Animals on the other hand cannot think about their actions in great depth and rely upon instinct to direct them. This is ironic because we are moral beings and can think about our actions, yet we kill and mistreat animals as they are lesser beings and can’t think about their actions. However, before we can answer the question of whether or not animals have the right to kill each other, we must ask whether or not they even have rights.
It can be argued that, as greater beings, we should take responsibility for the wellbeing of those species that are less developed than us, rather than using our power to manipulate and exploit them. According to Rawls’s contractualism, animals are not rational agents and humans are. This implies that, as humans are the ones who have created the concept of rights, they should only apply to humans. However, Peter Carruthers extends this theory so that it defends the rights of animals. He suggests that a rational agent could enter into a contract for an animal, representing their interests in ‘the formulation of the basic contract’. There are also some human beings who cannot speak for themselves or question their actions, for example, fetuses, infants, the comatose, the senile and the severely retarded. These people are still assigned rights despite the fact that they are not moral agents. They may make the same simple instinctive decisions as animals, yet are given rights based upon their species. It can be argued that a human in one of the aforementioned states may be valued by another, regardless of their mental state, but what if nobody values a certain person? Do they still have rights and is this still only because they are human?
It can be said that domestic animals are cared about by their “owners”. The owners will strive to protect their pet’s life and will treat it as if it has rights. However, the owner may feel that it is perfectly acceptable to take their beloved dog out for a good old-fashioned foxhunt, as the unfamiliar fox has no rights. Does this mean that animals are only assigned rights when they enter the affections of a human being?
I believe that every animal has the potential to become valued by a human but those who are more practical to live with are given an unfair advantage due to their convenient size, their diet and their cuteness. Some animals are obviously far more intelligent than others, but do they deserve rights to a greater degree than the lesser intelligent non-human beings? Jeremy Bentham was one of the first philosophers to treat this subject seriously, claiming that "a horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month old." He strongly believed that animals should be free from the oppression of mankind and is known to have said:
"The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny."
Although this is proof that arguments for animal rights are not just the product of modern political correctness and have been a concern since the 17th century, Bentham only mentions dogs and horses, animals which are owned by many, and are therefore given rights and protection, and are useful to mankind.
It is very difficult to argue for animal rights when millions of animals are bred every year, purely to be eaten. One can even argue that without animals being bred for a pre-destined purpose, various species could be extinct, such as the wild bull in Mexico, which is bred for two to four years for only the fifteen minutes he will spend in the bullring. I believe that it is better for the bull to have some kind of a life rather than being wiped off of the face of the earth. These bulls are bred in luxurious conditions spending their first year without human contact, but the same cannot be said about animals produced for food. We all know the conditions in which battery hens are kept, a cage with hardly any room to move, with a slanted floor so eggs can roll down, which causes deformation of the feet. The pain of this causes the bird to become violent and so its beak is burned off to prevent it from doing damage to itself or any other birds. When this is done to a chick, there is a 60% chance that it will die in the process. We also hear about the animals which are tested on for the development of products destined for our consumption. If a frog is used in an experiment isn’t it better than a playful cat killing one just for the fun of it, because although it can be argued that animals need to kill each other to survive, some do it for the sheer pleasure of exerting their power. For example, killer whales will juggle with the corpses of sea lions long after they are dead. Perhaps if an animal is caught doing such a thing, it should be punished, but how can an animal know the difference between right and wrong when it has no capacity for moral understanding. The cat could never respect the life of the frog and it is unlikely that the family of the frog will either. Therefore punishment would be pointless. However punishing a human would be feasible because a human should know the immorality of what s/he is doing. But we cannot be punished for accidentally killing creatures, such as ants, when we walk down the road and even when talking about the birds and small mammals that are killed as a result of agricultural development. However, when we talk about dolphins being caught in tuna nets, some people argue that this is unacceptable and drastic measures must be taken to prevent this. Could this be because of how cute and entertaining dolphins can be? Perhaps it’s a matter of the intelligence of a dolphin. Maybe the best way to assign rights to animals is based upon the general intelligence of the species. As humans we are far more intelligent, as a species, than any other life form and therefore rights are most important to us. Our right to kill animals for food must be upheld in order to keep us strong and to feed our Olympic athletes and soldiers. There’s no denying that a lot of people find meat to be delicious and it has become a very important part of their diet. Although one can argue that it isn’t worth an animal dying for us to enjoy the taste of meat, I would argue that it isn’t worth me being deprived of meat so that one sheep, in a field of identical drones, completely lacking in personality and individuality, can live. Therefore I can conclude that animals have a certain kind of right, the right not to suffer. This is the only right I see fit to give to an animal because clearly feel pain and show signs of irritation. Therefore, when animals kill each other they are not violating each others rights as they are simply and innocently carrying out a natural function.
Bibliography
Carruthers. P, The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice (1992), chpt. 5, - Cambridge University Press
Rollin. B.E, Animal Rights and Human Morality (1981) – An essay on animal rights and human morality
Wellman. C, Alleged Right-Holders (chpt. 5) in Real Rights (1995) – Oxford University Press Inc, USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights - An overview of the arguments surrounding animal rights
