Have Animal Rights gone too far?
When issues of “rights” come up, one has to realize that we’re dealing with a metaphysical issue. If one looks at animals in the wild, you’re dealing with a state of nature that is more to the thinking of a philosopher like Hobbes than one like Rousseau. An animal’s right to life, liberty and well, the pursuit of furthering its own genetic code, extend only as far as the animal’s ability to keep itself alive and reproductively viable. Disease, predators, sudden changes of environment, are all easy ways of making an animal’s life nasty, brutish, and short.
Of course, without a reasoning mind to create the idea of rights in the first place, those rights don’t really exist. In the natural world, cruelty itself is a nonentity. Things either are, or they aren’t. It is our human capacity to both empathize and reason that allow the concepts of rights and cruelty to exist. Animal rights activists say that using animals as test subjects in medical experiments is cruel. Well, I’ve seen footage on Animal Planet of a pack of wolves taking down an elk and eating it while it’s still alive. Why does that not fit the definition of cruel? It doesn’t because the wolves are simply doing as they need to: they hunt, kill and feed to provide for themselves, their pack, and their young. We do not pass judgment upon them because they are doing what comes naturally, and they cannot transcend their nature.
One could argue the same for the human species. We, like the wolves, are social animals. Our natural state is living together in communities. On the whole, we appreciate having the community stable and all its members healthy. Medical experimentation is within our abilities, and it is done, generally, for the good of the human community as a whole. Thus said, we are, like the wolves, keeping with our natures. So long as testing is done as humanely as possible, I see no problem with it. You can’t put medical testing in the same league as a person beating a pet or a work animal, or a delinquent tying burning rags to a cat’s tail. Intent and purpose must be factored into the equation.
Organizations like PETA don’t seem to take into account the various factors of human and animal interaction, nor the effects of abolishing such systems of interaction. If we were to universally the eating of meat, or the use of animal products in manufacturing, do they really understand the repercussions? Ranching and animal farming are linchpins in economic frameworks, never mind answering the question of what to do with all the animals currently in existence. You can’t simply free them to do as they will. What of the environmental repercussions? Euthanize them all? Then you’ve taken away their supposed right to life, and that leaves the question of what do with the remains.
While I do believe that animals should have all the humane treatment that can possibly be provided for them in any particular circumstance, I don’t see where putting all animals on even footing with humans is possible, or even wanted. Yes, I love my dog more than most people, but all dogs? No. My own needs, those of my family and friends, and of the human community in general, will take precedence over those of animals in most if not all situations. That’s just natural inclination. I recall hearing that one of the higher ranking members of PETA is diabetic. Considering that insulin was produced in pigs before they developed the technology to synthesize it, I’d say that her continued existence to fight for the rights of animals tends to support my view.
Related Articles
- An International Holiday Celebration « Follow Me to Delhi
- Animal rights activists 'behind farm arson attack' (Daily …
- News :Britney Spears – Jamie Lynn Spears' Bridesmaid ??? | News 10
- Save the Animals, Save the Planet: Blog Action Day '09, Climate …
- Morehouse College Bioethics
Leave a Comment