91av

Minimise suffering of other life forms vs Maximise human well-being

For centuries, if not millennia, ethical debates have centred on the notion that human beings have certain fundamental, inalienable rights. No matter what you do, or how evilly you behave, those rights cannot be stripped away. Even if violating your rights would turn out to be for the common good, tough luck – they’re there to stay.

But the question of what other animals should benefit from such blanket protections is an open one. Last November, an Argentine court endowed a chimp called Cecilia with the right to live in her natural habitat and ordered her release from Mendoza zoo. Six months later, a Canadian court upheld the notion that pigs are property that can be denied food, water or rest in transit for up to 36 hours.

So what should qualify? If our objective is to minimise suffering in any fellow creature, is it time to give non-human animals rights on a par with our own? Should the intelligence of an octopus exempt it from being hunted and eaten by humans? Does the same go for pigs? Are mice entitled to freedom of movement?

The short answer is, it’s complicated. “There are different kinds of rights,” says Andrew Knight, who studies animal welfare and ethics at the University of Winchester, UK. “Although sentient animals should have key moral rights respected, it makes no sense to give them the same legal rights as humans.”

Chimpanzees provide a salient example of the problem. They have had their rights championed more than most: it is now illegal in many countries to do scientific experiments on them, and efforts are under way to grant them personhood – effectively, human rights. But Jennifer Mather, an animal behaviour expert at the University of Lethbridge, Canada, sees no reason why chimps should receive such privileged status. “Animals from all taxa deserve consideration,” says Mather, although she admits others may disagree.

“I am all for working towards improved welfare of animals, but that doesn’t mean ascribing them rights,” says Steven Cooke at Carleton University in Canada. “I care far more about ensuring that we properly manage populations and habitats to ensure resilience and enable appropriate human use,” he says (see “The ethics issue: Should we colonise other planets?”).

The truth is that most of modern life, from clothing manufacture to agriculture, relies on exploiting animals and treating them with less regard than humans – especially if they invade our space.

The calculus is a complex one. Would mosquito rights lead to the end of eradication programmes and thus the spread of malaria? Would horse or cattle rights force humans to take up gruelling physical labour? “It’s a moral and ethical dilemma – my view is that we have the right to use animals but should do it humanely,” says Lynne Sneddon, an animal welfare researcher at the University of Liverpool, UK.

Wider education about animals’ experience is the primary way forward, Mather says. She thinks an understanding of animal sentience, such as the problem-solving skills of crows, the self-awareness of elephants and the theory of mind demonstrated by chimps, will help us achieve a more sophisticated stance. “As we discover more and more about how animals are smart, it is going to be easier to see that they should have some basic consideration.”

This article appeared in print under the headline “Should we… Give other animals rights?”