Blog Post Two - It's Time to Re-Evaluate Our Relationship with Animals

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.