Animal rights not human rights, and the importance of emotion

Recently I had the privilege of speaking at an IQ2 Debate in Sydney, hosted by The Ethics Centre, on the proposition that animal rights should trump human interests.

As a staunch believer in animal rights, I spoke for the motion. With pre-debate votes showing support for the motion, I was disturbed when the post-debate votes showed a substantial swing against the motion. (Interestingly the online vote at the time of writing is 90% for the motion and 10% against).

Perhaps one of the reasons for the swing was confusion about the rights model animal rights advocates are seeking for animals.

Let me be clear here, we are not seeking human rights for animals. We are seeking rights appropriate to the relevant species. Rights akin to those that have been legally recognised for the environment such as the right of nature recognised in Ecuador to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.

For example, a pig would likely have no interest in a right to vote or to own property. Rather, she would likely have interest in a right to life, a right to shelter, a right to good health, a right to bond with and nurture offspring, a right to enrichment, a right to freedom, a right to safety (which would include a right not to suffer).

We are not talking about enshrining in law rights that would seek to protect an antelope being killed by a lion. I agree with the opposition here - that would be nonsensical. Animals need and deserve recognition of rights that provide protection from harm inflicted by humans.

They need these rights recognised because Australian law does not adequately protect animals from harm inflicted by humans. It does not recognise the inherent value of animals.

Instead, animals are regarded as property, much like chairs, cars, books, houses and computers; inanimate objects, with no sense of feeling. They are not recognised as sentient beings – that they feel pain, joy, hunger, loneliness, cold, heat, fear, stress; that they form social bonds, claim ownership, fight for their lives; that they are aware.

Instead the law sanctions animal suffering.

For example, people who engage in the farming of animals, are permitted to inflict cruel practices on farm animals for the sake of human interest. "Normal" animal husbandry practices are allowed. If you're a farmer, you have a defence to a charge of animal cruelty because the law allows you to cut off the beaks, teeth, tails and genitalia of chickens, cows, pigs and sheep without pain relief. You are allowed to confine animals in a way that prohibits any significant movement for extended periods of time; you can transport animals for long periods of time without adequate space, water, feed and attention; you can prevent natural behaviours such as chickens dust bathing; and of course, you can kill.

The sentience of animals and the inadequacies of our laws are just two reasons why animal rights should trump human interests. This is exemplified by the manner in which humans think of animals – that animals are lesser beings, that as a superior species, we can use and abuse animals as we see fit for our own benefit without recognising the inherent value and moral rights of animals.

More than ever, animals are at our mercy. More than ever, animals need their rights recognised. More than ever, humans need to appreciate the inherent value of animals and learn to coexist rather than to discriminate and destroy.

Some people might be persuaded by the argument that animal rights mean no more lattes.[1] Putting aside the comparison of the human interest in enjoying a latte vs a cow having her calf taken from her within the first few days of birth, the health concerns associated with continuous breeding (for example, mastitis), and the ensuing fate of the calf (for example, veal production, slaughter), technology and knowledge today mean there are many plant based milk options - we can all continue to enjoy our lattes!

Following the IQ2 Debate, some said the 'for' team spoke too "emotionally" compared to the 'against' team who were regarded as more "factual".

As a lawyer, I acknowledge that facts and logic are important and I always rely upon these aspects. However, when one discusses the lives and inherent value of sentient beings, facts and logic are not the only matters of relevance.

As mentioned above, animals are sentient beings. The use of animals for human benefit inflicts suffering upon those animals. Thus, when one talks about animal use for human benefit, one must talk about how these animals suffer. Facts are important to demonstrate and prove how animals suffer. Emotion is just as important - an emotive response is a valid response to suffering. Human beings are governed by both logic and emotion. For a balanced and valid argument to be had, it is my view that one must incorporate both logic and emotion. For an argument to be had by someone who cares, speaking from an emotional space comes naturally.

The IQ2 Debate enabled necessary discussion on the important topic of animal rights vis a vis human interests. I'm confident the discussion provided food for thought for many. The debate has certainly demonstrated where further discussion is needed in the continuing fight for the deserved recognition of animal rights.