Self-evident Animal Rights?
Lynn Hunt responds to the apparent inconsistency of the claim that human rights are “self evident” (see the Declaration of Independence), while necessarily having to write them into a document articulating what form these rights take. Hunt argues,
“The process had and has a kind of circularity to it: you know the meaning of human rights because you feel distressed when they are violated. The truths of human rights might be paradoxical in this sense, but they are nonetheless still self-evident.”
Hunt’s insight, I believe, can be applied to animal rights as well: we know the meaning of animal rights because we feel distressed when we see a “downer” cow being dragged to slaughter behind a forklift, for example; when a dog is being forced into combat with another dog we know that both of the animals’ rights are being violated. Our “inner sense of outrage” demands the proper response when a hen is sexually assaulted by a slaughterhouse employee. If a horse is starved by her human our moral intuitions say “This is wrong!”
However, the object(s) of our moral outrage is limited by our collective irrational biases, and prejudices against certain species’ of animals, which seems to suggest that the truths of animal rights are not truths at all in the moral sense: animal rights are not universal but culturally relative, subjective constructions. I mean, we all continue to gleefully eat the bodies of billions of animals annually, while Michael Vick spends time in prison for his actions.
The logic of this response, however, can and must also be applied to the context of human rights. I live in Washington D.C., a city populated by thousands upon thousands of homeless men, women, and children, who suffer from malnutrition, the elements, psychological trauma, etc. And yet, this continues. Everyday we walk past these individuals, preferring to spend our money on alcohol at one of the local bars instead of spending those dollars on a meal for some pitiful looking homeless women. Rape is used as a weapon of war throughout our world today, but we prefer to bicker about which consenting adults ought to have the opportunity to marry (the right of marriage, of course, is also considered a human right). Infant Chinese girls are considered replaceable, less in value than their male counterparts, but this does not prevent us from enacting policy favoring trade with China. Genocide in Darfur continues. Our government sanctions torture, a form of punishment and interrogation explicitly condemned as immoral in the Declaration of Independence’s articulation of those inalienable, universal human rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Does this suggest that the truths of human rights are in fact not self-evident, but a prudent creation - a fiction? I only have the “right to life” if my government says so. If not then I don’t and you don’t either. “Liberty” is like health care, it’s a privilege. Was Jeremy Bentham correct when he argued that talk of moral or inalienable rights is “nonsense upon stilts.”
Is this correct? I think, or rather I know, the answer to this question is no. And so do you. Where do they come from? Perhaps reason, nature or god, our shared sentience; I don’t know, but they’re real.
For selfish reason T, U, and V, and for other reasons W, X, Y, and Z we fail to demand action in response to our inner outrage over various moral wrongs; however, we experience that inner outrage nonetheless. This holds true for both human rights and animal rights.
Crossposted @ That Vegan Girl
By definition, doesn’t a “self-evident right” have to be recognized as a right by the individual wishing to exercise it? Violation of individual rights does not result in them being any less self-evident or real. The concept of a self-evident right requires one to rise up and seize said right, not sit around waiting for handouts. In fact, that is EXACTLY what the Declaration of Independence was about: recognition of a violation of rights and the subsequent seizure and exercise of those rights. Feeling pain at the result of inhumane treatment does not constitute recognition of rights and neither does others being horrified at such treatment. A self-evident, natural right is recognized and exercised by the individual, not the collective. Using a self-evident argument would seem counter-productive to the advancement of an animal rights regime.
~ Recent blog post: Jose Canseco Still a Jackass, Must be the Steroids at mojomonkey77.wordpress.com ~
The mere fact that humans must use fences and cages to contain animals suggests animals have wills of their own and that those wills do not include being confined let alone being tortured or killed.
Fear response does not constitute recognition of rights…neither does possessing a will. No one argued that they weren’t scared or cognizant of what was happening. That doesn’t make any rights they might have self-evident. Re-read.
~ Recent blog post: Jose Canseco Still a Jackass, Must be the Steroids at http://mojomonkey77.wordpress.com ~
Quote:
“By definition, doesn’t a “self-evident right” have to be recognized as a right by the individual wishing to exercise it?”
No, not by definition at all.
This doesn’t follow logically or ethically, John. A moral right is universally applicable to all persons acknowledged to be a member of the moral community and who can reasonably realize the right: If my claim that I have a moral “right to life,” for example, is valid then all persons like me in the morally relevant ways also possess this valid moral claim.
Acknowledgement as a possessor of the right is absolutely not necessary. By this logic, those individuals incapable of acknowledging their rights would in fact not possess those rights. The severely mentally handicapped, for example, would not have a “right to life” because by your erroneous definition they are incapable of realizing their right in the following way: “The concept of a self-evident right requires one to rise up and seize said right, not sit around waiting for handouts.” Children would also not be in a position to make such a moral claim.
I think that you will now argue that those capable of defending their rights can act paternalistically on behalf of those incapable of doing so; therefore, secondary, or defense by-proxy, is sufficient. However, this ought to be extended to animals as they are in precisely the same position as a child or a mentally retarded person.
John, your argument is merely a restatement of the principle of “might makes right.” A moral principal that has been sufficiently proven deficient since it was employed to subjugate women to the status of children, and black human beings to the status of property.
Quote:
“A self-evident, natural right is recognized and exercised by the individual, not the collective.”
This doesn’t make any sense logically or in light of your previous statement,” In fact, that is EXACTLY what the Declaration of Independence was about: recognition of a violation of rights and the subsequent seizure and exercise of those rights.” The Revolutions in our country and France were both collective movements, not individual achievements. However, I don’t know what this has to do with anything relevant to the issue at hand.
Quote:
“Feeling pain at the result of inhumane treatment does not constitute recognition of rights.
Fear response does not constitute recognition of rights…neither does possessing a will.”
Who argued this, John?
Quote:
“neither does others being horrified at such treatment.”
Why not? That is the argument that Lynn Hunt proffers regarding human rights, an argument that I extended to animal rights. Where are we wrong?
~ Recent blog post: A "vegan world," and more. at http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg ~