Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement by Gary L. Francione

Author:Gary L. Francione [Francione, Gary L.]
Language: eng
Format: epub, pdf
Tags: Abolitionism
Amazon: B006SVRMN8
Publisher: Temple Univ Pr
Published: 1996-09-01T21:00:00+00:00

The Characterization of Welfarist Reforms as Creating "Rights"

Andrew Rowan, who explicitly adopts the view that welfarist reforms "evolve" into progressive social change for animals, claims that a "wide range of animal protection positions could be couched in rights terminology. For example one could claim that an animal has a right not to be cruelly treated."90 The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) seeks congressional enactment of an animal "bill of rights" that would recognize the "right" of animals to be free from "exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse." Regulatory laws such as state anticruelty statutes and the federal Animal Welfare Act require that animals be treated "humanely" and be free of "unnecessary" suffering. Rowan and ALDF would maintain that such laws create a right of "humane" treatment and a right to be free of unnecessary suffering.

The problem with the view is that supposed "rights" generated by welfarist reform are really nothing more than "rights" to have animal interests evaluated under the welfarist structure. Animal welfare purports to balance animal interests and human interests, but animal interests, because of animals' property status, are necessarily sacrificed in all cases except where the sacrifice is seen to serve only a gratuitous waste of animal resources. To say that an animal has a "right" to such treatment would be tantamount to maintaining that the animal is entitled to have her interests balanced against the competing interests of humans, which is nothing more than what is dictated by animal welfare laws (and animal welfare theory) in the first instance.91 The anticruelty laws do not, for the most part, prohibit any particular treatment of animals, however much pain is inflicted on the animals and whether or not the treatment results in the death of the animals.

Philosopher Joel Feinberg argues that a right is a "valid claim," which is "a decisive case, invulnerable or conclusive. As such it is a morally sufficient title and an extremely valuable possession, neither dependent on nor derivative from the compassionate feelings, propriety, consciousness, or sense of noblesse oblige of others."92 He uses as an example the "right" to humane treatment, which, he believes, can be guaranteed by an institutional or legal rule and can be recognized on a moral level alone or in addition to legal and institutional levels. Again, for the same reason that Rowan and ALDF misunderstand the fundamental nature of rights, Feinberg's analysis fails to consider that any such "right" that is part of the institutionalized exploitation of animals is not going to be a "valid claim," which is what Feinberg intends to describe.

The logical deficiency can be demonstrated by reference to the federal Animal Welfare Act. AWA standards seek to ensure good animal husbandry, that animals used in experiments, for example, are provided with wholesome food and water, and clean air and cages. These standards, however, merely reflect and reinforce the property status of animals and the social concern that animal resources not be wasted. The act places no limits on the types of experiments that can be done;

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.