Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Animal Rights
Dogs. Widely considered a mans best friend, and well deserving of such a title. Almost
as American as guns and cheeseburgers, Dogs have become part of American society. But this
was not always the case! Animals, including dogs, have been used for strictly utilitarian purposes
all throughout history with human society forgoing the natural rights that they deserve. But
public opinion has been changed from a previously callous view towards animals into the
sympathetic views of today with the help from many prominent figures in humanities history.
Starting with John Locke and continuing past Tom Regan, the voice for Animal rights has only
become louder more widely heard, and will continue to do so until they are granted the rights
Since the origins of the species, Humans have been using anything and everything to
benefit themselves. It started with sticks and has matured into machines. But what was between?
Animals. In a way, Humans turned intrinsically meaningful beings into simple objects that are
viewed strictly in Utilitarian ways. However, the oppression and utilization of animals has not
gone in vain: their sacrifices have benefitted all life through advancements in anatomy and
physiology. But now that humans have expended all the knowledge to be learnt from Animals, is
it not time to return the favor from what they have given? The Animal rights movement has been
working throughout the centuries to restore the rights that were forgotten but well deserved.
As a species, we prefer to see ourselves as altruistic and kind, when in reality, we are the
most savage beast within the jungle. What started as cavemen killing for necessity has evolved
into a multitude of unspeakable horrors committed against animals. From the live dissection of
animals in order to learn about anatomy, to the mass production and extinction of farm animals,
Humans have been exploiting and betraying the trust that is bestowed upon themselves. As a
practice, the usage of animals didnt start recently: originating in Ancient Rome and Greece, the
usage of Animals was simply part of their society. The cruel and inhumane practices such as
completely justified as the philosophers and physicians of their time valued the pursuit of
knowledge for its own sake and sought to understand how and why the body malfunctioned, how
diseases developed, how injury affected phsyiology, and the discovery of treatments and cures,
all of which would have been impossible without the usage of animals. They were aware of the
differences between animals and humans but reasoned that the findings in animals could be
applied to humans1. Fortunately, with the fall of the Roman empire and the beginning of the
Dark ages, the experimentation on animals became extremely stigmatized and virtually
disappeared. This lasted up until the renaissance, when the return of scientific experimentation
With a name like the Age of Enlightenment, one would think that great change would occur for
the betterment of all species, animals included. Unfortunately, this period only rekindled the
usage of animals within scientific experimentation infringing upon their innate rights. Most
notably starting with Ren Descartes by how he described animals as machine-like, or senseless
automata and rationalized his cruel acts with views of how animals lacked the processing
1 The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. Nullfield Council on Bioethics, London, 2005, pp. 53, The Ethics of Research
Involving Animals.
required to fully understand the pain being inflicted upon them. Luckily, the first sign of hope
for Animal rights sparked when John Locke, a famed British philosopher fully recognized the
fact that animals had the capacity to feel, and published a memo called Some Thoughts
Concerning Education in 1963, in which he stated that Animals did in fact have feelings, and that
the unnecessary cruelty towards them was morally and ethically wrong: not by the actions
towards the animal, but rather by the perpetrators morality becoming cruel and maliceful enough
to want to engage in such activities. All his views on protecting animals were aimed at protecting
the morality of the humans who might engage in such cruel activities, as to avoid the
transference from animal victimization to human victimization. Later in the 17th century, a
German philosopher named Immanuel Kant agreed with Lockes views regarding the welfare of
animals in relation to humans and stated that Cruelty to animals is contrary to mans duty to
himself, because it deadens the feeling of sympathy for their sufferings, and thus has a natural
tendency that is very useful to the morality in relation to other Human beings is weakened2.
During this period of the 17th century, the beginning in the change of public opinion about the
ethical treatment of animals arose from philosophers such as Locke and Kant. While such
vocalization was well-deserved it was not what Animal rights activists today would agree with.
Locke and Kant only vocalized for improved treatment of animals for the betterment of human
morality rather than the innate rights that animals deserve. Even so, it was monumental in
After the foundation for Animal rights was set in the 17th century, philosophers in the 18th century
continued building the movement. Most of their ideas were considered blasphemy and ridiculed
in civilized institutions, but they kept trying to provoke change. Men such as Jean-Jacques
22004, Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Grethe B.
Peterson (ed.), Volume 25/26, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Rousseau or Jeremy Bentham were essential in changing the ideologies around the religious
based anthropocentric justifications of how to treat animals into Human made obligations
towards animals due to their inherent worth. Rousseau stated if I am bound to do no injury to
my fellow-[Humans], this is less because they are rational than because they are sentient beings:
and this quality, being common both to men and beasts, ought to entitle the latter to at least to the
privilege of not being wantonly ill-treated by the former3. Now this is the first time that anyone
had ever proposed that animals were deserving of any natural rights based upon the fact that
animals had sentience, rather than the understanding of sentience. Along with the entirety of
society, Bentham completely disregarded the idea of natural rights but he did agree with the fact
that Animals should be given a moral standing due to their sentience. Famously quoted, he stated
that The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?4. Now,
this idea changed the controversy between Humans and Animals. No longer would the debate be:
Can they feel it, and if they can, can they understand what they are feeling? Instead it transferred
into a moral dilemma, where the testing had to be justified based upon the benefits gained by the
research derived from it. While important the same argument that led to progress of animals
rights would also hinder the movement later in the 19th century.
Finally, in the 19th century, progress was achieved! For the first time in recorded history
legislation was proposed to maintain certain standards that animals were to be treated with. After
seeing the atrocities and the inhumane treatment of cattle in local farms, Colonel Richard Martin
proposed the first written piece of Animal protection legislation to parliament calling for a fine or
short-term imprisonment for anyone who Beat, abused, or ill-treated any horse, mare, gelding,
3Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Maurice Cranston. A Discourse on Inequality. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin,
1984. Print.
4 Bentham J. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. W. Pickering; London, UK: 1823.
mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, steer, sheep, or any other cattle. It was established as the Ill treatment
of Horses and Cattle Act of 18225 but later became known simply as Martins act. Now, this law
was widely unsuccessful as the social norm of treating animals like dirt was widely practiced and
thought well of; thus, lawsuits made with this act were largely laughed off in court. Even if
Martins act didnt cause any direct change the fact that it was created sparked other laws to be
enacted all around the world! After backlash from the comical treatment of Martins Law, a civil
rights group called the Anti-Vivisection movement started to gain momentum around this period
sparking public interest pertaining to the welfare of animals . This widespread change in public
opinion continued to gain popularity until the first organization dedicated to the protection of
animals was created: The Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection. After
opinions had finally been given an outlet, the animal rights movement finally had a brand to
advertise. Soon, the Anti-vivisection movement was able to coax lawmakers into creating the
first legislation that would control the use of animals in scientific experimentation: Great
Britains Cruelty to Animals Act of 18766. A representative for scientific discovery named
Charles Robert Darwin published a document that raised strong arguments for both sides of the
debate: On the Origin of Species acknowledged the physiological similarities between the
entirety of the animal world as to give a plausible reason for vivisection in the name of
discovery7, but condemned the practice for any other reason than scientific. In a letter supporting
5 Silver Barrel Solutions | April 2010. "CURRENT LEGISLATION." CFAWR | Current Legislation. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov.
2016.
6 Kara Rogers, "Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Progress Report," britannica.com, Sep. 17, 2007
7 Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: , ; New York Boston, 1925. Print.
physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me
sick with horror 8. Darwins explanation of how vivisection was sinful but also massively
important in the production of discovery describes the two sides of the Animal rights debate. On
one hand, the cruel and un-just treatment of animals is an abhorrence to our humanity; but on the
other hand, the usefulness of animals in the betterment of scientific knowledge has proved itself
time and time to outweigh the costs. Today, the moral debate begins in the 20th century on the
basis that humans have expended everything useful to learn from animals, so why does
experimentation continue?
In one of the most ironic aspects of the turn of the century, Nazi Germany became the
dominant leader in animal rights and passed a legitimate declaration for the protection of animals
in 1933 called the Tierschutzgesetz, roughly translated to animal protection laws. They mirrored
Britains pre-existing set of laws from the Cruelty to Animals act of 1876, but were more
intricate with harsher sentences. Nazi Germany continued to establish the highest amount of
rights for animals in recorded history, later banning hunting with Reichsjagdgesetz in 1934, and
Naturschutzgesetz which set environmental standards that had to be kept for the safekeeping of
wildlife. Germany even continued to pass laws in 1937 which protected animals within
transportation9, and at some points, animals had better treatment than certain humans. This
progression of Animal rights was completely lost after the end of WWII, when the Nazi regime
was liquidized. Unfortunately that progress has not been yet regained in any of our societies.
While other countries havent followed Nazi Germanys or Britains stance regarding the welfare
of animals individuals within these countries found new ways to protest. Vegetarianism had been
9 Boria Sax (2000). Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust.
Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 179. ISBN 0-8264-1289-0.
around for a long time and was nothing new to society, but the origination of Veganism through
the efforts of Donald Watson and his fellow vegetarians created the British Vegan Society10 in
1944. The Moral reasoning behind their cause was that they believe that Human society
oppresses animals in unjust ways through the products and items made at animals expense. Even
today, Veganism is still a popular way for individuals to protest the oppression of animals in their
own way. At this point in history, moral standings on animal rights had been swayed enough to
completely ban animal cruelty and almost all forms of testing in Britain and Nazi Germany, so
In a plea for the end of oppression towards animals an oxford student named Peter Singer
published a book titled Animal Liberation 11 in 1975 which is now considered one of Animal
rights activists most influential bases of action. Founding his arguments on the previous civil
rights movements such as the suffragettes, or black liberation movements of his time, He based
the oppression of animals on a term called speciesm, under which animals are given a lower
moral standing on the sole basis of belonging to a different species12. As it became a widely-
disputed movement of the 19th century, many individuals were eager to publish their opinions.
Tom Regan, a soon to be well-esteemed philosopher, published another article called The case
for Animal Rights 13 which agreed with Rousseau previous ideologies where animals had inherent
worth and deserved to be treated with such rights in mind. Now such writings have been
11 Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New
York: New York Review, 1975. Print.
12 Singer P. Animal Liberation. HarperCollins Publishers; New York, NY, USA: 2001.
13 Regan, Tom. "The Case for Animal Rights", in Tom Regan and Peter Singer (eds.).
Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Prentice Hall, 1976.
extremely influential in changing public opinion but the fact of the matter is that citizens cannot
So, after thousands of years of oppression, what has changed for animals? Public opinion.
Humans have come a long way from watching the live dissections of animals for entertainment
to watching movies such as John Wick. This movie perfectly describes the monumental attitude
change towards the treatment of animals within our society, and is a perfect example of how
times have changed. Basically, dogs are valued in our society in such a manner as they are kin to
humans. After learning his dog has been unjustly killed, John Wick goes on a murder spree and
murders an entire gang of people who would have dared to kill his dog. Our society has changed
in such a manner that even the idea of hurting animals is apprehendable by severe violence in
order to protect those animals. With any luck, this kinship between Humans and Animals will
perpetrate into governmental individuals and bring about Animal rights legislation.
WORK CITED
The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. Nullfield Council on Bioethics, London, 2005, pp. 53, The Ethics of
2004, Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values,
Grethe B. Peterson (ed.), Volume 25/26, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Maurice Cranston. A Discourse on Inequality. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:
Bentham J. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. W. Pickering; London, UK: 1823.
Silver Barrel Solutions | April 2010. "CURRENT LEGISLATION." CFAWR | Current Legislation. N.p., n.d. Web.
28 Nov. 2016.
Kara Rogers, "Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Progress Report," britannica.com, Sep. 17, 2007
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: , ; New York Boston, 1925. Print.
Boria Sax (2000). Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust. Continuum International
"History of Vegetarianism: The Origin of Some Words", International Vegetarian Union, April 6, 2010
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York: New York Review, 1975.
Print.
Singer P. Animal Liberation. HarperCollins Publishers; New York, NY, USA: 2001.
Regan, Tom. "The Case for Animal Rights", in Tom Regan and Peter Singer (eds.). Animal Rights and Human