The term "animal rights" has become commonplace in Israel in recent years, almost a consensual term. This is a strange fact in a society composed mostly of animal eaters; and indeed, despite the widespread use of the term, it is mainly used to mean "prevention of cruelty to animals." It is important to recall, therefore, the context in which the term "animal rights" originated and the implications of the idea that animals have rights.
The modern animal rights movement draws its vocabulary as well as its ideas from struggles for human rights. It appropriated terms such as "liberation," "rights" and "abolition", a term originally coined by the anti-slavery movement and later adopted by societies opposing vivisection (experiments on animals). The linguistic choice emphasizes the place that the movement wishes to hold for itself: as a sister movement to the women's liberation movement, the civil rights movement and social justice movements for the rights of children, people with disabilities,gays and lesbians, and everyone affected by oppression.
"All animals are equal," says the headline of the first chapter in "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer. The notion of equal rights is fundamental to movements for human rights. Equal rights do not depend on the possession of identical characteristics. Furthermore, equal rights do not mean identical rights. Equality demands that each and every individual be allowed to pursue happiness according to his or her unique needs and desires. When we talk about equal rights, we mean that everyone's similar interests are equally important. Color, gender, country of residence or origin, faith, sexual orientation, age, level of intelligence-none of these is a legitimate basis for discrimination. Equal rights do not mean identical rights: We would perceive involuntary unemployment as a violation of the rights of an adult, while child labor is unacceptable because it violates children's rights. We determine the rights of each individual through consideration of his or her specific needs.In many cases, belonging to a certain biological species will influence the scope and content of one's rights. Human beings, for instance, are entitled to participate in political life by taking part in elections. Rats have no such need, yet they are entitled to live within a social group comprising members of their own species. (In certain psychological experiments, abnormal aggression has been induced in rats by isolating them from other rats for several days.) We relate too often only to the most basic physical needs of nonhuman animals, as if they could only suffer physical pain. Yet animals, just like human beings, also have social and emotional needs. It may be easier to meet a pig's needs games and environmental stimulation than those of a human child, but the the corresponding needs of these two beings-and the rights that go along with them-are equally important.
The equality principle obligates us to grant similar weight to the similar interests of animals from other species. The physical differences between the species Homo sapiens and other species of animals are no less morally irrelevant than those among different races of human beings. Different levels of intelligence, linguistic abilities or other skills cannot justify discrimination either, unless these considerations are relevant. Within the human species, we reject the idea that such distinctions determine rights-that is why no one would think of eating severely mentally challenged children for lunch. Furthermore, such distinctions do not mark the supposed boundary between the human race and other species. The intelligence of many dolphins, chimps, pigs and cats, for instance, surpasses that of some babies and brain-injured or mentally challenged people. If accept the use of these animals in painful experiments and justify the practice by pointing to their "low" level of intelligence, we also have to accept similar experiments on babies or brain-injured people. Such a conclusion, of course, is morally repugnant; logically, we must reject all experiments on non-consenting subjects. Limiting our moral consideration to the members of one nation, one species or to those with certain attributes is, therefore, arbitrary. If the objective of our ethical system is the prevention of oppression and suffering, it should apply to any creature who can suffer or be oppressed. Nonhuman animals may differ from us in many ways, yet their pain and suffering are no different from ours. Our moral duty is to avoid causing them pain and suffering, just as that is our moral duty toward other human beings.
The animal rights movement regards the oppression of animals as a type of racism. Human beings treat nonhuman animals in ways they would never treat other people because of speciesism-an ideology based on favoritism. Speciesists value human beings above all other animals, just as white supremacists value those they perceive as "their own kind" and grant priority to the interests of white people.
Terms such as "prevention of cruelty to animals" or "abuse prevention" do not express an adequate understanding of the ideological basis of animal oppression. Similarly, these terms lack the strength of the word "rights." Claiming rights is nothing like begging for mercy: Rights grant special status to a being where ethical matters are concerned. Human rights, and those of other animals, affirm the supreme importance of each and every individual.
Any creature who can suffer or be happy is a unique, subjective being, an entire world. It's impossible to determine the most ethical course of action in a given situation by means of mathematical calculations-attempting to weigh the suffering of some beings against the benefits projected for others. Any such attempts are meaningless and dangerous. The fundamental rights of individuals are paramount, and they cannot be violated in the name of the "public interest"-to claim that animals have rights, therefore, means their rights cannot be sacrificed for the sake of human interests. While there are situations when the rights of more than one being genuinely come into conflict, the institutionalized exploitation of animals is an area where humans have no basic rights at stake. On the other hand, animals' basic rights-such as the rights not to be tortured, enslaved and murdered-are grievously violated every day in the meat, dairy, fur and vivisection industries, to name only a few.
Taking animal rights seriously involves profound lifestyle changes. We cannot hold a serious discussion about animal rights while chewing the rotting corpses of chickens who never saw their mothers and were raised in dark, crowded barns. Taking animal rights seriously also means putting an end to widespread practices such as animal experimentation, hunting, killing animals for fur, using animals for entertainment (in circuses, zoos, rodeo shows, motion pictures, etc.) and all other forms of animal exploitation.
The world we live in is a speciesist world, just as it is still afflicted with male chauvinism, racism and countless other types of oppression and discrimination. The sources of human and animal oppression are similar, as are the methods. The urge to accumulate money and maximize profits is usually the motive behind both kinds of exploitation, but only a fraction of the Earth's human population actually reaps the benefits-mostly an affluent white elite men in Western countries. On the other hand, there is almost nobody who is not involved in exploitation in one way or another, usually by consuming products the manufacture of which entails cruel exploitation, and which we do not really need.
The struggle for animal rights is a part of a general social struggle for a better, fairer world, not only on an ideological level, but at the most practical level as well. The meat industry, for instance, is wasting the Earth's resources in order to provide North Americans' cholesterol-laden diet at the expense of Third World countries, which deforest their woods and raise herds of cattle instead of manufacturing food for their own citizens. Animal experiments provide a living for a well-established class of research workers, while the public health care system remains neglected. Animals and human beings alike are measured only according to their economic market value-according to the benefit that the giant corporations of the global economy can derive from them. In both cases, the victims' inherent value as individuals is obliterated. Nonhuman animals are the largest oppressed group on Earth and the one whose oppression entails the most extreme levels of cruelty. Such a perspective may be discouraging: The injustice is so great, the forces behind it are so powerful, and total restoration of justice seems beyond our reach. Yet this perspective also arouses hope. Though slavery has not entirely ceased to exist, it is prohibited in most countries. Life in South Africa is far from being optimal, but apartheid has been abolished.
Child labor is still commonplace in the Third world, yet it is nearly nonexistent in Western Europe. Blacks in the southern United States can register to vote without fearing for their lives, and women enjoy social mobility, something they never had before. These changes did not occur by themselves. They were achieved over many generations through the efforts of the victims, and they required many sacrifices. It is likely that we will not live to see the entire human race switch to vegetarianism in our lifetime. Yet, with the proper effort and enough time, we can eliminate the force-feeding of geese and the battery cage system for hens, minimize animal experimentation and drive the fur industry to financial ruin.
The individual decision to stop eating meat can help each one of us save about 4,000 animals, according to the average per capita consumption rate in Israel. These achievements have great significance when speaking in terms of "animal rights," because one of the implications of the term "rights" is that each individual is important, and anyone saving one living being has saved an entire world.
The modern animal rights movement draws its vocabulary as well as its ideas from struggles for human rights. It appropriated terms such as "liberation," "rights" and "abolition", a term originally coined by the anti-slavery movement and later adopted by societies opposing vivisection (experiments on animals). The linguistic choice emphasizes the place that the movement wishes to hold for itself: as a sister movement to the women's liberation movement, the civil rights movement and social justice movements for the rights of children, people with disabilities,gays and lesbians, and everyone affected by oppression.
"All animals are equal," says the headline of the first chapter in "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer. The notion of equal rights is fundamental to movements for human rights. Equal rights do not depend on the possession of identical characteristics. Furthermore, equal rights do not mean identical rights. Equality demands that each and every individual be allowed to pursue happiness according to his or her unique needs and desires. When we talk about equal rights, we mean that everyone's similar interests are equally important. Color, gender, country of residence or origin, faith, sexual orientation, age, level of intelligence-none of these is a legitimate basis for discrimination. Equal rights do not mean identical rights: We would perceive involuntary unemployment as a violation of the rights of an adult, while child labor is unacceptable because it violates children's rights. We determine the rights of each individual through consideration of his or her specific needs.In many cases, belonging to a certain biological species will influence the scope and content of one's rights. Human beings, for instance, are entitled to participate in political life by taking part in elections. Rats have no such need, yet they are entitled to live within a social group comprising members of their own species. (In certain psychological experiments, abnormal aggression has been induced in rats by isolating them from other rats for several days.) We relate too often only to the most basic physical needs of nonhuman animals, as if they could only suffer physical pain. Yet animals, just like human beings, also have social and emotional needs. It may be easier to meet a pig's needs games and environmental stimulation than those of a human child, but the the corresponding needs of these two beings-and the rights that go along with them-are equally important.
The equality principle obligates us to grant similar weight to the similar interests of animals from other species. The physical differences between the species Homo sapiens and other species of animals are no less morally irrelevant than those among different races of human beings. Different levels of intelligence, linguistic abilities or other skills cannot justify discrimination either, unless these considerations are relevant. Within the human species, we reject the idea that such distinctions determine rights-that is why no one would think of eating severely mentally challenged children for lunch. Furthermore, such distinctions do not mark the supposed boundary between the human race and other species. The intelligence of many dolphins, chimps, pigs and cats, for instance, surpasses that of some babies and brain-injured or mentally challenged people. If accept the use of these animals in painful experiments and justify the practice by pointing to their "low" level of intelligence, we also have to accept similar experiments on babies or brain-injured people. Such a conclusion, of course, is morally repugnant; logically, we must reject all experiments on non-consenting subjects. Limiting our moral consideration to the members of one nation, one species or to those with certain attributes is, therefore, arbitrary. If the objective of our ethical system is the prevention of oppression and suffering, it should apply to any creature who can suffer or be oppressed. Nonhuman animals may differ from us in many ways, yet their pain and suffering are no different from ours. Our moral duty is to avoid causing them pain and suffering, just as that is our moral duty toward other human beings.
The animal rights movement regards the oppression of animals as a type of racism. Human beings treat nonhuman animals in ways they would never treat other people because of speciesism-an ideology based on favoritism. Speciesists value human beings above all other animals, just as white supremacists value those they perceive as "their own kind" and grant priority to the interests of white people.
Terms such as "prevention of cruelty to animals" or "abuse prevention" do not express an adequate understanding of the ideological basis of animal oppression. Similarly, these terms lack the strength of the word "rights." Claiming rights is nothing like begging for mercy: Rights grant special status to a being where ethical matters are concerned. Human rights, and those of other animals, affirm the supreme importance of each and every individual.
Any creature who can suffer or be happy is a unique, subjective being, an entire world. It's impossible to determine the most ethical course of action in a given situation by means of mathematical calculations-attempting to weigh the suffering of some beings against the benefits projected for others. Any such attempts are meaningless and dangerous. The fundamental rights of individuals are paramount, and they cannot be violated in the name of the "public interest"-to claim that animals have rights, therefore, means their rights cannot be sacrificed for the sake of human interests. While there are situations when the rights of more than one being genuinely come into conflict, the institutionalized exploitation of animals is an area where humans have no basic rights at stake. On the other hand, animals' basic rights-such as the rights not to be tortured, enslaved and murdered-are grievously violated every day in the meat, dairy, fur and vivisection industries, to name only a few.
Taking animal rights seriously involves profound lifestyle changes. We cannot hold a serious discussion about animal rights while chewing the rotting corpses of chickens who never saw their mothers and were raised in dark, crowded barns. Taking animal rights seriously also means putting an end to widespread practices such as animal experimentation, hunting, killing animals for fur, using animals for entertainment (in circuses, zoos, rodeo shows, motion pictures, etc.) and all other forms of animal exploitation.
The world we live in is a speciesist world, just as it is still afflicted with male chauvinism, racism and countless other types of oppression and discrimination. The sources of human and animal oppression are similar, as are the methods. The urge to accumulate money and maximize profits is usually the motive behind both kinds of exploitation, but only a fraction of the Earth's human population actually reaps the benefits-mostly an affluent white elite men in Western countries. On the other hand, there is almost nobody who is not involved in exploitation in one way or another, usually by consuming products the manufacture of which entails cruel exploitation, and which we do not really need.
The struggle for animal rights is a part of a general social struggle for a better, fairer world, not only on an ideological level, but at the most practical level as well. The meat industry, for instance, is wasting the Earth's resources in order to provide North Americans' cholesterol-laden diet at the expense of Third World countries, which deforest their woods and raise herds of cattle instead of manufacturing food for their own citizens. Animal experiments provide a living for a well-established class of research workers, while the public health care system remains neglected. Animals and human beings alike are measured only according to their economic market value-according to the benefit that the giant corporations of the global economy can derive from them. In both cases, the victims' inherent value as individuals is obliterated. Nonhuman animals are the largest oppressed group on Earth and the one whose oppression entails the most extreme levels of cruelty. Such a perspective may be discouraging: The injustice is so great, the forces behind it are so powerful, and total restoration of justice seems beyond our reach. Yet this perspective also arouses hope. Though slavery has not entirely ceased to exist, it is prohibited in most countries. Life in South Africa is far from being optimal, but apartheid has been abolished.
Child labor is still commonplace in the Third world, yet it is nearly nonexistent in Western Europe. Blacks in the southern United States can register to vote without fearing for their lives, and women enjoy social mobility, something they never had before. These changes did not occur by themselves. They were achieved over many generations through the efforts of the victims, and they required many sacrifices. It is likely that we will not live to see the entire human race switch to vegetarianism in our lifetime. Yet, with the proper effort and enough time, we can eliminate the force-feeding of geese and the battery cage system for hens, minimize animal experimentation and drive the fur industry to financial ruin.
The individual decision to stop eating meat can help each one of us save about 4,000 animals, according to the average per capita consumption rate in Israel. These achievements have great significance when speaking in terms of "animal rights," because one of the implications of the term "rights" is that each individual is important, and anyone saving one living being has saved an entire world.
