17 of 73

No

Write now Article Tools

Animal rights remind me very strongly of two movements in history that we now look back upon as great achievements: abolition of slavery and women's suffrage. (A third movement would be gay rights, but it is nowhere near as close to success.)

Why do I say this? The analogy is just too strong to ignore:

1. All three involve the definition of "person" and extending the rights of personhood to a class of beings not previously granted it.

2. All three have been resisted by the vast majority of people, to the point of hatred and violence.
3. Supporters of all three have been ridiculed and mistreated for their "radical" views.
4. All three included "moderates," who didn't want to grant full rights to the group in question (lest they be seen as too radical), but could still see that injustice was being done.
5. All three ultimately made progress only by dedicated action of a small group of people who were considered insane by the majority of people.
6. All three, once serious progress was (will be) made, suddenly became respectable in a remarkable shift of the moral Zeitgeist.

In short, the most likely outcome of animal rights is the same outcome of abolitionism and women's suffrage: the liberal position will eventually win, and suddenly everyone will act like they agreed with it all along. "Of course" Black people shouldn't be enslaved (indeed not!)-but where were the people saying that in the 1820's? "Of course" women should have the right to vote (indeed so!)-but where were the people saying that in the 1890's? In 2030, people will be saying "of course" animals shouldn't be used in cosmetic research or killed for food or dissected in classrooms.

It's not that difficult to understand, really: animals are sentient beings. They think, they feel, they have emotions, they make decisions. They are not as intelligent as we are-not by a long shot; but would it be morally acceptable for Einstein to kill and eat mentally-retarded children?

The only arguments ever offered against animal rights are based on some arbitrary contention that only human beings have moral "souls," claims that are discredited by decades of scientific research into neurology, psychology, and evolutionary biology. Animals differ from us in degree, not in kind; while we would not grant them the right to vote (just as we don't grant this right to children), we ought to grant them the right to live in security and health.

Abolitionism brought racism to the fore; the suffragettes showed us the meaning of sexism. It's time we started thinking about speciesism as well.

Learn more about this author, Patrick Julius.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Have 'Animal Rights' gone too far??
We want to hear your view. Write now!