Animal Rights?

I had to write this paper for my Ethics class. We had to discuss two articles about animal rights, one supporting it and the other denying it. I was less interested in rehashing other peoples thoughts on this issue. I got to give my opinion of the topic in the last part of the paper, though to be honest, my opinion ended up being 700 of my allotted 1200 words. Enjoy.

Do animals have rights? Alastair Norcross sure thinks so. He wrote an article which calls us to recognize the abuse of animals and to change our dietary habits as a result.
The crux of Norcross’ argument is based in our perception of the animals. He uses an example of a fictitious man named Fred who has tragically injured a part of his brain, which now prevents him from enjoying chocolate. The only chemical allowing him to enjoy chocolate from this point on can be produced when a puppy has been tortured for months and finally dies. Fred accepts this and begins torturing puppies. Apalling, isn’t it? However, the same things happen to “barnyard” animals in massive factories daily and we don’t bat an eye. Maybe because they are not cute and cuddly, or because we have not associated them as “pets”. There cannot be a distinction between dogs and pigs. If it is wrong to cause a dog to suffer, it would follow that it is wrong to cause a pig to suffer.
Norcross also acknowledges the notion we have that to abstain from eating of meat will not save the lives of any animals. By ourselves, this may be true, however according to Norcross it is not a sufficient reason to continue eating meat. If a significant number of people became vegetarians, the factory farms would be forced to breed less animals and thereby less animals would be treated cruelly. Therefore, abstaining would accomplish something. Aside from that, however, just because there is the potential to not change anything does not mean we should take part in animal cruelty.
Carl Cohen believes that animals do not, in fact, have any moral rights. In his argument for experimentation on animals he points out that they are not moral creatures. Animals are not morally self-legislating, nor are the rationally moral, therefore they can’t have moral rights or claims. By factory farming them, we are not actually violating their rights because they do not have any rights to violate. Cohen understands that a popular criticism of his standpoint is that there are some humans who are not morally rational or self-legislating (the senile, mentally handicapped, children) and yet we could not say that they have no rights. It would be wrong to suggest that we could put them into a factory farm and it would not violate any rights. However, there is a problem with this criticism. Animals do not have the capability of understanding morals, or right from wrong. Animals will never be able to understand these things. However, most senile humans used to have this capacity; most children one day will; and had the handicapped been born healthy and undamaged they would also understand rational morality. Animals simply cannot understand or abide my moral principles, and humans can.
Lying is wrong. Most humans know this, and understand when they tell a lie that there is something fundamentally wrong about it. Animals do not know this. If they could speak and tell lies they would not comprehend that they should not do so, because they cannot rationally understand morality.

I must admit I have always scoffed at the notion of animal rights. Partially because I didn’t give it much thought, but also because I think that humans and animals are unequal morally. This discussion has definitely made me begin to ponder my eating habits. However I am not fully convinced that animals have rights or that humans have obligations to treat them humanely. Perhaps I am callously inhuman. I cannot deny that if right and wrong are determined by what creates the most pleasure and pain then that means animals have rights. They would have the right to enjoy pleasure and not suffer pain. It would be wrong to be cruel to all animals that can suffer. However, I am not a utilitarian. I do not believe that good and bad are fundamentally tied to pleasure and pain. Therefore I have the task of determining whether animals have the right to pleasure and life within the ethical theory I believe is right.
I am a Divine Command Theorist. I believe that God has everything to do with right and wrong. I understand the criticisms of this particular theory and I am still wrestling with the ramifications, but that has not yet changed my view. So, how do I reconcile the treatment of animals within a moral theory based on the Bible? I can start by looking in the Bible. Most conservative Christians I know would staunchly defend their carnivorous appetite by quoting Genesis 1.28, where God tells Adam and Eve to have dominion over every living thing on Earth. Naturally, if we have dominion over all living creatures then we may choose to let them live or die. Another favorite verse is Genesis 9.2, “The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.” Admittedly, I have used these verses to defend my views in the past; however this is a shallow examination of Scripture. I believe God has granted us the right and ability to use animals for our needs, however we abuse that ability. In Genesis 6, God tells Noah to bring two of every living thing onto the ark for survival. Why would he do this if the animal kingdom is as expendable as we treat them? The most damning piece of evidence, however, is found in Proverbs 12.10 “The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.” When it comes down to it the glory of God is seen in His creation, not just in the cosmos, but also in the beauty of this Earth and the creatures He made to inhabit it. If we no longer require their meat for survival and their hides for warmth, then isn’t it unbiblical to breed animals; factory farmed, free-range or otherwise? I am starting to think so. I’m wondering if my diet shouldn’t become progressively vegetarian. However, there is still one problem. God gave mankind dominion over all living creatures, which means we are not equal to them. God must be a speciesist. My issue then lies in the knowledge that becoming a vegetarian to spare the lives of animals is a pricey resolution. Healthy food lacking animal meat or by-products are expensive. Should it be a priority to spend my money on food which will prevent this kind of suffering? I don’t think so. Why should I spend money on saving animals when there are an estimated 27 million people or more in slavery today? My money could go to an organization trying to free the slaves. What about the 115,000 children who die every day because they are aborted prior to birth? Their lives are worth more than the lives of animals. So I don’t completely agree with or disagree with Norcross or Cohen. They both make good arguments. What I do believe is that we as a nation are not treating animals the way God intended, but before we can be concerned about their well-being we must take care of mankind and the suffering he endures every single moment.