Humans and animals have always had
a relationship of some sort with one another. It began as hunting each other, evolved
with the start of domestication, and has evolved even further with animals
being used and even manufactured for human purposes like factory farming or lab
animals. Our relationship with animals has evolved greatly since we first began
to interact with them, and laws regarding the protection of animals were
eventually put into place. However, some people feel that animals should be
given more rights than they are currently allotted by law. Our relationship with
animals is very complex due to the fact that we do not view them all equally to
one another or ourselves, and therefore we can not necessarily give the same
rights to every species of animal or the same rights to animals that we give to
humans, although animals could be better protected in some situations.
One of the first topics covered in
Bisgould’s TED talk is the idea of animal suffering. She states that laws that
condemn unnecessary animal suffering sound impressive, but they really do
nothing to protect animals. They create the idea that some suffering is
necessary and if we deem it to be so, it is. I only partially agree with the
statement that these laws don’t actually help. One thing that Bisgould seems to
condemn is the idea of factory farming, and she implies that animals raised in
that kind of environment are not protected by laws that prevent unnecessary
animal suffering because they live their whole lives in confinement, and that injuries and illness are the norm. However, I
have learned in previous classes that most factory farm environments provide
adequate vet care to their animals when needed, provide them with well-balanced
diets and water, and keep them in the safest possible environment for that
number of animals. Free range farming, which Bisgould seems to be more in favor
of, exposes animals to more chances to become ill, injure one another, and be
attacked by predators. Factory farming is closely regulated by the
aforementioned laws, and makes sure that the vast majority of farms are the
best possible environment for the animals living there. However, when it

comes
to topics like the testing of cosmetics on animals, I don’t necessarily believe
that these same laws do anything to protect the animals involved. We have made
enough advances in science that testing cosmetics on animals is no longer
required and many companies no longer do it. Those that still do test on
animals use the guise of “necessary suffering” when it truly is unnecessary.
Human consumption of meat and other animal products is and will most likely continue
to be the widely accepted norm, but testing of cosmetics on animals doesn’t
have to continue at all. We can’t necessarily apply the same guidelines and to
every situation because we interact with animals in many different ways.
The overarching topic that Lesli
Bisgould covers in her TED Talk about our relationship with animals is the
property status of animals under the law. The idea was put into place sometime
around the 1700s that animals should be treated the same way that an inanimate
object that is owned by a person should be treated under the law. At this time,
Immanuel Kant was spreading the idea that animals can feel pain but are not
conscious beings, and that they should be treated well by humans because
cruelty to animals leads to cruelty to other humans. Since this time, our view
of animals has changed greatly. We now know that they are not only able to feel
pain, but many animals have some level of intelligence and can maybe even feel
emotion. For example, rats have been shown to help their peers out of
confinement when given the opportunity, and crows can solve complex puzzles to
get food and even appear to mourn their dead. Bisgould suggests that because we
now understand that animals are conscious beings, many with some degree of
emotion, we should consider changing their status from property to legal person
under the law. While I agree that animals should be treated humanely, I believe
that they deserve their own category under the law that is neither legal person
nor property because they are neither humans nor inanimate objects. Animals
deserve to be upgraded from their status as property now that we understand
more about them, but considering them legal persons would be too complicated
and grant them too many unnecessary rights. As it is stated in the animal
ethics reading, women and men both have the right to vote because they are
equally capable of making rational decisions. A dog is not capable of this sort
of rational thought, and does not need that right. I agree with the direct but
unequal philosophy that animals deserve some rights but not more than humans.
Bisgould seems to be under the
impression that humans in general practice extreme speciesism and want to keep
the property status of animals so that we can do whatever we wish to them. I do
not necessarily agree with this, but I do agree that there are many situations
in which animals deserve more than property status under the law now that they
are widely recognized as sentient beings. Speciesism is also a concept that is
largely used by extreme animal rights activists and is at least partially
justified in my opinion. Animals are not as intelligent as humans and do not
deserve exactly the same rights, but they do all deserve to be treated as
humanely as possible for the situation they are in, be it a farming facility, a
lab, or a household. It is not possible to treat animals in such different
situations exactly the same, but I ultimately agree with the concept of equal
consideration based on sentience. The fact that animals can feel pleasure and
pain and possibly experience some emotion should be put into consideration and
they should be upgraded from their property status under the law, but not to
the point of being considered legal persons.
Great job. I think this is probably about the time where we could create a new legal definition for animals under the law to make them more than property. The question then is....would that privilege only be for certain animals? Exotics (endangered animals) and companion animals maybe? I would assume there would be huge fight against animals used for research, food, fur, etc. if someone tried to change their status because of fears of changes in how they can raise and use those animals. But, it is true that animals have more to them than a chair, or another piece of property, but they probably don't need to legally be labeled as being human....that would be quite confusing in many cases.
ReplyDelete