Animals Rights: The Fight for Justice

 A Research Paper Written by Kashika Bharol

_____Human interaction with animals is an important aspect of living in modern society. However, we have placed a stratification amongst animals, favoring only those with which we connect, and ignoring those which are not well treated and respected. Just as humans, animals require humane treatment and affection, and do not deserve to be exploited, neglected, abused, or ignored. To defend basic privileges, animals must have a Bill of Rights to guarantee their welfare. Humans, as beings with higher-level abilities of function, have a duty of respecting and protecting those who cannot advocate for themselves. Numerous arguments and instances support this philosophy.

_____Animals undergo feelings of pain, just as humans do. However, due to common belief in the theory that animals are mere objects, there has been an increase of substantial torture and death in animals- especially through scientific experimentation. Numerous organizations conducting studies on animals have discovered great knowledge in the subject. “Pain can have deleterious effects… another reason why the distribution of pain is a matter of debate [is because] data for many species has not been collected… the consensus is that all vertebrates should be considered capable of experiencing pain” (1970). Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals, a book by the National Academy of Sciences explains. This work mainly associates psychological and behavioral responses to pain, and differentiates between them. Nearly all animals have a Central Nervous System, allowing pain receptors to operate just as they would on us. The conclusion of the research builds its foundation on the rationale that the “absence of evidence” for vertebrates feeling pain sensations should not be classified as “evidence for the absence” of it. Laboratory animals, used in experimentation where the outcomes of the tests are often unknown, are put at great risk in labs, as they are blindly tested upon. According to PETA, “Each year, more than 100 million animals are killed in US laboratories” (PETA, 1). They are put through torturous conditions when tested upon, such as being forced to “inhale toxic fumes,” and put in immobilizing restraints for hours. These actions harm animals both mentally and physically, and potentially disable them for life. They are seen as objects, and are simply discarded after experiments are completed. Because animals feel pain, it is important to treat them with care and prevent animal abuse, as animals’ perceptions of sensation are similar to ours. An Animal Bill of Rights would aid in this action, securing legal protection from despicable acts done against them. Despite this, the decrease of scientific experimentation with animals could hinder medical research, as the California Biomedical Research Association has argued. They say, “Nearly every major medical advance of the last 100 years has depended on research with animals” (4). However, reducing experiments on animals would lead to new discoveries of methods of scientific investigation. Additionally, methods to lessen the amount of pain felt by animals in experiments could be invented. It is crucial to defend the safety of animals. Just as humans have established rights, animals must also have a Bill of Rights. Although it is an important factor, abuse is not the sole reason to protect animals.

Currently, certain authorized organizations objectify animals, essentially ignoring them and portraying them as inanimate objects which are property of humans. John R. Platt, a journalist on wildlife and environmental issues, has written on the Scientific American blog: “Nearly 94% of threatened amphibians have been ignored by the world’s top zoos” (Platt, 1). The emphasis of the article is on amphibians, whom can be rescued from endangerment due to the variety species in zoos. Despite this significant opportunity, zoos concentrate on multiplying profits instead of improving jeopardized animals. The endangerment of animals is ignored and they are exploited without consent or proper care, leaving the entire species to die in their future. Not only zoos, but the law itself has also aided in ignoring animals. Representatives from numerous academic subjects, including ethics and law, have studied these establishments in depth. Penny Conly Ellison, an adjunct professor of law, has expressed her stance in the Journal of Animal Law and Ethics, which states, “[crimes against animals] are essentially viewed as  property crime” (Ellison, 2). Currently, the most perceived standpoint on such cases sets the implication that animals are essentially ignored, and their views are not considered in conflicts. This view of ethics is called the “utilitarian perspective,” and is the most common view of animal ethics cases today. The perspective regards crimes against animals as property crimes, and favors the comfort of humans over the safety of animals. An Animal Bill of Rights, if established, would aid in changing this popular standpoint into a more open-minded and accepting one, where animals are given care and a voice, and are not disregarded. Supporting oneself by defending is a basic right, and should this privilege be revoked, a crime against humanity would be committed. However, some may argue that putting extensive care and protection forth for animals could go against centuries of human culture, because they have not been as valued in the past. P. Chardonnet Ph. D., a scientist from the “International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife,” has stated, “[animals are] considered from the limited aesthetic and touristic aspects” (Chardonnet et al, 1). If an Animal Bill of Rights were enacted, then animals would be seen as more than a form of visual entertainment. Due to the beneficial care and prevention of loss which would go towards the animals, such a document would aid in giving justice, by providing animals with basic rights. Not only ethical reasoning, but the pain of animals should be empathized with and considered when hurting them.

In certain instances, animals are in such captivity that they do not have even the simplest right to live. In order to help protest this and support animal rights, many are turning to veganism. Many scientists and philosophers are vouching for this practice. Dr. Tristam McPherson, a Philosophy professor, has written a journal on veganism, “A Case for Ethical Veganism.” She states, “In general, no amount of good treatment of an animal can license one to substantially harm that animal simply for one’s own ends… animal suffering is intrinsically morally significant in a way that can explain why causing an animal to suffer is morally wrong” (McPherson, 2014). This academic journal argues that it is ethically incorrect to consume animal products, as food producers harm animals and lead them to living pointless, unfulfilled lives. This deprives animals from rights, as they cannot do as they wish and are forced to live the entirety of their short lives in confinement. It is unethical for humans to act in such a way with animals, who have a disadvantage and cannot express their emotions. Animals feel pain, both emotionally and physically, and it is important to remember them as living creatures and not neglect them. The lack of doing so can also result in psychological disorders. Manish A. Vyas, a Hindu religious musician, has openly stated his views on the issue of animal rights, and emphasizes the emotional aspect of treating animals by keeping their rights in mind. “When people tell me that they love animals and then kill them, I tell them I’m glad they don’t love me… give serious attention to the emotional lives of animals” (Vyas, 3). There have been numerous studies done on animals and their cognitive abilities, and there is solid proof that animals feel pain when they are psychologically or physically harmed. Animals often require severe rehabilitation after being abused, and if a Bill of Rights were enforced, then the frequency of the act would steadily decrease. Additionally, it would help with representing the stance of animals and preventing them from being wrongfully killed and deprived of a full life. If a Bill of Rights were established, animals would not be acted against, and the ratio of births to deaths would better. However, the argument could be made that limiting the killing of animals and not neglecting them would result in an increase of the cost of food. Elizabeth Harman, an associate professor of philosophy at Princeton University, has stated, “One way of thinking about how to justify an action is what could you say to the one that you're harming? That works very well with people. It works less well with cows who can't understand justifications” (Harman, 1). Although animals may not speak a language as we do, they still have a perception of good and bad. They know when they are getting tortured, and they know when they are enjoying something. It is necessary to treat those whom we take lives away from, with respect. If possible, the amount of crimes committed against animals for simple human pleasure should be reduced. As humans, it is our responsibility to help those who cannot advocate for themselves, and ensure that justice is served. There are numerous ideologies similar to this which support the need of an animal Bill of Rights.

An Animal Bill of Rights is necessary to be established, in order to confirm the well-being and protection of rights of animals. As beings with influential cognitive abilities, humans have the obligation to advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves. Animals must be protected due to ethical, biological, and emotional reasoning. Policies placed against animals, the amount of suffering endured by the creatures, and the effects of abuse on them illustrate clear, irrefutable ideas supporting the claim that animals should have some form of security. They are a crucial part of our daily lives, and if we lose the privilege of having animals on earth, then the human race would be in turmoil. If these creatures do so much for us, the least we can attempt to do is treat them with respect.

Works Cited

Ellison, Penny Conly. “Journal of Animal Law and Ethics.” Journal of Animal Law and Ethics, vol. 3, no. 1, May 2009, www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/pellison/workingpapers/EllisonJournal%20of%20Animal%20Law%20and%20Ethics.pdf.

“Experiments on Animals: Overview.” PETA, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/.

Harman, Elizabeth. “Can We Justify Killing Animals for Food?” BBC News, BBC, 26 Oct. 2015, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34541077.

Chardonnet, P. “The Value of Wildlife.” 2002, www.cienciaanimal.ufpa.br/CA_selecao/M/2010/biblio/Prod/conservac/chardonnet_et_al_2002.pdf.

Platt, John R. “Are Zoos Failing Amphibians?” Scientific American Blog Network, blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/zoos-amphibians/.

“Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals.” National Research Council (US) Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Jan. 1970, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32658/.

Vyas, Manish A. Issues in Ethics and Animal Rights. Regency Publications, 2011. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.gavilan.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=nlebk&AN=608499&site=eds-live.

“Whither Biomedical Research?” JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 219, no. 2, Oct. 1972, p. 215., doi:10.1001/jama.1972.03190280053014.