Animal rights

Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, ranging from theprotectionist side of the movement, presented by philosopher Peter Singerwith a utilitarian (practical) focus on suffering and consequences, rather than on the concept of rightsto the abolitionist side, represented by law professor Gary Francione, who argues that animals need only one right: the right not to be property. Despite the different approaches, advoc ates broadly agree that animals should be viewed as non human persons and members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment. [3] The idea of awarding rights to animals has the support of legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School. Animal rights is routinely covered in universities in philosophy or applied ethics courses, and as of spring 2010 animal law was taught in 125 law schools in the United States and Canada. Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby argued in 2008 that the movement had r eached the stage the gay rights movement was at 25 years earlier. [4] Critics of the idea a rgue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who wrote in 2000 that only humans have duties and therefore only humans have rights. There has also been criticism, including from within the animal rights movement itself, of certain forms of animal rights activism, in particular the destruction of fur farms and animal laboratories by the Animal Liberation Front . A parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long there is no unnecessary suffering, a view known as the animal welfare position. [5]

First known laws protecting animals in the English -speaking world

Richard Ryder writes that the first known legislation against animal cruelty in the English speaking world was passed in Ireland in 1635. It prohibited pulling wool off sheep, and the attaching of ploughs to horses' tails, referring to "the cruelty used to beasts," which Ryder writes is probably the earliest reference to this concept in the English language.
[13]

In 1641,

the year Descartes' Meditations was published, the first legal code to protect domestic animals in North America was passed by the Massachusetts Bay Colony.[14] The colony's constitution was based on The Body of Liberties by the Reverend Nathaniel Ward (1578 1652), a lawyer, Puritan clergyman, and University of Cambridg e graduate, originally from Suffolk, England. [15] Ward listed the "rites" the Colony's general court later endorsed,

including rite number 92: "No man shall exercise any Tirrany or Crueltie toward any bruite Creature which are usuallie kept for man's use." Historian Roderick Nash writes that, at the height of Descartes' influence in Europe, it is significant that the early New Englanders created a law that implied animals were not unfeeling automata.
[16]

The Puritans passed animal protection legislation in England too. Katheen Kete writes that animal welfare laws were passed in 1654 as part of the ordinances of the Protectoratethe government under Oliver Cromwell, which lasted 16531659during the English Civil War. Cromwell disliked blood sports, particularly cockfighting, cock throwing, dog fighting , as well as bull baiting and bull running, said to tenderize the meat. These could frequently be seen in villages and fairgrounds, and became associated for the Puritans with idleness, drunkenness, and gambling. Kete writes that the Puritans interpreted the dominion of man over animals in the Book of Genesis to mean responsible stewardship, rather than ownership. The opposition to blood sports became part of what was seen as Puritan interference in pe ople's lives, which became a leitmotif of resistance to them, Kete writes, and the animal protection laws were overturned during the Restoration, whenCharles II was returned to the throne in 1660. [17] Bull baiting remained lawful in England for another 162 years, until it was outlawed in 1822 .

Abolitionism falls within the framework of the rights -based approach, though it regards only one right as necessary: the right not to be owned. Abolitionists argue that the key to reducing animal suffering is to recognize that legal ownership of sentient beings is unjust and must be abolished. The most prominent of the abolitionists is Gary Francione, professor of law and philosophy at Rutgers School of Law-Newark. He argues that focusing on animal welfare may actually worsen the position of animals, because it entrenches the view of them as property, and makes the public more comfortable about using t hem. Francione calls animal rights group who pursue animal welfare issues, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the "new welfarists," arguing that they have more in common with 19th -century animal protectionists than with the animal rights movement. His position is that there is no animal rights movement in the United States. [95]

21st century: Developments

In January 2008, Austria's Supreme Court ruled that Matthew Hiasl Pan, a chimpanzee, was not a person, after the Association Against Animal Factories sought personhood status for it because its custodians went bankrupt. Matthew was captured as a baby in Sierra Leone in 1982, then smuggled to Austria to be used in pharma ceutical experiments, but was confiscated by customs officials when it arrived in the country and taken to the shelter instead. It was kept there for 25 years, but the group that ran the shelter went bankrupt in 2007. Donors offered to help it, but under A ustrian law only a person can receive personal gifts, so any money sent to Matthew would be lost to the shelter's bankruptcy. The

Association has appealed the ruling to the European Court of Human Rights . The lawyer proposing its personhood, Eberhart Theuer, has asked the court to appoint a legal guardian for Matthew and to grant it four rights: the right to life, limited freedom of movement, person al safety, and the right to claim property. [81] In June 2008, a committee of Spain's national legislature became the first to vote for a resolution to extend limited rights to non -human primates. The parliamentary Environment Committee recommended giving chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans the right not to be used in medical experiments or in circuses, and recommended making it illegal to kill apes, except in self -defense, based upon Peter Singer's Great Ape Project (GAP).[82] The committee's proposal has not yet been enacted into law. [83] In January 2010, a team of scientists announced research results suggesting that dolphins are second in intelligence only to human beings, and should be regarded as "non-human persons." [84]

Animal law issues encompass a broad spectrum of approaches from philosophical explorations of the rights of animals to pragmatic discussions about the rights of those who use animals, who has standing to sue when an animal is harmed in a way that violates the law, and what constitutes legal cruelty. [1] Animal law permeates and affects most traditional areas of the law including tort, contract, criminal and constitutional law. Examples of this intersection include:
     

Animal custody disputes in divorce or separations. [2] Veterinary malpractice cases. Housing disputes involving no pets policies and discrimination laws. Damages cases involving the wrongful death or injury to a companion animal.
[3] [4]

Enforceable trusts for companions being adopted by states across the country. Criminal law encompassing domestic violence and anti -cruelty laws.

The intrinsic value of an animal refers to the value it possesses in its own right, as an end in-itself, as opposed to its Instrumental value, its value to other animals (including human beings). The phrase (often used synonymously with inherent value ) has been adopted by animal rights advocates. The Dutch Animal Health and Welfare Act referred to it in 1981: "Acknowledgment of the intrinsic value of animals means that animals have value in their own right and as a consequence their interests are no longer automatically subordinate to man's interests." [1] This acknowledgement has stirred a debate on what it entails in the context of animal husbandry, animal breeding, vivisection, animal testingand biotechnology.

Animal welfare is the physical and psychological well-being of animals. [1] The term animal

welfare can also mean human conce rn for animal welfare or a position in a debate on animal
ethicsand animal rights.[2] Welfare is measured by indicators including behavior, physiology, longevity, and reproduction. [3] Systematic concern for animal welfare can be based on awareness that non -human animals aresentient and that consideration should be given to their well -being, especially when they are used by humans.[4] These concerns can include how animals are killed for food, how they are used for scientific research, how they are kept as pets, and how human activities affect the survival of endangered species. An ancient object of concern in some civilizations, animal welfare began to take a larger place inwestern public policy in 19th -century Britain. Today it is a significant focus of interest or activity in veterinary science, in ethics, and in animal welfare organizations. There are two forms of criticism of the concept of animal welfare, coming from diametrically opposite positions. One view, dating back centuries, asserts that animals are not consciously aware and hence are unable to experience poor welfare. The other view is based on theanimal rights position that animals sh ould not be regarded as property and any use of animals by humans is unacceptable. Some authorities thus treat animal welfare and animal rights as two opposing positions. [2] Accordingly, some animal right proponents argue that the perception of better animal welfare facilitates continued and increased exploitation of animals.[5][6] Others see the increasing concern for animal welfare as incremental steps towards animal rights.