Sacred Heart Seminary, Philippines
Contemporary Philosophy
“DO NON- HUMAN ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS”
We may be familiar with the line,“Although other animals may be different
from us, this does not make them LESS than us.” This is said by Marc Bekoff, an
animal rights advocate, to challenge the present generation to respect with
compassion, to give what is due, and to speak for the creatures that cannot speak for
themselves, and these are the non- human animals.
As we live on a planet where Man is the ruler of the natural world, we are
confronted with different issues regarding the relation of man with the non-human
animals.
The antelopes and ruminants are slaughtered for sports, the buffaloes and
bears are butchered for clothing, the rabbits are used for cosmetics experiments, the
hens are put in a small cage for the rest of their life to produce eggs, and the
chimpanzees are used and tortured for further studies about their behavior. These are
just some of the issues on animal welfare that the world is facing today, and we do not
want to add more. Rather, we need to reduce and minimize them.
The concern for animal respect and cruelty is believed to have developed
even in the early centuries. It was practiced by the ancient religions, particularly,
Hinduism and Buddhism. The Hindus are against animal cruelty because of their
belief in reincarnation. They believe that a dog might be the soul of one of their
relatives, who, after his death, had been reincarnated, and became that kind of animal.
The same belief goes with the Buddhists. Hence, for them, killing an animal is the
same as killing humans. Moreover, both religions also believe in the law of Karma,
which explains that violence towards other creatures will result in a bad fate, and
immediately more suffering will occur in their life. Thence, to avoid more suffering,
they do not inflict harm, instead, they show respect and compassion towards these
non-human animals. However, while rejecting the different cultures and traditions of
these different religions, do humans really need to respect the non-human animals, or
, are they free to do whatever they want with these creatures?
Descartes, a modern philosopher, claimed that animals do not have the
capacity to reason and to feel pain; although they are living creatures, they are still
like mechanical robots, and they do not have souls. Since they are robots or what he
called the automata, hence, they do not deserve compassion. Rather, only human
beings deserve it, because they are rational and sentient subjects. This position
supports Speciesism, which claims that since animals do not deserve compassion and
respect, and thus, humans can do whatever they want with them. Hence, there is
nothing wrong with kicking a dog without necessity, and there is no difference
between throwing a dog and a stone in the sea. Meanwhile, Immanuel Kant, another
modern philosopher viewed the non-human animals differently. According to him,
they are not rational and self- conscious, therefore, they are just means to an end. Kant
claimed that the only value they have is instrumental value. But, it does not mean that
ill-treatment to animals is acceptable even without necessity. Rather, he believes that
although we do not have direct duties to these creatures, still, we have indirect duties
towards them. Indirectly means that our behavior towards them have the tendency to
become a habit and becomes our behavior towards mankind also. As he said, “If a
man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not
fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that
humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a
man by his treatment of animals.”
Descartes and Kant had developed their own ideas regarding the value of
animals, and the proper behavior of humans towards them; however, despite the
already existing ideas made by these two great modern philosophers, Jeremy
Bentham, a contemporary philosopher, formulated his own idea concerning the value
of non- human animals. His idea is in contrast with Descartes’s notion of these
creatures. Because he believes that the animals are sentient beings, they have the
capacity to feel pain and pleasure. For him, the criteria to have moral status or the
value that is inherent within something is not rationality; nor the capacity for
language, but, sentience. As he wrote in his book Principles of Morals and
Legislation, “The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? But, can they
suffer?” This line does not only concern the human beings, but also other sentient
Contemporary Philosophy
“DO NON- HUMAN ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS”
We may be familiar with the line,“Although other animals may be different
from us, this does not make them LESS than us.” This is said by Marc Bekoff, an
animal rights advocate, to challenge the present generation to respect with
compassion, to give what is due, and to speak for the creatures that cannot speak for
themselves, and these are the non- human animals.
As we live on a planet where Man is the ruler of the natural world, we are
confronted with different issues regarding the relation of man with the non-human
animals.
The antelopes and ruminants are slaughtered for sports, the buffaloes and
bears are butchered for clothing, the rabbits are used for cosmetics experiments, the
hens are put in a small cage for the rest of their life to produce eggs, and the
chimpanzees are used and tortured for further studies about their behavior. These are
just some of the issues on animal welfare that the world is facing today, and we do not
want to add more. Rather, we need to reduce and minimize them.
The concern for animal respect and cruelty is believed to have developed
even in the early centuries. It was practiced by the ancient religions, particularly,
Hinduism and Buddhism. The Hindus are against animal cruelty because of their
belief in reincarnation. They believe that a dog might be the soul of one of their
relatives, who, after his death, had been reincarnated, and became that kind of animal.
The same belief goes with the Buddhists. Hence, for them, killing an animal is the
same as killing humans. Moreover, both religions also believe in the law of Karma,
which explains that violence towards other creatures will result in a bad fate, and
immediately more suffering will occur in their life. Thence, to avoid more suffering,
they do not inflict harm, instead, they show respect and compassion towards these
non-human animals. However, while rejecting the different cultures and traditions of
these different religions, do humans really need to respect the non-human animals, or
, are they free to do whatever they want with these creatures?
Descartes, a modern philosopher, claimed that animals do not have the
capacity to reason and to feel pain; although they are living creatures, they are still
like mechanical robots, and they do not have souls. Since they are robots or what he
called the automata, hence, they do not deserve compassion. Rather, only human
beings deserve it, because they are rational and sentient subjects. This position
supports Speciesism, which claims that since animals do not deserve compassion and
respect, and thus, humans can do whatever they want with them. Hence, there is
nothing wrong with kicking a dog without necessity, and there is no difference
between throwing a dog and a stone in the sea. Meanwhile, Immanuel Kant, another
modern philosopher viewed the non-human animals differently. According to him,
they are not rational and self- conscious, therefore, they are just means to an end. Kant
claimed that the only value they have is instrumental value. But, it does not mean that
ill-treatment to animals is acceptable even without necessity. Rather, he believes that
although we do not have direct duties to these creatures, still, we have indirect duties
towards them. Indirectly means that our behavior towards them have the tendency to
become a habit and becomes our behavior towards mankind also. As he said, “If a
man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not
fail in his duty to the dog, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that
humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. We can judge the heart of a
man by his treatment of animals.”
Descartes and Kant had developed their own ideas regarding the value of
animals, and the proper behavior of humans towards them; however, despite the
already existing ideas made by these two great modern philosophers, Jeremy
Bentham, a contemporary philosopher, formulated his own idea concerning the value
of non- human animals. His idea is in contrast with Descartes’s notion of these
creatures. Because he believes that the animals are sentient beings, they have the
capacity to feel pain and pleasure. For him, the criteria to have moral status or the
value that is inherent within something is not rationality; nor the capacity for
language, but, sentience. As he wrote in his book Principles of Morals and
Legislation, “The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? But, can they
suffer?” This line does not only concern the human beings, but also other sentient
