Animal Rights

Animal Sciences

COPYRIGHT 2002 The Gale Group Inc.

Animal Rights

The opinions regarding animals and their rights greatly vary. To

some, animals have no rights and are merely a form of property that
exists only to fulfill human needs. To others, they are creatures that
can be used or owned by people, but which also have feelings and
are not to be subjected to needless suffering or pain. (Some would
say that people with this belief are animal welfare, as opposed to
animal rights, advocates.) Finally, there are those who believe that
at least certain animals, such as those with sophisticated levels of
intelligence and emotions (including nonhuman primates such as
monkeys and chimpanzees), are not property at all nor meant to be
utilized by man in any way. Such people believe that these animals
are entitled to fundamental moral and legal rights that are currently
accorded only to humans.

The animal rights movement includes many different organizations.

In the ​United States​ alone, more than 100 groups are interested in
the welfare of animals, and the focus of their activities and their
tactics vary widely. For example, the Humane Society uses public
education to promote responsible pet ownership, eliminate pain and
cruelty in hunting and animal research, and advance similar causes.
In contrast, the Animal Liberation Front commits illegal acts such as
break-ins, the destruction of property, and the releasing of animals
in its efforts to end all forms of what it considers to be animal
exploitation.

Audition for Students - Save 60%. Only $19.99/month

Students save 60% New updates to Photoshop, Illustrator & more. Join
adobe.com/CreativeCloud/Students | Sponsored▼

Report Advertisement

Opponents to the animal rights movement also vary. Some see it as

a group of do-gooders who are interfering with their right to treat or
use their property as they wish. Others believe that the movement
(or at least a part of it) consists of extremists who threaten the
economic, political, and religious institutions in our country. Virtually
every other country has one or more anticruelty statutes that
prohibits the mistreatment of animals, but the provisions and
effectiveness of those laws vary greatly. Many nations also have
organizations that are interested in protecting the welfare of
animals. Aside from the United States, the animal rights movement
is most active in ​Canada​, Western Europe, A
​ ustralia​, and ​New
Zealand​.

Historical Groundwork
Humans have long used animals for a variety of purposes. For
hundreds of thousands of years, people have hunted for food and
clothing. Between 10,000 and 18,000 years ago, humans began to
domesticate animals such as dogs, goats, sheep, and chickens as
beasts of burden and as food. For at least 2,500 years, animals
have been used in circuses and other forms of entertainment. In the
second century C.E., the Greek scientist Galen conducted some of
the first medical experiments on living animals.

WestBow Press Publishing - A Division of Zondervan

Have You Been Called to Write a Book? Let WestBow Press Help You Publish.

westbowpress.com | Sponsored▼

Antiquity.

The ancient Greeks believed that nonhuman creatures were created

by the gods to be used however people wished. According to the
Bible​, ​God​ gave man dominion "over the fish of the sea, over the
birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the ​Earth​ and over every
creeping things that creeps on the Earth" (Gen. 9.1-3). This
statement reflects the understanding of the ancient Israelites of how
the world began, of why humankind hunted and domesticated the
animals for food and clothing, and of how God provided for the
human race which He made in His image. These same principles
were in the laws of the ancient Greeks and Romans, which then
evolved into or influenced the laws of the various western European
countries (including ​England​'s common law) and those nations in
the New World that were settled by western Europeans. For
hundreds of years, no act committed upon an animal was
prohibited, no matter how cruel or unnecessary.

New ideas.

Report Advertisement

The concept that animals have rights is relatively new. The first
animal-protection law in western civilization was adopted in 1641 by
the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This law made it illegal to "exercise
any Tirranny or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature which are
usuallie kept for man's use." However, the rest of the western world
continued as before. Indeed, during most of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, many experiments were conducted using
living animals. This was largely because of the new idea that
scientific conclusions had to be based on observable facts and
because the dissection of human bodies and the use of living
people in medical experiments were illegal. This meant that
scientists had to experiment with animals to learn more about
physiology and anatomy. There were no controls on how these
experiments were conducted, but there were few qualms because
most believed that animals had no souls and, thus, felt no pain.

Ironically, these very experiments proved that animals do

experience pain. By the end of the eighteenth century, many argued
that animal abuse contributed to a person's cruelty. Others said that
the mistreatment of animals was a misuse of a gift from God. In
1789, the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham became the first to
say that animals have rights. According to Bentham, animals suffer
pain just as humans and thus deserve the same freedom from pain.

Modern Movements

Slowly, most people came to accept Bentham's idea. ​Maine

adopted the first modern anticruelty law in the United States in
1821, and every other state eventually enacted similar legislation.
To encourage the police to enforce these laws, private
organizations such as the American Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) were created throughout the last third
of the nineteenth century. In addition, since ​World War II​, a number
of federal animal-rights laws have been adopted. These laws
regulate animal experimentation and the treatment of animals by
medical research facilities, slaughterhouses, and circuses, as well
as people such as animal dealers who use animals as a source of
livelihood.
Protection of animals.

Report Advertisement

Many groups concerned with the treatment and welfare of animals

still believe in the superiority of humans and the right to use other
living creatures to meet human needs. However, in 1975, the
Australian philosopher Peter Singer argued that animals are entitled
to live free from the infliction of pain and suffering, whether from
animal experimentation, the raising of animals for food, or other
causes.

Eight years later, the American philosopher Thomas Regan argued

that every individual animal has an inherent value and thus has
moral rights that should not be violated even if to do so benefits
society. The ideas of both Singer and Regan provide the basis for
those who argue that animals have rights that must be observed
and protected as opposed to those who believe that it is all right to
use animals so long as it is done without cruelty.

State and Federal Statutes

The provisions of anticruelty statutes vary state to state. In addition,

the effectiveness of these laws depends to a large degree on
whether one believes animals are property and whether there
should be limits on how to use animals to meet human needs. Many
of these laws were written about 100 years ago and have rarely
been amended. Some are only a few paragraphs long. Most
statutes contain broad exemptions that usually include agricultural
practices (e.g., dehorning, castration, docking, and limiting feed) as
well as hunting and scientific experiments.

Report Advertisement

Even when an anticruelty law does not have exemptions, the courts
have often created them by ruling that the statutes do not prohibit
the infliction of pain, suffering, or death so long as it is not outside
the traditionally accepted use of animals. In addition, while some
laws define "animals" as all living creatures other than man, some
laws apply only to warm-blooded vertebrate animals. Others list
specific animals or types of animals that the provisions do or do not
protect.

In a few states, persons are guilty of violating the anticruelty

statutes if they are criminally or unreasonably negligent in their
treatment of an animal. Most states, however, require that the
defendant have some form of intent before a conviction can be
obtained. For instance, if a jurisdiction requires willful intent, then
the prosecutor must prove not only that the defendant acted
intentionally and voluntarily, but also that the defendant acted
without just cause or reason. In one case in ​North Carolina​, two dog
trainers were found not guilty of violating the local anticruelty law
when they beat a dog and submersed its head under water because
they did it to teach the animal not to dig holes.
In most states, violations of anticruelty laws are considered as
summary offenses, which only involve a fine, or as misdemeanors
with penalties that do not exceed a year in jail and a fine. Some
states have recently made the violation of these laws a felony, but it
is not yet known if this will make any substantial difference in the
obedience to, or the enforcement of, the statutes. Most police and
prosecutors are not very concerned about crimes against animals
and are reluctant to spend the time or the money to make arrests or
to take the cases to court. As a result, the enforcement of the
anticruelty laws is frequently left to such organizations as the
Humane Society and the ASPCA.

Animals and science.

Report Advertisement

Since World War II, the number of scientific experiments involving

animals has increased dramatically. Although the number of
animals used in these experiments is just a small percentage of the
millions killed every year for the benefit of humans for food and
other reasons (such as clothing and the use of animal fats, oils,
bones, and other byproducts in the manufacture of commercial
goods), much of the recent focus of the animal rights movement has
been on attempts to prohibit experimentation on live animals.

In addition to the state anticruelty statutes, animal experimentation

is governed by the federal Animal Welfare Act which was enacted in
1966 and substantially amended in 1985. This law and its
accompanying administrative regulations prohibit the use of animals
in a scientific experiment if a nonanimal alternative is readily
available. Scientists are also required to keep an animal's pain to a
minimum, and to consider alternatives to any procedure that causes
pain or distress. However, the law does not apply to rats or mice,
the animals used most often in experiments, nor does it limit the
type of experiments that may be conducted.

In the last decade of the 20th century, groups such as the Animal
Liberation Front have used illegal means to fight what they believe
is animal exploitation. In response, many states have adopted laws
that specifically target these activities. The federal government has
also enacted the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (1992). This law
makes it a crime to cross a state border with the intent to physically
disrupt zoos, aquariums, or similar public attractions, as well as to
physically disrupt commercial or academic facilities that use animals
for food production, research, or testing.

See also Animal Testing; Bioethics.

Mark A.​ ​Thorburn

Bibliography

Bloyd, Sunni. ​Animal Rights.​ San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, Inc.,
1990.
Day, Nancy. ​Animal Experimentation: Cruelty or Science?
Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1994.

Francione, Gary L. ​Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the

Dog?​ Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000.

Marquardt, Kathleen. ​Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Human

Rights.​ Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1993.

Regan, Thomas. ​The Case for Animal Rights.​ Berkeley: University

of California Press, 1983.

Roleff, Tamara L., and Jennifer A. Hurley. ​The Rights of Animals.

San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1999.
Sherry, Clifford J. ​Animal Rights: A Reference Handbook.​ Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1994.

Singer, Peter. ​Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of

Animals,​ 2nd ed. New York: Random House, 1990.

Since the days of ancient Greece, the common belief for centuries
was that animals were nothing more than living machines that had
no consciousness. Without consciousness, the animals could not
reason or think nor could they suffer or feel pain. Later, with the
establishment of Christianity, this consciousness, which the animals
supposedly did not have, became known as a "soul."

POLIO

Polio was once one of the world's most dreaded diseases. Between
1948 and 1952 alone, 11,000 people in the United States died of
polio and another 200,000 became partially or completely
paralyzed.

In 1953, Dr. Jonas Salk announced the development of a vaccine.

Salk and his colleagues developed the vaccine by growing three
strains of the polio virus in monkey tissue and then killing the
viruses with formaldehyde. This vaccine is between 80 percent and
90 percent effective and has saved millions of lives.

Page

of

2
 NEXT

Cite this article

Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

● MLA
● Chicago
● APA

"​Animal Rights.​" ​Animal Sciences​. . E

​ ncyclopedia.com.​ 24 May. 2018 
<​http://www.encyclopedia.com​>. 

Learn more about citation styles

●
●

Sponsored Content
● 10 Ways to Generate Income in
Retirement​Fisher Investments

● New Snoring Solution Has CPAP Makers Quaking In Their

Boots​www.bestsnoringproducts.com

● Which Travel Card Has The

Most Valuable Miles?​NerdWallet

● Pictures Of The Ocean That You Might Find Scary​Social Gazette

 ● What is psoriatic arthritis? Look for symptoms, causes &
more​Yahoo! Search

● [Gallery] This Photo Has Not Been Edited, Look Closer​Offbeat

Recommended by

Animal rights facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Animal rights