressions of our
respect and love towards these animals,
and which might not be?
Exotic breeding is one example of this
kind of abuse, especially when
the breeding results in animals that are
at a greater risk for
certain diseases or biological defects.
All that animal rights is really asking is
that we consider more deeply
and authentically the practice at hand and

whether or not it truly meets

the benchmark that BOTH the needs of human AND
nonhuman animals be
considered.
TA
The following points should be considered
when selecting a companion
animal.
Get a companion animal appropriate to your
situation--don't keep a big dog
in a flat or small garden. Don't get an animal
that will be kept
unnecessarily confined--birds, fish, etc.
However, it is a good policy to
try to keep cats inside as much as possible,
especially at night, to protect
both the cat and local wildlife. Get your dog
or cat from a local pound or
animal group; thousands of animals are
destroyed each year by groups such as
the RSPCA. The majority are animals who are
lost or dumped. Vicious animals
are not adopted out. By getting an animal from
such a source you will be
saving its life and reducing the reliance on
breeders.
Finally, get your companion neutered. There
is no behavioral or biological
benefit from being fertile or from having a
litter. And every pup or kitten
that is produced will need to find a home.
JK
SEE ALSO: #76
----------------------#76 What about spaying and neutering?
----------------------Ingrid Newkirk writes:
"What's happening to our best friends
should never happen even to our
worst enemies. With an estimated 80 to 100
million cats and dogs in this
country already, 3,000 to 5,000 more
puppies and kittens are born every
hour in the United States--far more than
can ever find good homes.
Unwanted animals are dumped at the local
pound or abandoned in woods
and on city streets, where they suffer from
starvation, lack of shelter
and veterinary care, and abuse. Most die
from disease, starvation, and

mistreatment, or, if they're lucky are 'put

to sleep' forever at an
animal shelter."
The point is that the practice of neutering
and spaying prevents far more
suffering and harm than it imposes on the
neutered or spayed animals. The
net harm is minimized.
DG
SEE ALSO: #75
-----------------LABORATORY ANIMALS
---------------------------------------#77 What is wrong with experimentation on
animals?
----------------------The claimed large gains from using animals in
research makes the practice
the most significant challenge to AR
philosophy. While it is easy to dismiss
meat production as a trivial indulgence of the
taste buds, such a dismissal
is not so easily accomplished for animal
research.
First, a definition. We refer to as
"vivisection" any use of animals in
science or research that exploits and harms
them. This definition acknowledges
that there is some research using animals that
is morally acceptable under AR
philosophy (see question #80).
The case against vivisection is built upon
three planks. They are:
PLANK A. Vivisection is immoral and
should be abolished.
PLANK B. Abolition of vivisection is
not antiscience or
antiresearch.
PLANK C. The consequences of abolition
are acceptable.
It is easy to misunderstand the AR philosophy
regarding vivisection. Often,
scientists will debate endlessly about the
scientific validity of research,
and sometimes AR people engage in those
debates. Such issues are part of
PLANK C, which asserts that much research is

misleading, wrong, or misguided.

However, the key to the AR position is PLANK A,
which asserts an objection to
vivisection on ethical grounds. We seek to
reassure people about the effects
abolition will have on future medical progress
via PLANKS B and C.
In the material that follows, each piece of
text is identified with a
preceding tag such as [PLANK A]. The idea is to
show how the text fragments
fit into the overall case. There is some
overlap between PLANKs B and C, so
the assignment may look arbitrary in a few
cases.
DG
[PLANK A]
Over 100 million animals are used in
experiments worldwide every year.
A few of the more egregious examples of
vivisection may be enlightening for
the uninformed (taken from R. Ryder's "Victims
of Science"):
*
Psychologists gave electric shocks to the
feet of 1042 mice. They
then caused convulsions by giving more
intense shocks through
cup-shaped electrodes applied to the
animals' eyes or through spring
clips attached to their ears.
*
In Japan, starved rats with electrodes in
their necks and electrodes
in their eyeballs were forced to run in
treadmills for four hours at
a time.
*
A group of 64 monkeys was addicted to drugs
by automatic injection in
their jugular veins. When the supply of
drugs was abruptly withdrawn,
some of the monkeys were observed to die in
convulsions. Before dying,
some monkeys plucked out all their hair or
bit off their own fingers
and toes.
Basic ethical objections to this type of
"science" are presented here
and in questions #79 and #85. Some technical
objections are found in
questions #78 and #80. Question #92 contains a
list of books on vivisection;
refer to them for further examples of the

excesses of vivisection, as well

as more detailed discussion of its technical
merits.
VIVISECTION TREATS ANIMALS AS TOOLS.
Vivisection effectively reduces
sentient beings to the status of disposable
tools, to be used and discarded
for the benefit of others. This forgets that
each animal has an inherent
value, a value that does not rise and fall
depending on the interests of
others. Those doubting this should ponder the
implications of their views
for humans: would they support the breeding of
human slaves for the exclusive
use of experimenters?
VIVISECTION IS SPECIESIST. Most animal
experimenters would not use
nonconsenting humans in invasive research. In
making this concession, they
reveal the importance they attach to species
membership, a biological line
that is as morally relevant as that of race or
gender, that is, not relevant
at all.
VIVISECTION DEMEANS SCIENCE. Its barbaric
practices are an insult to those
who feel that science should provide humans
with the opportunity to rise
above the harsher laws of nature.
The words of Tom Regan summarize the feelings
of many AR activists: "The
laudatory achievements of science, including
the many genuine benefits
obtained for both humans and animals, do not
justify the unjust means used
to secure them. As in other cases, so in the
present one, the rights view
does not call for the cessation of scientific
research. Such research
should go on--but not at the expense of
laboratory animals."
AECW
Atrocities are not less atrocities when they
occur in laboratories and
are called medical research.
George Bernard
Shaw (playwright, Nobel 1925)
Vivisection is the blackest of all the black
crimes that a man is at
present committing against God and his fair
creation.
Mahatma Gandhi
(statesman and philosopher)

What I think about vivisection is that if

people admit that they have the
right to take or endanger the life of living
beings for the benefit of many,
there will be no limit for their cruelty.
Leo Tolstoy
(author)
I am not interested to know whether
vivisection produces results that
are profitable to the human race or
doesn't...The pain which it inflicts
upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my
enmity toward it, and
it is to me sufficient justification of the
enmity without looking
further.
Mark Twain
(author)
SEE ALSO: #78-#82, #85-#86
----------------------#78 Do AR people accept that vivisection has
led to valuable medical
advances?
----------------------[PLANK A]
AR advocates generally believe that
vivisection has played a contributing,
if not necessarily essential, role in some
valuable medical advances.
However, AR philosophy asserts that the end
does not justify the means, and
that therefore the answer cannot decide the
legitimacy of the stance against
vivisection.
[PLANK C]
That said, many people, including former
vivisectors and medical historians,
will readily state that there is ample
scientific and historical evidence
showing that most vivisection is futile, and
often harmful to those it
pretends to serve.
On statistical grounds, vivisection does not
deliver: despite the use of
144,000,000 animals in Britain since 1950,
life-expectancy in Britain for the
middle-aged has not changed since this date.
Some 85 percent of the lab
animals killed between the 1890s and the 1990s
died after 1950, but the fall

in death rate during these 100 years was 92

percent complete by 1950.
Consider, for a specific example, these
figures for cancer:
-------------------------------------------------------CANCER DEATH RATE PER MILLION MEN IN
BRITAIN
[FOR THOSE > 100 PER MILLION]
-------------------------------------------------------Cancer type
1971-1975
1976-1980
% change
-------------------------------------------------------Bladder
118
123
+ 4.2
Pancreas
118
125
+ 5.9
Prostate
177
199
+ 12.4
Stomach
298
278
- 6.7
Colorectal
311
320
+ 2.9
Lung, Trachea,
1091
1125
+ 3.1
Bronchus...
[data for women excised for space reasons]
Gains in the war against cancer are sadly
lacking, despite the vast numbers of
animals sacrificed for cancer research.
When such analyses are performed across the
spectrum of health issues, it
becomes clear that, at best, the contribution
of vivisection to our health
must be considered quite modest. The dramatic
declines in death rates for old
killer diseases, such as, tuberculosis,
pneumonia, typhoid, whooping cough,
and cholera, came from improvements in housing,
in working conditions, in the
quantity and quality of food and water
supplies, and in hygiene. Chemotherapy
and immunization cannot logically be given much
credit here, since they only
became available, chronologically, after most
of the declines were achieved.
Consider the particular example of
penicillin: it was discovered
accidentally by Fleming in 1928. He tested on
rabbits, and when they failed
to react (we now know that they excrete
penicillin rapidly), he lost interest

in his substance. Still, two scientists

followed up on his work, successfully
tried on mice and stated:
"...mice were tried in the initial toxicity
tests because of their small
size, but what a lucky chance it was, for
in this respect man is like the
mouse and not the guinea pig. If we had
used guinea pigs exclusively we
should have said that the penicillin was
toxic, and we probably should not
have proceeded to try to overcome the
difficulties of producing the
substance for trial in man."
Vivisection generally fails because:
* Human medicine cannot be based on
veterinary medicine. This is because
animals are different histologically,
anatomically, genetically,
immunologically, and physiologically.
* Animals and humans react differently to
substances. For example, some
drugs are carcinogenic in humans but not
in animals, or vice-versa.
* Naturally occurring diseases (e.g., in
patients) and artificially
induced diseases (e.g., in lab animals)
often differ substantially.
All this manifests itself in examples such as
the one below:
-------------------------------------------------SPECIES DIFFERENCE IN TESTS FOR BIRTH
DEFECTS
-------------------------------------------------Chemical
Teratogen (i.e., causes birth
defects)
----------------------------------yes
no
-------------------------------------------------aspirin

rats, mice, monkeys,

guinea pigs, cats,
dogs

humans

aminopterin

humans

monkeys

azathioprine

rabbits

rats

caffeine

rats, mice

rabbits

cortisone

mice, rabbits

rats

thalidomide
mice,

humans

rats,

mice

humans

hamsters
triamcilanone

-------------------------------------------------There are countless examples, old and recent,

of the misleading effects
of vivisection, and there are countless
statements from reputable scientists
who see vivisection for what it is: bad
science. Following are just a few of
them.
AECW
The uselessness of most of the animal models
is less well-known. For
example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic
agents for the treatment of human
cancer is widely heralded as a triumph due to
use of animal model systems.
However, here again, these exaggerated claims
are coming from or are endorsed
by the same people who get the federal dollars
for animal research. There is
little, if any, factual evidence that would
support these claims. Indeed while
conflicting animal results have often delayed
and hampered advances in the war
on cancer, they have never produced a single
substantial advance in the
prevention or treatment of human cancer. For
instance, practically all of the
chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in
the treatment of human cancer
were found in a clinical context rather than in
animal studies.
Dr. Irwin Bross
1981
Congressional testimony
Indeed even while these [clinical] studies
were starting, warning voices
were suggesting that data from research on
animals could not be used to
develop a treatment for human tumors.

British Medical
Journal, 1982
Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a
hindrance to scientific progress.
Dr. Werner
Hartinger
Chief Surgeon,
West Germany, 1988
...many vivisectors still claim that what
they do helps save human lives.
They are lying. The truth is that animal
experiments kill people, and animal
researchers are responsible for the deaths of
thousands of men, women and
children every year.
Dr. Vernon
Coleman
Fellow of the
Royal Society of Medicine, UK
----------------------#79 How can you justify losing medical
advances that would save human
lives by stopping vivisection?
----------------------[PLANK A]
The same way we justify not performing
forcible research on unwilling
humans! A lot of even more relevant information
is currently foregone
owing to our strictures against human
experimentation. If life-saving
medical advances are to be sought at all cost,
why should nonhuman animals
be singled out for ill-treatment? We must
accept that there is such a
thing as "ill-gotten gains", and that the
potential fruits of vivisection
qualify as such.
This question might be regarded as a veiled
insult to the creativity
and resourcefulness of scientists. Although
humans have never set foot on
Pluto, scientists have still garnered a lot of
valuable scientific
information concerning it. Why couldn't such
feats of ingenuity be repeated
in other fields?
AECW
[PLANK B]
Forcible experimentation on humans is not the
only alternative. Many

humans would be glad to participate in

experiments that offer the hope of
a cure for their afflictions, or for the
afflictions of others. If
individual choice were allowed, there might be
no need for animal
experimentation. The stumbling block is
government regulations that forbid
these choices. Similarly, government
regulations are the reason many
animals are sacrificed for product testing,
often unnecessarily.
PM
SEE ALSO: #77-#78, #80-#82, #85-#86
----------------------#80 Aren't there instances where there are no
alternatives to the use
of animals?
----------------------[PLANK A]
The reply to the question here is succinct:
"If so, so what?". Let us recall
that we are happy enough (today) to forego
knowledge that would be acquired
at the expense of commandeering humans into
service, and that we include
children, the mentally diminished and even
people suffering from types of
disease for which animal models are
unsatisfactory (such as AIDS). That is,
a prior ethical decision was made that rules
them out from experimentation,
and that foregoes any potential knowledge so
derived.
Now the Animal Rights argument is consistent:
since no morally relevant
difference can be produced that separates
humans spared experimentation from
test animals (those that are subjects-of-alife), vivisection is exposed as
immoral, and the practice must be abandoned.
Just as the insights offered by the Nazis'
experiments on concentration
camp prisoners were morally illicit, so are any
and all benefits traceable to
vivisection. As Tom Regan put it:
"Since, whatever our gains, they are illgotten, we must bring an end to
[such] research, whatever our losses."
[PLANK B]
The argument above makes the search for

alternatives morally imperative, and

if it is objected that this "just isn't
possible", one should reply that
belittling the ingenuity of scientists will not
do. There have been cases
where alternatives to vivisection had to be
sought, and--of course--they were
found. For example, Sharpe writes in The Human
Cost of Animal Experimentation:
"Historically, a classic example is the
conquest of yellow fever. In 1900, no
animal was known to be susceptible, prompting
studies with human volunteers
which proved that mosquitoes did indeed
transmit the disease. These
observations led to improved sanitation and
quarantine measures in Havana
where yellow fever, once rife, was eradicated."
[PLANK C]
We now cite a few alternatives to animal
models of human diseases. Two
traditional types are: a) Clinical studies:
these are essential for a
thorough understanding of any disease.
Anesthetics, artificial respiration,
the stethoscope, electrocardiographs, blood
pressure measurements, etc.,
resulted from careful clinical studies. b)
Epidemiology studies: i.e., the
study of diseases of whole populations. They,
and not animal tests, have
identified most of the substances known to
cause cancer in humans. Typical
example: Why is cancer of the colon so frequent
in Europe and North America,
infrequent in Japan, but common in Japanese
immigrants to North America?
More recent technological advances now allow
a host of other investigative
methods to be applied, including:
* Tissue cultures: Human cells and tissues
can be kept alive in cultures
and used for biomedical research. Since
human material is used,
extrapolation problems are shortcircuited. Such cultures have been
used in cancer research by FDA
scientists, for example, and according
to them: "[they] offer the possibility of
studying not only the biology
of cancer cell growth and invasion into
normal human tissue, but also
provide a method for evaluating the
effects of a variety of potentially

important antitumor agents."

* Physico-chemical methods: For example,
liquid chromatographs and mass
spectrophotometers allow researchers to
identify substances in
biological substances. For example, a
bioassay for vitamin D used to
involve inducing rickets in rats and
feeding them vitamin-D-rich
substances. Now, liquid chromatography
allows such bioassays to be
conducted quicker and at reduced cost.
* Computer simulations: According to Dr.
Walker at the University of
Texas: "... computer simulations offer a
wide range of advantages over
live animal experiments in the physiology
and pharmacology laboratory.
These include: savings in animal
procurement and housing costs; nearly
unlimited availability to meet student
schedules; the opportunity to
correct errors and repeat parts of the
experiment performed incorrectly
or misinterpreted; speed of operation and
efficient use of students'
time and consistency with knowledge
learned elsewhere."
* Computer-aided drug design: Such methods
have been used in cancer and
sickle-cell anemia drug research, for
example. Here, 3D computer
graphics and the theoretical field of
quantum pharmacology are combined
to help in designing drugs according to
required specifications.
* Mechanical models: For example, an
artificial neck has been developed
by General Motors for use in car-crash
simulations. Indeed, the
well-known "crash dummies" are much more
accurate and effective than
the primates previously employed.
This list is by no means exhaustive.
[PLANK B]
There are instances where the benefits of
experimentation accrue directly
to the individual concerned; for example, the
trial of a new plastic heart
may be proposed to someone suffering from heart

disease, or a new surgical

technique may be attempted to save a nonhuman
animal. This may qualify, in
the mind of the questioner, as an instance of
use of animals. The position
here is simple: The Animal Rights position does
not condemn experimentation
where it is conducted for the benefit of the
individual patient. Clinical
trials of new drugs, for example, often fall in
this category, and so does
some veterinary research, such as the clinical
study of already sick animals.
Another example of acceptable animal research
is ethology, i.e. the study
of animals in their natural habitat.
AECW
[PLANK B]
Following is a list of alternatives to much,
if not all, vivisection:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Cell, tissue, and organ cultures

Clinical observation
Human volunteers (sick and well)
Autopsies
Material from natural deaths
Noninvasive imaging in clinical settings
Post-market surveillance
Statistical inference
Computer models
Substitution with plants

These alternatives, and others not yet

conceived, will ensure that
scientific research will not come to a halt
upon abolition of vivisection.
DG
----------------------#81 But what if animals also benefit, e.g.,
through advance of veterinary
science?
----------------------[PLANK A]
The Animal Rights philosophy is speciesneutral, so the arguments developed
elsewhere in this section apply with equal
force. The immorality of
rights-violative practices is not attenuated by
claiming that the victims
and beneficiaries are of the same species.
AECW
-----------------------

#82 Should people refuse medical treatments

obtained through vivisection?
----------------------[PLANK A]
This is a favorite question for the defenders
of vivisection. The
implication is that the AR position is
inconsistent or irrational because
AR people partake of some fruits of
vivisection.
As a first answer, we can point out that for
existing treatments derived
from vivisection, the damage has already been
done. Nothing is gained by
refusing the treatment. Vivisectors counter
that the situation is analogous
to our refusal to eat meat sold at the grocery;
the damage has been done,
so why not eat the meat? But there is a crucial
difference. Knowledge is
a permanent commodity; unlike meat, it is
abstract, it doesn't rot. Consider
a piece of knowledge obtained through
vivisection. If vivisection were
abolished, the knowledge could be used
repeatedly without endorsing or
further supporting vivisection. With meat
consumption, the practice of
slaughter must continue if the fruits are to
continue to be enjoyed.
Another point is that, had the vivisection
not occurred, the knowledge
might well have been obtained through
alternative, moral methods. Are we
to permanently foreclose the use of an abstract
piece of knowledge due to the
past folly of a vivisector? The same cannot be
said of meat; it cannot be
obtained without slaughter.
If the reader finds this unpersuasive, she
should consider that the AR
movement sincerely wants to abolish
vivisection, eliminating ill-gotten
fruits. If this is achieved, the original
question becomes moot, because
there will be no such fruits.
DG
[PLANK A]
This is another "where should I draw the
line" question, with the added
twist that one's personal health may be on the
line. As such, the right
answer is likely to depend a good deal on
personal circumstances and judgment.

It is certainly beyond the call of duty to make

an absolute pledge, since the
principle of self-defense may ultimately apply
(particularly in life-or death
cases). Still, many people will be prepared to
make statements against animal
oppression, even at considerable cost to their
well-being. For these, the
following issues might be worth considering.
[PLANK C]
WHAT IS THE TRUE CONTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL
EXPERIMENTATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE TREATMENT? Most treatments owe nothing
to animal experimentation at
all, or were developed in spite of animal
experimentation rather than thanks
to it.
Insulin is one good example. The really
important discoveries did not
proceed from the celebrated experiments of
Banting and Best on dogs but from
clinical discoveries: According to Dr. Sharpe:
"The link between diabetes and
the pancreas was first demonstrated by Thomas
Cawley in 1788 when he examined
a patient who had died from the disease.
Further autopsies confirmed that
diabetes is indeed linked with degeneration of
the pancreas but, partly
because physiologists, including the notorious
Claude Bernard, had failed to
produce a diabetic state in animals...the idea
was not accepted for many
years." One had to wait until 1889 for the link
to be accepted, the date at
which two researchers, Mering and Minkowski,
managed to induce a form of
diabetes in dogs by removing their entire
pancreas. Autopsies further
revealed that some parts of the pancreas of
diabetics were damaged, giving
birth to the idea that administering pancreatic
extracts to patients might
help.
Other examples of treatments owing nothing to
vivisection include the heart
drug digitalis, quinine (used against malaria),
morphine (a pain killer),
ether (an anesthetic), sulfanilimide (a
diuretic), cortisone (used to relieve
arthritic pains, for example), aspirin,
fluoride (in toothpastes), etc.
Incidentally, some of these indisputably
useful drugs would find it hard
to pass these so-called animal safety tests.

Insulin causes birth defects in

chickens, rabbits, and mice but not in man;
morphine sedates man but
stimulates cats; doses of aspirin used in human
therapeutics poison cats (and
do nothing for fever in horses); the widespread
use of digitalis was slowed
down by confounding results from animal studies
(and legitimized by clinical
studies, as ever), and so on.
IS THE TREATMENT REALLY SAFE? The nefarious
effects of many newly-developed,
"safe" compounds often take some time to be
acknowledged. For example, even
serious side-effects can sometimes go underreported. In the UK, only a dozen
of the 3500 deaths eventually linked to the use
of isoprenaline aerosol
inhalers were reported by doctors. Similarly,
it took 4 years for
the side-effects of the heart drug Eraldine
(which included eye damage) to be
acknowledged. The use of these drugs were,
evidently, approved following
extensive animal testing.
WILL THE TREATMENT REALLY HELP? This question
is not as incongruous as it
may appear. A 1967 official enquiry suggested
that one third of the most
prescribed drugs in the UK were "undesirable
preparations". Many new drugs
provide no advantage over existing compounds:
in 1977, the US FDA released a
study of 1,935 drugs introduced up to April
1977 which suggested that 79.4
percent of them provided "little or no
[therapeutic] gain". About 80 percent
of new introductions in the UK are
reformulations, or duplications of
existing drugs. A 1980 survey by the Medicines
Division of UK Department for
Health and Social Security states : "[new
drugs] have largely been introduced
into therapeutic areas already heavily
oversubscribed and...for conditions
which are common, largely chronic and occur
principally in the affluent
Western society. Innovation is therefore
largely directed toward commercial
returns rather than therapeutic needs."
[PLANK B]
ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES TO THE TREATMENT? A
better appreciation of the
benefits of "alternative" practices has
developed in recent years. Often,

dietary or lifestyle changes can be effective

treatments on their own.
Adult-onset diabetes has been linked to
obesity, for instance, and can often
be cured simply by weight-loss and sensible
dieting. Other types of
alternative medicine, such as acupuncture, have
proven useful in stress
relief, and against insomnia and back pains.
AECW
[PLANK A]
In modern society, I think it would be almost
impossible NOT to use medical
information gained through animal research at
some stage--drug testing being
the most obvious consideration--without opting
out of health care altogether.
It is important, therefore, that we emphasize
the need to stop now. The past
is irretrievable.
JK
----------------------#83 Farmers have to kill pests to protect our
food supply. Given that,
what's wrong with killing a few more rats
for medical research?
----------------------[PLANK A]
First, we object to the casual attitude of
the questioner to the killing
of rights holders. A nonspeciesist philosophy,
such as that of Animal Rights,
sees that as no different from suggesting:
Humans are killed legitimately every day.
Given that, what's wrong with
killing a few more humans for medical
research?
Hopefully, the reply is now obvious: in the
original question, the fate
of pests is an irrelevant consideration (here),
and the case for the
liberation of laboratory animals must be
evaluated on its own. Seeking to
dilute a number of immoral killings into a
greater number of arguably
defensible ones is a creative but illogical
attempt at ethical reasoning.
AECW
SEE ALSO: #59

----------------------#84 What about dissection; isn't it necessary

for a complete education?
----------------------[PLANK A]
Dissection refers to the practice of
performing exploratory surgery on
animals (both killed and live) in an
educational context. The average
person's experience of this practice consists
of dissecting a frog in
a high-school biology class, but fetal
chipmunks, mice, rabbits, dogs,
cats, pigs, and other animals are also used.
Dissection accounts for the death of about 7
million animals per year.
Many of these animals are bred in factory-farm
conditions. Others are
taken from their natural habitats. Often,
strayed companion animals end
up in the hands of dissectors. These animals
suffer from inhumane
confinement and transport, and are finally
killed by means of gassing,
neck-snapping, and other "inexpensive" methods.
The practice of dissection is repulsive to
many students and
high-schoolers have begun to speak out against
it. Some have even engaged
in litigation (and won!) to assert a right to
not participate in such
unnecessary cruelty. California has a law
giving students (through high
school) the right to refuse dissection. The law
requires an alternative to
be offered and that the student suffer no
sanctions for exercising this
right.
Having dealt with the sub-question "What is
dissection?", let's
consider whether it is necessary for a complete
education.
[PLANK B]
There are several very effective alternatives
to dissection. In some
cases, these alternatives are more effective
than dissection itself.
Larger-than-life models, films and videos, and
computer simulations are
all viable methods of teaching biological
principles. The latter option,
computer simulation, has the advantage of
offering an additional
interactive facility that has shown great value

in other educational
contexts. These alternative methods are often
cheaper than the traditional
practice of dissection. A computer program can
be used indefinitely for
a one-time purchase cost; the practice of
dissection presents an ongoing
expense.
In view of these effective alternatives, and
the economic gains associated
therewith, the practice of dissection begins to
look more and more like
a rite of passage into the world of animal
abuse, almost a fraternity
initiation for future vivisectors. This
practice desensitizes
students to animal suffering and teaches them
that animals can be
used and discarded without respect for their
lives. Is this the kind of
lesson we want to teach our children?
JLS/DG
[PLANK C]
Dissecting animals is often described as
necessary for the complete
education of surgeons. This is nonsense.
Numerous surgeons have stated
that practicing on animals does not provide
adequate skills for human
surgery. For example, dogs are the favorite
test animal of surgery
students, yet their body shape is different,
the internal arrangement of
their organs is different, the elasticity of
their tissues under the scalpel
is different, and postoperative effects are
different (they are less prone
to infection, for one thing). Also, many
surgeons have suggested that
practicing on animals may induce in the mind of
the student a casual
attitude to suffering.
Following are the thoughts of several
prestigious surgeons on this issue.
AECW
...wounds of animals are so different from
those of [humans] that the
conclusions of vivisection are absolutely
worthless. They have done far
more harm than good in surgery.
Lawson Tait
Any person who had to endure certain
experiments carried out on animals

which perish slowly in the laboratories would

regard death by burning at the
stake as a happy deliverance. Like every one
else in my profession, I used
to be of the opinion that we owe nearly all our
knowledge of medical and
surgical science to animal experiments. Today I
know that precisely the
opposite is the case. In surgery especially,
they are of no help to the
practitioner, indeed he is often led astray by
them.
Professor Bigelow
...the aim should be to train the surgeon
using human patients by moving
gradually from stage to stage of difficulty and
explicitly rejecting the
acquisition of skills by practicing on
animals...which is useless and
dangerous in the training of a thoracic
surgeon.
Professor R. J.
Belcher
Practice on dogs probably makes a good
veterinarian, if that is the kind
of practitioner you want for your family.
William Held
[End surgeon quotes]
Animal life, somber mystery. All nature
protests against the
barbarity of man, who misapprehends, who
humiliates, who tortures
his inferior brethren.
Jules Michelet
(historian)
Mutilating animals and calling it 'science'
condemns the human species
to moral and intellectual hell...this hideous
Dark Age of the mindless
torture of animals must be overcome.
Grace Slick
(musician)
SEE ALSO: #77-#81, #92
----------------------#85 What is wrong with product testing on
animals?
----------------------[PLANK A]

The practice of product testing on animals

treats animals as discardable
and renewable resources, as replaceable clones
with no individual lives,
no interests, and no aspirations of their own.
It callously enlists
hapless creatures into the service of humans.
It assumes that the risks
incurred by one class of individuals can be
forcibly transferred onto
another.
Product testing is also unbelievably cruel.
One notorious method of
testing is the Draize irritancy test, in which
potentially harmful
products are dripped into the eyes of test
animals (usually rabbits). The
harmfulness of the product is then
(subjectively) assessed depending on
the size of the area injured, the opacity of
the cornea, and the degree
of redness, swelling and discharge of the
conjunctivae, and in more
severe cases, on the blistering or gross
destruction of the cornea.
[PLANK C]
The use of animals in medicine is often
challenged on scientific
grounds, and product tests are no exception.
For example, one widely used
test is the so-called LD50 (Lethal Dose 50
percent) test. The toxicity level
of a product is assessed by force-feeding it to
a number of animals until 50
percent of them die. Death may come after a few
days or weeks, and is often
preceded by convulsions, vomiting, breathing
difficulties, and more. Often,
this test reveals nothing at all; animals die
simply because of the volume
of product administered, through the rupture of
internal organs.
How such savage practices could provide any
useful data is a mystery, and
not just to AR activists. It is seen as dubious
by many toxicologists, and
even by some Government advisers. Animal models
often produce misleading
results, or produce no useful results at all,
and product testing is no
exception. One toxicologist writes: "It is
surely time, therefore, that we
ceased to use as an index of the toxic action
of food additives the LD50
value, which is imprecise (varying considerably

with different species, with

different strains of the same species, with
sex, with nutritional status,
environmental status, and even with the
concentration at which the substance
is administered) and which is valueless in the
planning of further studies."
[PLANK B]
The truth is that animal lives could be
spared in many ways. For example,
duplication of experiments could be avoided by
setting up databases of
results. Also, a host of humane alternatives to
such tests are already
available, and the considerable sums spent on
breeding or keeping test
animals could be usefully redirected into
researching new ones.
AECW
The animal rights view calls for the
abolition of all animal toxicity
tests. Animals are not our tasters. We are not
their kings.
Tom Regan
(philosopher and AR activist)
SEE ALSO: #86
----------------------#86 How do I know if a product has been tested
on animals?
----------------------There are two easy ways to determine whether
a product uses animal products
or is tested on animals. First, most companies
provide a toll-free telephone
number for inquiring about their products. This
is the most reliable method
for obtaining up-to-date information. Second,
several excellent guides are
available that provide listings of companies
and products. The section
entitled "Guides, Handbooks, and Reference" in
question #92 lists several
excellent guides to cruelty-free shopping. For
maximum convenience, you can
obtain a wallet-sized listing from PETA. Send a
stamped, self-addressed
envelope with your request for the "PETA
Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide" to
PETA, P.O. Box 42516, Washington, DC 20015.
Another thing to think about is the
possibility of avoiding products by

making safe, ecologically sound alternative

products yourself! Several of
the guides described in question #92 explain
how to do this.
DG
SEE ALSO: #85, #92
----------AR ACTIVISM
--------------------------------#87 What are the forms of animal rights
activism?
----------------------Let us first adopt a broad definition of
activism as the process
of acting in support of a cause, as opposed to
privately lamenting
and bemoaning the current state of affairs.
Given that, AR activism
spans a broad spectrum, with relatively simple
and innocuous actions
at one end, and difficult and politico-legally
charged actions at the
other. Each individual must make a personal
decision about where
to reside on the spectrum. For some, forceful
or unlawful action is
a moral imperative; others may condemn it, or
it may be impractical
(for example, a lawyer may serve animals better
through the legislative
process than by going on raids and possibly
getting disbarred).
Following is a brief sampling of AR activism,
beginning at
the low end of the spectrum.
The spectrum of action can be divided
conveniently into four zones:
personal actions, proselytizing, organizing,
and civil disobedience.
Consider first personal actions. Here are some
of the personal actions
you can take in support of AR:
Learning -- Educate yourself about the
issues involved.
Vegetarianism and Veganism -- Become one.
Cruelty-Free Shopping -- Avoid products
involve testing on animals.
Cruelty-Free Fashion -- Avoid leather and
fur.

Investing with Conscience -- Avoid companies

that exploit animals.
Animal-Friendly Habits -- Avoid pesticides,
detergents, etc.
The Golden Rule -- Apply it to all creatures
and live by it.
Proselytizing is the process of "spreading
the word". Here are some of
the ways that it can be done:
Tell your family and friends about your
beliefs.
Write letters to lawmakers, newspapers,
magazines, etc.
Write books and articles.
Create documentary films and videos.
Perform leafletting and "tabling".
Give lectures at schools and other
organizations.
Speak at stockholders' meetings.
Join Animal Review Committees that oversee
research on animals.
Picket, boycott, demonstrate, and protest.
Organizing is a form of meta-proselytizing-helping others to spread
the word. Here are some of the ways to do it:
Join an AR-related organization.
Contribute time and money to an AR-related
organization.
Found an AR organization.
Get involved in politics or law and act
directly for AR.
The last category of action, civil
disobedience, is the most
contentious and the remaining questions in this
section deal further
with it. Some draw the line here; others do
not. It is a personal
decision. Here are some of the methods used to
more forcefully assert
the rights of animals:
Sit-ins and occupations.
Obstruction and harassment of people in
their animal-exploitation
activities (e.g., foxhunt sabotage). The
idea is to make it more
difficult and/or embarrassing for people
to continue these
activities.
Spying and infiltration of animalexploitation industries and

organizations. The information and

evidence gathered can be
a powerful weapon for AR activists.
Destruction of property related to
exploitation and abuse of
animals (laboratory equipment, meat and
clothes in stores, etc.).
The idea is to make it more costly and
less profitable for these
animal industries.
Sabotage of the animal-exploitation
industries (e.g., destruction
of vehicles and buildings). The idea is to
make the activities
impossible.
Raids on premises associated with animal
exploitation (to gather
evidence, to sabotage, to liberate
animals).
It can be seen from the foregoing material
that AR activism spans a
wide range of activities that includes both
actions that would be
conventionally regarded as law-abiding and nonthreatening, and actions
that are unlawful and threatening to the
animal-exploitation industries.
Most AR activism falls into the former category
and, indeed, one can
support these actions while condemning the
latter category of actions.
People who are thinking, with some trepidation,
of going for the first
time to a meeting of an AR group need have no
fear of finding themselves
involved with extremists, or of being coerced
into extreme activism.
They would find a group of exceedingly lawabiding computer programmers,
teachers, artists, etc. (The extreme activists
are essentially unorganized
and cannot afford to meet in public groups due
to the unwelcome attention
of law-enforcement agencies.)
DG
One person can make all the difference in the
world...For the first time in
recorded human history, we have the fate of the
whole planet in our hands.
Chrissie Hynde
(musician)
This is the true joy in life; being used for
a purpose recognized by

yourself as a mighty one, and being a force of

nature instead of a
feverish, selfish little clod.
George Bernard
Shaw (playwright, Nobel 1925)
Nothing is more powerful than an individual
acting out of his
conscience, thus helping to bring the
collective conscience to life.
Norman Cousins
(author)
SEE ALSO: #5, #88-#93, #95
----------------------#88 Isn't liberation just a token action
because there is no way to give
homes to all the animals?
----------------------If one thinks of a liberation action solely
in terms of liberation goals,
there is some validity in viewing it as a
token, or symbolic, action. It
is true that liberation actions could not
succeed applied en masse,
because there aren't enough homes for all the
animals, and even if
there were, distribution channels do not exist
for relocating them.
Having said this, however, one needs to
remember that for the few
animals that are liberated, the action is far
from a token one. There
is a world of difference between spending one's
life in a loving home
or a sanctuary and spending it imprisoned in a
cage waiting for a
brutal end.
Liberation actions need to be viewed with a
less literal mind set. As
Peter Singer points out, raids are effective in
obtaining evidence of
animal abuse that could not otherwise have come
to light. For example,
a raid on Thomas Gennarelli's laboratory at the
University of Pennsylvania
obtained videotapes that convinced the
Secretary for Health and Human
Services to stop his experiments.
One might also bear in mind that symbolic
actions have been some of
the most powerful ones seen throughout history.
DG

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil

is for good men
to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
(statesman and author)
SEE ALSO: #89-#91
----------------------#89 Isn't AR activism terrorism because it
harasses people, destroys
property, and threatens humans with injury
or death?
----------------------The answer to question #87 should make it
clear that most AR activism
cannot be described as extreme and,
furthermore, that not even all
acts described as extreme could be thought of
as "terrorism". For
example, a peaceful sit-in is highly unlikely
to put others in a
state of intense fear. Thus, it is not correct
to characterize AR
activism generally as terrorism.
One of the fundamental guidelines of the
extreme activists is that
great care must be taken not to inflict harm in
carrying out the acts.
This has been borne out in practice. On the
very rare occasions when
harm has occurred, the mainstream AR groups
have condemned the acts.
In some cases, the authors of the acts have
been suspected to be those
allied against the AR movement; their motives
would not require deep
thought to decipher.
The dictionary defines "terrorism" as the
systematic use of violence
or acts that instill intense fear to achieve an
end. Certainly,
harassment of fur wearers, or shouting "meat is
murder" outside a
butcher shop, could not be considered to be
terrorism. Even destruction
of property would not qualify under the
definition if it is
done without harming others. Certainly, the
Boston Tea Party raiders
did not consider themselves terrorists.
The real terrorists are the people and
industries that inflict pain
and suffering on millions of innocent animals
for trivial purposes each

and every day.

DG
If I repent of anything it is likely to be my
good behavior.
Henry David
Thoreau (essayist and poet)
I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I
will not excuse--I will not
retreat a single inch and I will be heard.
William Lloyd
Garrison (author)
SEE ALSO: #87-#88, #90-#91
----------------------#90 Isn't extreme activism involving breaking
the law (e.g., destruction
of property) wrong?
----------------------Great men and women have demonstrated
throughout history that laws
can be immoral, and that we can be justified in
breaking them. Those
who object to law-breaking under all
circumstances would have to
condemn:
The Tiananmen Square demonstrators.
The Boston Tea Party participants.
Mahatma Gandhi and his followers.
World War II resistance fighters.
The Polish Solidarity Movement.
Vietnam War draft card burners.
The list could be continued almost
indefinitely.
Conversely, laws sometimes don't reflect our
moral beliefs. After
World War II, the allies had to hastily write
new laws to fully prosecute
the Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg. Dave
Foreman points out that there
is a distinction to be made between morality
and the statutes of a
government in power.
It could be argued that the principle we are
talking about does not apply.
Specifically, the law against destruction of
property is not immoral,
and we therefore should not break it. However,
a related principle can
be asserted. If a law is invoked to defend
immoral practices, or to

attempt to limit or interfere with our ability

to fight an immoral
situation, then justification might be claimed
for breaking that law.
In the final analysis, this is a personal
decision for each person
to make in consultation with their own
conscience.
DG
Certainly one of the highest duties of the
citizen is a scrupulous
obedience to the laws of the nation. But it is
not the highest duty.
Thomas Jefferson
(3rd U.S. President)
I say, break the law.

Henry David

Thoreau (essayist and poet)

SEE ALSO: #89, #91
----------------------#91 Doesn't extreme activism give the AR
movement a bad name?
----------------------This is a significant argument that must be
thoughtfully considered.
In essence, the argument says that if your
actions can be characterized
as extremist, then you are besmirching the
actions of those who are
moderate, and you are creating a backlash that
can negate the advances
made by more moderate voices.
The appeal to the "backlash" has historical
precedent. Martin Luther
King heard such warnings when he organized
civil-disobedience protests
against segregation. Had Dr. King yielded to
this appeal, would the
Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts have been
passed?
Dave Foreman, writing in "Confessions of an
Eco-Warrior", points out
that radicals in the anti-Vietnam War movement
were blamed for prolonging
the war and for damaging the "respectable"
opposition. Yet the fear of
increasingly militant demonstrations kept
President Nixon from escalating
the war effort, and the stridency eventually
wore down the pro-war
establishment.

The backlash argument is a standard one that

will always be trotted out
by the opponents of a movement. Backlash can be
expected whenever the
status quo is challenged, regardless of whether
extreme actions are
employed. The real question to ask is: Does the
added backlash outweigh
the gains achieved through extreme action? The
answer here is not clear
and we'll leave it to the informed reader to
make a judgement. Two
books that might help in assessing this are
"Free the Animals" by
Ingrid Newkirk, and "In Defense of Animals" by
Peter Singer.
The following argument is paraphrased from
Dave Foreman: Extreme action
is a sophisticated political tactic that
dramatizes issues and places them
before the public when they otherwise would be
ignored in the media,
applies pressure to corporations and government
agencies that otherwise
are able to resist "legitimate" pressure from
law-abiding organizations,
and broadens the spectrum of activism so that
lobbying by mainstream
groups is not considered "extremist".
DG
My doctrine is this, that if we see cruelty
or wrong that we have
the power to stop, and do nothing, we make
ourselves sharers in
the guilt.
Anna Sewell
(author)
If there is no struggle, there is no
progress. Those who profess to
favour freedom, and yet deprecate agitation,
are people who want rain
without thunder and lightning. They want the
ocean without the roar of
its many waters. Power concedes nothing without
a demand. It never did
and it never will.
Frederick
Douglass (abolitionist)
SEE ALSO: #87-#90
-------------------------------AR INFORMATION AND ORGANIZATIONS

-----------------------------------------------------#92 What are appropriate books and periodicals

to read for more
information on AR issues?
----------------------There are hundreds of books that could be
recommended. We provide only
a sampling of books and periodicals below.
Please refer to question #94
for further book references and reviews. Space
limitations forced us to
avoid children's books. Refer to the guide
books listed for full
bibliographies.
TA/DG/JLS/AECW
Animal Production and Factory Farming
------------------------------------"Animal Factories", Jim Mason and Peter Singer,
AAVS, 801 Old York Rd,
Suite 204, Jenkintown, PA 19046-1685,
$12.95. Facts and photos on farms
that mass produce animals for meat, milk,
and eggs. [1980, 1990]
"Factory Farming: The Experiment That Failed",
Animal Welfare Institute,
P.O. Box 3650, Washington, DC 20007. Factpacked indictment of
factory-farming on welfare and economic
grounds. [1988]
"Waste of the West: Public Lands Ranching",
Lynn Jacobs, P.O. Box 5784,
Tucson, AZ 85703.
"Do Hens Suffer in Battery Cages?", Michael
Appleby, The Athene Trust,
5a Charles St, Petersfield, Hants GU32 3EH.
Scientific evidence of
hen suffering. [1991]
"Alternative to Factory Farming", Paul Carnell,
Earth Resources Research
Publishers, London. Factory farming
challenged on economic grounds.
[1983]
"Chicken and Egg: Who pays the price?", Clare
Druce, Green Print Publishers,
London. A criticism of the poultry
industry. [1989]

"Taking Stock: Animal Farming and The

Environment", Alan Durning and
Holly Brough, Worldwatch Paper 103,
WorldWatch Institute,
1776 Mass. Avenue N.W., Washington, DC
20036-1904. The environmental
cost of animal farming. [1991]
"Assault and Battery", Mark Gold, Pluton
Publishers, London. Effects of
farming on animals, humans and the
environment. [1983]
"Animal Machines", Ruth Harrison, Vincent
Stuart Publishers, London.
The first book on factory farming. [1964]
"Facts about Furs", G. Nilsson, et. al., Animal
Welfare Institute,
(op. cit.). On fur-farming and trapping.
[1980]
"Pulling the Wool", Christine Townend, Hale and
Ironmonger Publishers,
Sydney, Australia. The Australian wool and
sheep industry. [1985]
Animal Rights History
--------------------"All Heaven in a Rage", E. S. Turner. Provides
a history of the animal
protection movement up to the 1960's.
[1964]
"Animal Warfare", David Henshaw, Fontana
Publishers, London. The rise of
direct action for Animal Rights. [1984]
"History of the Humane Movement", Charles D.
Niven, Johnson Publishers,
London. From antiquity to today. [1967]
"Animal Revolution", Richard Ryder, Blackwell
Publishers, Oxford. Overview
of the history of AW and AR movements.
[1985]
"The Animal Liberation Movement: Its
Philosophy, Its Achievements and Its
Future", Peter Singer, Old Hammond Press
Publishers, Nottingham, [1986]
"Man and the Natural World", Keith Thomas,

Penguin, London. History from

1500 AD to 1800 AD. [1991]
Animal Rights Legislation
------------------------"Animals and their Legal Rights", The Animal
Welfare Institute, Washington
D.C. [1990]
"Animal Rights, Human Wrongs", S. Jenkins,
Lennard Publishings, Harpenden,
UK. An RSPCA officer's experiences
demonstrate the lack of adequate
animal legislation. [1992]
"Up against the Law", J. J. Roberts, Arc Print,
London. 1986 Public Order
Act and its implications for Animal Rights
protests. [1987]
"Animals and Cruelty and Law", Noel Sweeney,
Alibi, Bristol UK. A practicing
barrister argues for Animal Rights from the
legal standpoint. [1990]
Animal Rights Philosophy
-----------------------"The Case for Animal Rights", Tom Regan,
University of California Press.
[1983]
"The Struggle for Animal Rights", Tom Regan,
International Society for
Animal Rights, Inc., Clarks Summit, PA.
[1987]
"Animal Liberation", Peter Singer, PETA
Merchandise, P.O. Box 42400,
Washington, D.C. 20015, $3.00 post-paid.
The book that popularized
Animal Rights. [1975, 1990]
"In Defense of Animals", Peter Singer.
"Animals' Rights", Henry Salt, AAVS (op. cit.),
$6.95. Written a century
ago, a true classic, anticipates many of
today's arguments.
"No Room, Save in the Heart: Poetry and Prose
on Reverence for
Life--Animals, Nature and Humankind", Ann

Cottrell Free, AAVS

(op. cit.), $8.95.
"The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal
Pain and Science", Bernard
Rollin. [1989]
"Created from Animals: The Moral Implications
of Darwinism", James Rachels.
[1990]
"Morals, Reason and Animals, Steve Sapontzis.
[1987]
"Political Theory and Animal Rights", Clarke
and Lindzey (Eds.). This book
provides interesting excepts from thinkers
since Plato to Regan on the
issue of our relations and duties towards
animals. [1990]
"The Nature of the Beast: Are Animals Moral?",
Stephen Clark.
"Animals, Men and Morals", Godlovitch et. al.
[1971]
"Fettered Kingdoms", John Bryant, Fox Press
Publishers, Winchester.
Includes a well-known indictment of pet
keeping. [1990]
"The Moral Status of Animals", Stephen Clark,
Oxford University Press
Publishers, Oxford. The roots of humans'
treatment of animals in
sentimental fantasy. [1977]
"The Savour of Salt--A Henry Salt Anthology",
G. and W. Hendrick,
Centaur Press Publishers, Fontwell. [1989]
"Animals and Why They Matter: A Journey Around
the Species Barrier",
Mary Midgley, Penguin Publishers, London.
[1983]
"Beast and Man", Mary Midgley, Harvester Press
Publishers, Brighton. [1979]
"Animal Rights--A Symposium", David Paterson
and Richard Ryder,
Centaur Press Publishers, Fontwell. [1979]
"Inhumane Society: The American Way of
Exploiting Animals", Michael W.

Fox, St. Martins Press, New York. [1990]

"The Sexual Politics of Meat: A FeministVegetarian Critical Theory",
Carol J. Adams. [1990]
"Rape of the Wild: Man's Violence against
Animals and the Earth", Andree
Collard with Joyce Contrucci. [1989]
"The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal
Slavery", Marjorie Spiegel,
Mirror Books, NY. [1988]
Animal Rights Theology
---------------------"Christianity and the Rights of Animals",
Andrew Linzey, Crossroad,
New York. [1987]
"Animal Sacrifices -- Religious Perspectives on
the Use of Animals in
Science", Tom Regan (Ed.), Temple
University Press, PA. [1986]
Circuses, Rodeos, and Zoos
-------------------------"The Rose-Tinted Menagerie", William Johnson,
PETA (op. cit.), $16.50.
Describes behind-the-scenes action in
circuses, aquariums, and zoos.
"Animals in Circuses and Zoos--Chiron's
World?", Marthe Kiley-Worthington,
Little Eco Farms Publishing, Basildon, UK.
Investigation into the
treatment of animals by zoos and circuses.
[1990]
"The Last Great Wild Beast Show", Bill Jordan
and Stefan Ormrod,
Constable Publishers, London. How animals
are snatched from the
wild to be shipped to zoos worldwide.
[1978]
"Beyond the Bars", Virginia McKenna, William
Travers, Jonathan Wray (eds.),
Thorsons Publishers, Wellingborough, UK.
The immorality of animal
captivity. [1987]

Diet Ethics
----------"Diet for a New America", John Robbins, PETA
(op. cit.),
$12.50 post-paid. Examines problems with
animal-based food systems
with solutions, info on the link between
diet and disease.
"Compassion: The Ultimate Ethic", V. Moran,
American Vegan Society, NJ,
USA. Exploration of veganism: its roots in
eastern and western
philosophy. [1991]
"Food: Need, Greed and Myopia", G. Yates,
Earthright, Ryton UK. World food
problem seen from a vegetarian/vegan
standpoint. [1986]
"Radical Vegetarianism", Mark Braunstein,
Panjandrum Books, Los Angeles.
[1983]
Guides, Handbooks, and Reference
-------------------------------"Save the Animals! 101 Easy Things You Can Do",
Ingrid Newkirk, PETA
(op. cit.), $4.95.
"67 Ways to Save the Animals", Anna Sequoia,
Harper Perennial, $4.95.
[1990]
"The Animal Rights Handbook -- Everyday Ways to
Save Animal Lives",
Berkley Books, New York, $4.50. [1993]
"PETA's Shopping Guide for Caring Consumers",
PETA (op. cit.), $4.95.
A must have! Lists names and addresses of
cruelty-free companies.
"Keyguide to Information Sources in Animal
Rights", Charles R.Magel,
AAVS (op. cit.), $24.95.
"A Shopper's Guide to Cruelty-Free Products",
Lori Cook, Bantam Books,
New York, $4.99. [1991]
"Animal Rights: A Beginner's Guide", Amy Achor,

Writeware Inc., Yellow

Springs, OH, $14.95. [1992]
"The PETA Guide to Action for Animals", PETA
(op. cit.), $4.00.
"The Extended Circle: A Commonplace Book of
Animal Rights", Wynne-Tyson
(Ed.). Provides hundreds of quotes and
short excepts from thinkers
throughout history. [1989]
"The Animal-Free Shopper", R. Farhall, R.
Lucas, and A. Rofe A. (Eds.),
The Vegan Society, 7 Battle Road, St.
Leonards on Sea, East Sussex,
TN37 7AA, UK. [1991]
"The Animal Welfare Handbook", C. Clough and B.
Kew, 4th Estate,
London, UK [1993]
Laboratory Animals and Product Testing
-------------------------------------"Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: A
Guide to Conscientious
Objection", Gary L. Francione and Anna E.
Charlton, AAVS (op. cit.),
$7.95. Legal citings, sample pleadings, and
letters.
"Animals in Education: The Facts, Issues and
Implications", Lisa Ann Hepner,
Richmond Publishers, Albuquerque NM. [1994]
"Entering the Gates of Hell: Laboratory Cruelty
You Were Not Meant to
See", Brian Gunn, AAVS (op. cit.), $10.00.
"Animal Experimentation: The Consensus
Changes", Gill Langley (Ed.),
MacMillan Publishers, London. Collection of
essays outlining the
change in morality. [1991]
"Slaughter of the Innocent", Hans Ruesch,
Civitas Publications, Swaine,
NY. [1983]
"Naked Empress: The Great Medical Fraud", Hans
Ruesch, CIVIS, Klosters,
Switzerland. Why vivisection is a major
cause of human disease. [1982]

"Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in

Research", Richard Ryder,
National Anti-Vivisection Society, Centaur
Press Publishers, Fontwell.
Classic denunciation of vivisection. [1983]
"The Cruel Deception: The Use of Animals in
Medical Research", Robert
Sharpe, Thorsons Publishers,
Wellingborough, UK. Detailed study of
the barbarity and uselessness of
vivisection. [1989]
"Free the Animals!", Ingrid Newkirk, PETA (op.
cit.), $14.00.
Story of the Animal Liberation Front in
America.
Periodicals
----------"Animals Magazine", 350 Huntington Ave.,
Boston, MA 02130.
"The Animals' Agenda", P.O. Box 6809, Syracuse,
NY 13217-9953.
"Animal People", P.O. Box 205, Shushan, NY
12873.
"The Animals' Voice", P.O. Box 341-347, Los
Angeles, CA 90034.
"Between the Species", P.O. Box 254, Berkeley,
CA 94701.
"Bunny Hugger's Gazette", P.O. Box 601, Temple,
TX 76503-0601.
Wildife
------"The Politics of Extinction", L. Regenstein,
Collier-Macmillan, London.
Classic denunciation of the wildlife
carnage. [1975]
"Wildlife and the Atom", L. Veal, London
Greenpeace, 5 Caledonian Road,
London N1 9DX, UK. The use of animals by
the nuclear industry. [1983]
SEE ALSO: #1, #94

----------------------#93 What organizations can I join to support

AR?
----------------------There are hundreds of AR-related
organizations scattered around the
globe. In addition, there are many vegetarian
and vegan groups. This
FAQ is already too long to list all of these
groups. This FAQ gives only
AR-related groups in the United States and the
United Kingdom. Later
editions of the FAQ may cover other countries.
For a full listing of
vegetarian and vegan groups worldwide, refer to
the excellent FAQs
maintained by Michael Traub (Internet address
traub@btcs.bt.co.uk).
The following data on US organizations comes
from the book "The Animal
Rights Handbook", Berkley Books, New York,
1993, ISBN 0-425-13762-7.
DG/AECW
------------UNITED STATES
------------Multi-Issue
----------Alliance for Animals, P.O. Box 909, Boston, MA
02103
American Humane Association, 63 Inverness Drive
East, Englewood,
CO 80112-5117
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals (ASPCA),
424 E. 92nd St., New York, NY 10128
Animal Allies, P.O. Box 35063, Los Angeles, CA
90035
Animal Liberation Network, P.O. Box 983, Hunt
Valley, MD 21030
Animal Protection Institute of America, P.O.
Box 22505, Sacramento,
CA 95822
Animal Rights Mobilization, P.O. Box 1553,
Williamsport, PA 17703

Animal Welfare Institute, P.O. Box 3650,

Washington, DC 20007
Citizens to End Animal Suffering and
Exploitation (CEASE), P.O. Box 27,
Cambridge, MA 02238
Defenders of Animals, P. O. Box 5634, Weybosset
Hill Station,
Providence, RI 02903, (401) 738-3710
Doris Day Animal League (DDAL), 227
Massachusetts Ave. NE, Suite 100,
Washington, DC 20002
Focus on Animals, P.O. Box 150, Trumbull, CT
06611
Friends of Animals, P.O. Box 1244, Norwalk, CT
06856
The Fund for Animals, 200 West 57th St., New
York, NY 10019
Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L
St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA), 501 Front Street,
Norfolk, VA 23510
World Society for the Protection of Animals, 29
Perkins St.,
P.O. Box 190, Boston, MA 02130
Companion Animals
----------------The Anti-Cruelty Society, 157 W. Grand Ave.,
Chicago, IL 60616
Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA),
350 S. Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02130
Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS),
15305 44th Ave. W,
P.O. Box 1037, Lynnwood, WA 98046
San Francisco Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (SFSPCA),
2500 16th St., San Francisco, CA 94103
Sports and Entertainment

-----------------------Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting, P.O. Box

44, Tomkins Cove, NY 10986
Performing Animal Welfare Society, 11435
Simmerhorn Rd., Galt, CA 95632
Farm Animals
-----------Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT), P.O. Box
14599, Chicago, IL 60614
Farm Animals Reform Movement (FARM), 10101
Ashburton Lane, Bethesda,
MD 20817
Farm Sanctuary, PO Box 150, Watkins Glen, NY
14891
Humane Farming Association, 1550 California
Street, Suite 6, San
Francisco, CA 94109
United Animal Defenders, Inc., P.O. Box 33086,
Cleveland, OH 44133
United Poultry Concerns, PO Box 59367, Potomac,
MD 20889
Laboratory Animals
-----------------Alternatives to Animals, P.O. Box 7177, San
Jose, CA 95150
American Anti-Vivisection Society, 801 Old York
Rd., Suite 204,
Jenkintown, PA 19046
In Defense of Animals, 21 Tamal Vista Blvd.,
No. 140, Corte Madera,
CA 94925
Last Chance for Animals, 18653 Venture Blvd.,
No. 356, Tarzana, CA 91356
National Anti-Vivisection Society, 53 W.Jackson
Blvd., Suite 1550,
Chicago, IL 60604
New England Anti-Vivisection Society, 333
Washinton St., Boston, MA 02135

Professional Organizations
-------------------------Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), 1363 Lincoln
Ave., San Raphael, CA 94901
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights,
15 Dutch St., Suite 500-A,
New York, NY 10038
National Association of Nurses Against
Vivisection, P.O. Box 42110,
Washington, DC 20015
Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine,
P.O. Box 6322, Washington,
DC 20015
Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, P.O. Box 1297,
Washington Grove, MD 20880-1297
Scientists Center for Animal Welfare, 4805 St.
Elmo Ave., Bethesda,
MD 20814
Scientists Group for Reform of Animal
Experimentation, 147-01 3rd Ave.,
Whitestone, NY 11357
Legislative Organizations
------------------------Committee for Humane Legislation, 30 Haviland,
South Norwalk, CT 06856
The National Alliance for Animal Legislation,
P.O. Box 75116,
Washington, DC 20013-5116
United Action for Animals, 205 E. 42nd St., New
York, NY 10017
Marine Life Preservation
-----------------------American Cetacean Society, P.O. Box 2639, San
Pedro, CA 90731
Center for Marine Conservation, 1725 DeSales
St., NW, Washington,
DC 20036

Greenpeace, P.O. Box 3720, 1436 U St., NW,

Washinton, DC 20007
Marine Mammal Fund, Fort Mason Center, Bldg. E,
San Francisco, CA 94123
Wildlife
-------Defenders of Wildlife, 1244 19th St., NW,
Washington, DC 20036
Earth Island Institute, 300 Broadway, Suite 28,
San Francisco, CA 94133
International Fund for Animal Welfare, P.O. Box
193, Yarmouth Port,
MA 02675
Rainforest Action Network, 301 Broadway, Suite
A, San Francisco, CA 94133
Wildlife Information Center, Inc., 629 Green
St., Allentown, PA 18102
Specific Animals
---------------American Horse Protection Association, 1000
29th St., NW, Suite T100,
Washington DC 20007
Bat Conservation International, P.O., Box
162603, Austin, TX 78716
The Beaver Defenders, Unexpected Wildlife
Refuge, Inc., Newfield,
NJ 08344
Friends of the Sea Otter, P.O. Box 221220,
Carmel, CA 93922
Greyhound Friends, 167 Saddle Hill Rd.,
Hopkinton, MA 01748
International Primate Protection League, P.O.
Box 766, Summerville,
SC 29484
Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation, P.O. Box
1896, Sacramento, CA 95809
Primarily Primates, P.O. Box 15306, San

Antonio, TX 78212
Save the Manatee Club, 500 N. Maitland Ave.,
Suite 210, Maitland, FL 32751
Special Interest
---------------Feminists for Animal Rights. P.O. Box 16425,
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
International Network for Religion and Animals,
P.O. Box 1335, North
Wales, PA 19454
Jews for Animal Rights, 255 Humphrey St.,
Marblehead, MA 01945
Student Action Corps for Animals (SACA), P.O.
Box 15588, Washington,
DC 20003-0588
-------------UNITED KINGDOM
-------------Animal Aid, 7 Castle Street, Tonbridge, Kent
TN9 1BH, UK
Animal Concern, 62 Old Dumbarton road, Glasgow
G3 8RE, UK
Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group, BM
1160, London WC1N 3XX, UK
Animal Research Kills, P.O. Box 82, Kingswood,
Bristol BS15 1YF, UK
Athene Trust, 5a Charles Street, Petersfield,
Hants GU32 3EH, UK
Beauty Without Cruelty, 57 King Henry's Walk,
London N1 4NH, UK
Blue Cross Field Centre, Home Close Farm,
Shilton Road, Burford,
Oxfordshire OX18 4PF, UK
Born Free Foundation, Cherry Tree Cottage,
Coldharbour, Dorking,
Surrey RH5 6HA, UK
British Hedgehog Preservation Society, Knowbury
House, Knowbury,

Ludlow, Shropshire SY8 3LQ, UK

British Trust For Ornithology, The Nunnery,
Nunnery Place, Thetford,
Norfolk IP24 2PU, UK
British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection,
16a Crane Grove,
Islington, London N7 8LB, UK
Campaign for the Abolition of Angling, P.O. Box
130, Sevenoaks,
Kent TN14 5NR, UK
Campaign for the Advancement of Ruesch's
Expose, 23 Dunster Gardens,
London NW6 7NG, UK
Campaign to End Fraudulent Medical Research,
P.O. Box 302, London N8 9HD, UK
Cat's Protection League, 17 King's Road,
Horsham, West Sussex RH13 5PN, UK
CIVIS, P.O. Box 338, London E8 2AL, UK
Disabled Against Animal Research and
Exploitation, P.O. Box 8, Daventry,
Northamptonshire NN11 4QR, UK
Donkey Sanctuary, Slade House Farm, Salcombe
Regis, Sidmouth,
Devon EX10 0NU
Dr. Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, 6c Brand
Street, Hitchin,
Hertfortshire SG5 1HX, UK
Earthkind, Humane Education Centre, Bounds
Green Road, London N22 4EU, UK
Elefriends, Cherry Tree Cottage, Coldharbour,
NR Dorking, Surrey RH5 6HA, UK
Environmental Investigation Agency, 2 Pear Tree
Court, London EC1R 0DS, UK
Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical
Experiments, Eastgate House,
34 Stoney Street, Nottingham NG1 1NB, UK
Green Party Animal Rights Working Party, 23
Highfield South, Rock Ferry,
Wirral L42 4NA, UK
Horses and Ponies Protection Association, Happa

House, 64 Station Road,

Padiham, N. Burnley, Lancashire BB12 8EF,
UK
Humane Research Trust, Brook House, 29 Bramhall
Lane South, Bramhall,
Stockport, Cheshire SK7 2DN, UK
Hunt Saboteurs Association, P.O. Box 1,
Carlton, Nottingham NG4 2JY, UK
International Association Against Painful
Experiments on Animals,
P.O. Box 215, St Albans, Herts AL3 4PU, UK
International Primate Protection League, 116
Judd Street, London WC1H 9NS, UK
League Against Cruel Sports, 83-87 Union
Street, London SE1 1SG, UK
International League of Doctors for the
Abolition of Vivisection,
UK Office, Lynmouth, Devon EX35 6EE, UK
National Anti-Vivisection Society, Ravenside,
261 Goldhawk Road,
London W12 9PE, UK
National Canine Defence League, 1 Pratt Mews,
London NW1 0AD, UK
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
P.O. Box 3169,
London NW6 2QF, UK
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The
Lodge, Sandy,
Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, UK
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, Causeway,
Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1HG, UK
Student Campaign For Animal Rights, P.O. Box
155, Manchester M60 1FT, UK
Teachers For Animal Rights, 29 Lynwood Road.
London SW17 8SB, UK
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, 19A
James Street, Bath,
Avon BA1 2BT, UK
Zoocheck, Cherry Tree Cottage, Coldharbour,
Dorking, Surrey CR0 2TF, UK

----------------------#94 Can you give a brief Who's Who of the AR

movement?
----------------------TOM REGAN -- Professor of Philosophy at North
Carolina State University.
His book "The Case For Animal Rights" is
arguably the single best recent
work on animal rights. It is a demanding text
but one that is well worth
the effort to read and study carefully.
Everybody that is seriously
interested in the issues should read this
rigorously argued case for AR.
It starts with some core concepts of inherent
value theory, the same
concepts that played an important and
significant role in the progress of
human civil liberties since the 17th century
and which began to be
extended to nonhumans during the 19th century.
The notion of inherent
value continues to be vital and important for
progress in both human and
animal rights. A less demanding but still
informative book by Regan is
"The Struggle for Animal Rights". One might
wish to first read this book
before tackling Regan's more difficult text.
PETER SINGER -- Professor of Philosophy at
Monash University, Melbourne.
Singer is best known for his book "Animal
Liberation", probably the most
widely read book on AR philosophy. Singer,
unlike Regan, is not an
abolitionist as many people incorrectly
surmise. His utilitarian position
allows for the possibility or necessity of
killing animals under certain
circumstances. What is often lost sight of is
that the obvious and patent
abuses of animals covers so much ground that
both Regan and Singer share
common views on far more issues than those on
which they differ. Other
important books by Singer include "In Defense
of Animals" and "Animal
Factories".
MARY MIDGLEY -- Senior Lecturer of Philosophy
at the University of
Newcastle.
Midgley's book "Beast and Man" has not been

given the attention that it

deserves. She deals with the contemporary facts
of biology and ethology
head-on to provide an ethical argument for the
respectful treatment of
animals that takes seriously scientific
discoveries and thoughts about
animals. The "Humean fork" (or so-called
logical divide) between facts and
values is here carefully crossed by observing
that we are foremost
"animals" ourselves and that the similarities
between ourselves and other
animals is more important and relevant for our
ethics and
self-understanding than are the often overinflated differences.
CAROL ADAMS -- Author.
Adams' book "The Sexual Politics of Meat" has
made a valuable contribution
in combining cultural and ethical analysis by
pointing out the political
implications of the metaphors we unthinkingly
employ. The primary
metaphors she analyses in her book relate to
meat. Such metaphors have
been applied to women, but the most insidious
aspect of the metaphors is
the way that they hide the life that is killed
to produce meat. Instead of
"cow", we have "beef" on our plates. Adams
argues that the system that
kills animals is the same system that oppresses
women; hence, there is an
important and striking connection between
vegetarianism and feminism.
RICHARD RYDER -- Senior Clinical Psychologist
at Warneford Hospital,
Oxford.
Ryder is the originator of the key term
"speciesism". Ryder's book
"Animal Revolution" provides both an historical
perspective and a
critical analysis of animal welfare and
attitudes towards animals.
HENRY SALT -- 1851-1939.
Salt was a remarkable social reformer who
championed the humane reform of
schools, prisons, society, and our treatment of
animals. He also exerted a
critical and important influence upon Gandhi.
His book "Animals' Rights"
was the first to use that title and therein he

gives voice to almost all

of the essential arguments for AR that we see
being advanced and refined
today. The book provides an excellent biography
of earlier European
writers on animal issues during the 18th and
19th centuries.
VICTORIA MORAN -- Author.
Moran's book "Compassion the Ultimate Ethic"
makes a fine contribution
regarding the less discursive but perhaps more
fundamental intuitive basis
for animal rights.
MARJORIE SPIEGEL -- Author.
Spiegel's book "The Dreaded Comparison" is a
slim but courageous volume
comparing the treatment of African-American
slaves and the treatment of
nonhuman animals. In text and pictures, Spiegel
discloses remarkable
similarities between the two systems. A picture
of slaves packed into
a slave ship is matched with a photograph of
battery hens. A picture
of a woman in a muzzle is paired with a picture
of a dog in a muzzle.
The parallels are striking and revealing. Few
other writers have been
as open or as unequivocal as Spiegel in
likening cruelty to animals to
traffic in human beings.
TA
It is hard to keep a Who's-Who list at a
reasonable length. Here are
a few other prominent people:
STEPHEN R. L. CLARK -- Professor of Philosophy
at Liverpool University.
MICHAEL W. FOX -- Vice President of Humane
Society of the US, nationally
known veterinarian, and AR
activist.
RONNIE LEE -- Founder of the Animal Liberation
Front (ALF).
JIM MASON -- Attorney and journalist.
INGRID NEWKIRK -- Co-founder of People for the
Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA); prominent
activist.
ALEX PACHECO -- Co-founder of PETA; exposer of
the Silver Spring monkeys
abuses.
"VALERIE" -- Founder of ALF in the United

States.
DG
----------------------#95 What can I do in my daily life to help
animals?
----------------------Indeed, the buck must first stop here in our
own daily lives with the
elimination or reduction of actions that
contribute to the abuse and
exploitation of animals.
Probably the single most important thing you
can do to save animals,
help the ecology of the planet, and even
improve your own health, is to
BECOME A VEGETARIAN. It is said that "we are
what we eat". More
accurately, "we are what we do" and what we do
in order to eat has a
profound consequence on our self-definition as
a compassionate person. As
long as we eat meat, we share complicity in the
intentional slaughter of
countless animals and destruction of the
environment for clearly trivial
purposes.
Why trivial? No human has died from want of
satisfying a so-called "Mac
Attack", but countless cows have died in order
to satisfy our palates.
On a more positive note, vegetarians report
that one's taste and enjoyment
of food is actually enhanced by eliminating
animal products. Indeed, a
vegetarian diet is not a diet of deprivation;
far from it. Vegetarians
actually eat a GREATER variety of foods than do
meat-eaters. Maybe the
best kept culinary secret is that the really
"boring" diet actually turns
out to be the traditional meat-centered diet.
Next, STOP BUYING ANIMAL PRODUCTS LIKE FUR OR
LEATHER. There are plenty
of good plant and synthetic materials that
serve as excellent materials
for fabrics and shoes. Indeed, all the major
brands of high-quality
running shoes are now turning to the use of
human-made materials. (Why?
Because they are lighter than leather and don't
warp or get stiff after
getting wet.)
There are many less obvious animal products

that are being used in many

of our everyday household and personal
products. After first attending to
those obvious and most visible products like
leather and fur, then
consider what you can do to reduce or eliminate
your dependency on
products that may contain needless animal
ingredients or were brought to
market using animal testing. Two very good
product guides are:
Shopping Guide for the Caring Consumer,
PETA, 1994.
A Shopper's Guide to Cruelty-Free Products,
Lori Cook, 1991.
Then GET INFORMED AND READ AS MUCH AS YOU CAN
ON THE ISSUE OF ANIMAL
RIGHTS. Besides reading about animal rights
from the major theorists,
also read practical guides and periodicals.
Question #92 lists many
appropriate books and periodicals.
Finally, you can GET INVOLVED IN A LOCAL
ANIMAL RIGHTS OR ANIMAL WELFARE
ORGANIZATION. Alternatively, if you lack the
time, consider giving
donations to those organizations whose good
work on behalf of
animals is something you appreciate and wish to
materially support.
TA
SEE ALSO: #87, #92-#93
---------FINALLY...
-------------------------------#96 I have read this FAQ and I am not
convinced. Humans are humans,
animals are animals; is it so difficult to
see that?
----------------------This FAQ cannot reflect the full variety of
paths which have led people
to support the concept of Animal Rights. A more
complete compilation would
include, for instance, religious arguments. For
example, some Eastern
religions stress the importance of the duties
of humans toward animals. A

Christian case for Animal Rights has been

presented. Also, legal arguments
have been put forward, by some barristers in
the UK, for instance.
Still, some people may remain skeptical about
the viability of all of these
other approaches as well. For those people,
here is a short quiz:
What
What
What
What
What
mentally
What
humans?

is wrong
is wrong
is wrong
is wrong
is wrong
ill?
is wrong

with
with
with
with
with

cannibalism?
slavery?
racial prejudice?
sexual discrimination?
killing children or the

with the Nazi experiments on

Animal Rights proponents can reply instantly

and consistently. Can you?
Do your answers involve qualities that, if you
are objective about it, can
be seen to apply to animals? For example, were
the Nazi experiments wrong
because the subjects were human, or because the
subjects were harmed???
AECW
It is not difficult to see that humans are
humans and animals are animals.
What is difficult to see is how this amounts to
anything more than an empty
tautology! If there are relevant differences
that justify differences in
treatment, then let's hear them. AR opponents
have consistently failed to
support the differences in treatment of humans
versus animals with relevant
differences in capacities.
Yes, an animal is an animal, but it can still
suffer terribly from our
brutality and lack of compassion.
DG
I am in favor of animal rights as well as
human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being.
Abraham Lincoln
(16th U.S. President)
[The day should come when] all of the forms
of life...will stand before the
court--the pileated woodpecker as well as the
coyote and bear, the lemmings
as well as the trout in the streams.
William O.

Douglas (late U.S. Supreme Court

Justice)
HOME
animal-rights.com

http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

https://books.google.co.in/books?
id=TmlcHR9ahZoC&pg=PR14&lpg=PR14&dq=solution+between+animal+rights+a
nd+public+morality&source=bl&ots=DspsJNiZv8&sig=5AGxluUMna_cRmiRPD743T
D7sv0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibzK6NlrbLAhXLGI4KHXlSDnUQ6AEISDAH#v=o
nepage&q=solution%20between%20animal%20rights%20and%20public
%20morality&f=false