Contact: David K. Clarke – ©
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way
its animals are treated."
IntroductionMuch of what has been written on the Internet concerning animal rights is emotional rather than rational. My principal aim here is to examine the concept of animal rights logically; and to compare it with the idea of human rights, logically.
I expect that many who might read this page will consider me to be an annoying do-gooder. I am content with that label, considering the alternatives.
"The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity [hairiness] of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum [whether there is a tail or not] are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown 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. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk, but can they suffer?"(ch. 17, in The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. by J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 282n).
Old Testament which states that God said to Man that he (Man) should "... have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 2:28).
This concept was passed on from the Jews to the Christians and Muslims, thus pervading Western society; and, I suspect, even many of those of us who have managed to free our minds of the God-made-the-rules idea have not got rid of the belief in the supremacy of Man. We probably do not even realize that we still carry some of the baggage that came along with the religion we were brought up with.
Eastern cultures do not all seem to place Man on a higher plane than
Jains in particular, but Hindus and Buddhists to a lesser extent as well.
However, I'm certainly not advocating replacing Judeo-Christian
unsubstantiated beliefs with Eastern unsubstantiated beliefs.
In Man's favour, he is probably more intelligent than any other animals, although how do you measure the intelligence of a dolphin or whale? More importantly, Man is technological and has developed a complex culture; he has the power of life-and-death over all other animals (as individuals anyway, the smallpox virus is the only species that we have come close to entirely exterminating – intentionally).
But this is justifying our privileges by the 'might is right' argument; "we have the guns so we make the rules", I can't see any moral vindication here. (There is an interesting parallel here with the USA's approach to international relations.)
Considering our record as custodians of the earth we can't claim supremacy by right of moral excellence. I don't think that further explanation is needed on this point.
It has been argued that humans have souls while animals do not. Where is the evidence for this? I have argued that the concept of an immortal soul is meaningless anyway.
Some would say that we are the only animals that are self-aware and the only animals with culture. To this I would reply to the former with "prove it" and to the latter with "scientific research has demonstrated that chimpanzees have culture" (Whiten and Boesch, Scientific American, Jan. 2001).
Craig Stanford, in 'Significant Others: The Ape-Human Continuum and the Quest for Human Nature' says, "Apes and humans are cut from the same evolutionary cloth; all that fundamentally distinguishes us is posture, we being upright walkers and the apes quadrupeds. Everything else, from the size and function of our brains to the other aspects of our shared anatomies, is a difference of degree and not of kind."
So it seems that the only valid justifications for claiming that Man is superior to other animals is the "might is right" argument and, perhaps, a superior intellect – as we, Mankind, defines intellect.
Below I have used cattle as an example of the modern trend toward the mistreatment of domestic animals. Chooks (chickens) confined for their whole lives to small cages, are treated more cruelly than are cattle in feed lots. Pigs, highly intelligent animals, when confined in intensive indoor piggeries are also subject to worse abuse.
Compare the two photos. Does the boggy yard provide an acceptable environment for cattle that would prefer to be grazing on grassland?
Animal rights has been discussed at length by philosopher Peter Singer (in a book named Animal Rights? I'm not sure of the name) and by several philosophers in Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, edited by Hugh LaFollette; Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies.
Abbott Australian Government is doing its best to dismantle the structures, modest though they were, that the previous Labor governments put in place to achieve some action to slow climate change.
I ask the reader to think, when next he or she sees a bird, what choices does that bird have in whether something is done to slow the climate change that will severely affect that bird's habitat? Is it to the bird's advantage that Australia continues making lots of money by mining and selling coal? Or would the bird's prospects be more advantaged by Australia reducing its greenhouse emissions?
And then think that the same question could be asked in relation to all of the creatures on this planet.
What right do we humans have to damage the habitats of all the animals on the planet simply for our own short-term advantage?
We can carry that question even further. Is it really to the advantage of most Australian's that we take no, or very little, action on climate change, or is it just to the short-term advantage of a few wealthy people and the politicians who pander to them?
Death is not necessarily cruel, it is quite possible to humanely kill an animal, nor is death to be feared. We cannot live without impacting the lives of other species, but we do have an obligation to minimise the negativity of that impact. If we take up a vegetarian life style we have to protect the plants that we grow from the animals that would eat them and we have to remove (kill) plants that would compete against them. Even if we adopt a fruitarian diet, we still have to clear away the pre-existing vegetation to make room for our fruit trees, kill weeds, and protect our crops from birds; for every additional fruitarian person who lives there is that much less space for wild plants and animals.
We can argue that animals being killed as a source of food is entirely natural, but this does not prove that it is ethical. We have to look at the balance of good and bad that results from raising animals for food and slaughtering them.
So long as they are raised and killed humanely I do not see a problem;
they live a 'happy' life (if the concept of happiness can be applied to
animals), and do not suffer at the time of death.
In winter, shelter from cold winds, especially cold winds with rain, is similarly needed by stock. Again it is often not provided, except for ewes with young lambs because the lambs are likely to die in such weather without shelter - the farmers maximise their profits. A small patch of trees and shrubs could make the animals' lives more pleasant in the worst of the wintry weather.
Growing trees in the Mid North is not difficult, I have planted and
successfully grown thousands on roadsides and
on my own property.
In areas with rainfalls around 400mm per year it seems best to plant
in the autumn so that the seedlings can get established before the summer.
They then will benefit from one or a few waterings during summer, but not
so many that they rely of watering and fail to develop deep roots.
Of course nearly all trees need to be protected from browsing by livestock when they are young. This is particularly the case with the more palatable genera like Callitris, Casuarina, and Allocasuarina. Eucalypts are less palatable, but their leaves – and even small twigs – will still be eaten by hungry sheep. The only genera that I have come across that does not need protection is Araucaria and one of the spiny palms – both very slow growing.
Solar shade linkJake Richardson wrote an article for CleanTechnica on 2015/02/20 titled 'Solar Power and Farm Crops Created at the Same Time'. The article discussed farmers in Japan installing solar panels and growing vegetables beneath them and also mentioned installing solar panels for shade in pastureland. The latter might be particularly suitable for Australia.
|Sheep sheltering in the shade of a wind turbine on a hot day|
Photo credit Linda Connor
I worked on a family farm in my younger days. We had mostly dairy cows, but also ran a few sheep for wool and meat. We did not use mulesing.
Mulesing if a process that involves taking off an area of skin at the rear of a lamb. The aim is to stop wool growing in that area, and thereby stopping fouling of the sheep's backside with excrement. Sheep with dirty, continually damp, fouled backsides are much more susceptible to blowfly strike.
In blowfly strike a species of fly called the sheep blowfly lays its eggs in the fouled wool. The eggs hatch into maggots which then burrow into the sheep's skin.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are campaigning against the mulesing practice, particularly against the Australian sheep industry. See Save the Sheep. PETA's Save the Sheep page, I believe, exaggerates the negatives in sheep farming. I do not own any sheep, but I do have a small property on which another man runs sheep seasonally.
Mulesing does cause pain, however blowfly strike is worse for the sheep. Mulesing quite probably also makes sheep more susceptible to sun-light induced skin cancers.
There are two other methods of avoiding blowfly strike, both of which also avoid sun damage to bare skin:
Conservation groups claim that these nets are responsible for many deaths of species that are harmless to people. Pressure from these groups has persuaded both Queensland and New South Wales Governments to order environmental impact studies of their shark netting programs. But both states insist that whatever the result of the studies, the nets will stay.
The shark is one of the top predators of the seas and there is evidence that depletion of top predators will greatly impact, in unpredictable ways, on species further down the food chain.
It seems that politicians believe that, at least from their selfish point of view, saving one human life is worth more than a great many animal deaths. Or perhaps more accurately, the politicians fear that if they were to remove the nets and one human life was lost to sharks, they would be blamed at the next election. It's probably a matter of votes, not justice.
People to contact: Nicole Beynon, Human Society International; David Butcher, World Wide Fund for Nature.
The practice of breeding dogs toward some weird 'ideal' shape and form has resulted in many of the long-suffering animals living with breathing difficulties, spinal problems, heart defects, neurological problems as well as chronic and sometimes severe pain.
When one takes control over the breeding of an animal one also accepts a moral responsibility for the welfare of that animal and its descendents. Dog breeders need to seriously consider the ethics of their practices. To bread an animal with intentional deformities is grotesque, if those deformities come with pain and misery then the practice is cruel and immoral.
I can only suggest that those of us who love dogs should react against the damage being done by the breeders. Perhaps we should start a breed of muts; dogs that have the greatest possible genetic diversity? We could keep ancestry records for our dogs, based on photographs (genetic testing would be too expensive to be a practicallity), and breed to maximise the gene mix in our mongrels?
The vet concerned, Dr Lynn Simpson, happens to have gone to the same veterinary school, at the same time, as my daughter. My daughter developed a high opinion of Dr Simpson at the time.
Dr Simpson, who was employed by the Department of Agriculture (DoA) to report on conditions on live export ships, was sacked after someone else in the DoA released her report to the public.
Quoting from the Australian Broadcasting Commission's article (link above):
The report showed pictures of animals suffering and, in some cases, suffocating in overcrowded pens and drowning in faeces.Government should be doing its best to support people like Dr Simpson who report the facts. To sack her for doing her job is as unconscionable as is the live export trade itself.
LinksDr Simpson has written several pieces on her experiences for Splash24/7, a shipping newsletter site. The first piece I came across was Live Animal Export Shipping: Modern Slave Trade. All her Splash24/7 pieces can be accessed here. As of early August 2016, all were written between June and August, 2016.
Acronyms used in the literatureAAV: AQIS Accredited Veterinarian;
ALEC: Australian Livestock Exporter's Council;
AQIS: Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service;
ASEL: Australian Standards for Export of Livestock;
RSPCA: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals;
LinksDr Simpson wrote a submission for a review of ASEL, which was, but is no longer, available from the RSPCA Net site.
ABC 7:30, June 2016, Vet removed for exposing appaling conditions on live export ships.
Australian Livestock Exporter's Council's explanation of their relationship with Dr Simpson.
Sydney Morning Herald, 2016/09/10, written by Nikki Barrowclough
ABC online news was headlined "Australian cattle exported to Sri Lanka dying and malnourished, local farmers left suicidal" It was by Lorna Knowles of ABC Investigations and Siobhan Heanue, ABC's South Asia correspondent.
Quoting from the ABC article:
Hundreds of Australian and New Zealand cattle have died in a Federal Government-backed export deal with Sri Lanka, which local farmers say has left them broke, and in some cases, suicidal.The ABC listed three key points:
But it is not just a matter of comparing the right to life of a plant with that of an animal. If we choose to eat animals then those animals must eat plants; so the plants are the beginning of the food chain that ends in us. If the animals were cut out of the chain and we ate the plants direct, then fewer plants would be needed to support us; a smaller area of land would have to be dedicated to our support, our ecological footprint would be smaller than if we ate the animals that ate the plants.
Another factor to be considered is that grazing animals can live on poor land or low-rainfall land. Humans would not be able to grow plants to eat on such land, but they can eat the grazing animals, drink their milk, and wear their furs and wool.
Fruitarianism? Living by eating fruit alone? Fruit is 'designed' to be eaten. But it is impossible to grow fruit without depriving other plants of the space needed for 'your' production plants, and you must protect 'your' plants from predatory animals and insects. It is impossible to make a living without disrupting the lives of other species to some extent, so even being a fruitarian infringes upon the 'rights' of other plants or results in the death of animals.
However, if animals and Man logically have equal rights, and people are allowed to kill animals, how then do we justify stopping people from killing each other? Expediency?
Should we stop people from killing each other in all cases? (Death penalty?)
External pagesNew findings show Australian sheep face dangerous heat stress on export ships; The Conversation, 2020/05/05, Clive Phillips, Professor of Animal Welfare, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of Queensland
Aeon: A vision for agriculture; letting the herbivores go to the fodder rather than taking the fodder to the herbivores.
On this siteEthics
A list of my pages on ethics
On this page...