Welcome to this Animal Rights Blog
The purpose of this blog is to present and discuss news, literature, public perceptions, and cultural values pertaining to the subject of Animal Rights.
It is also hoped that visitors here will find this blog useful in exploring why it is that Animal Rights is still today unrecognised by the majority of the population, misrepresented and marginalised by world governments, and actively vilified by corporate forces. All this despite the fact that the philosophy of Animal Rights is not suggesting we do anything new or different, it is merely attempting to extend an already well established and morally approved way of life (the existence of Rights) outwards from those who enjoy it now (humans), to those who possess the same morally relevant qualifications to be included (non humans), but are denied it for a variety of morally indefensible reasons, as explored in this blog.
Animals Rights Philosophy
What follows is a very simplified explanation of what Rights are, how they came about and to what extent they have evolved currently. It is intended that this will help place the call for Animal Rights within the context of already well accepted Human Rights origins.
The original philosophy behind affording Rights to humans began with the understanding that we are sentient and are therefore aware of our surroundings and experiences to an extent that what happens to us matters to us. Consequently if we are not protected from avoidable cruelty we will suffer unnecessarily. To allow this wherever it could otherwise be guarded against is therefore considered wantonly cruel and so immoral.
In response this problem we gave ourselves ‘Rights’, the essence of which were to guarantee certain basic freedoms from harm and of lifestyle and expression, so that we could each live according to our personal choices without suffering deliberate physical, or mental, harm or subjugation.
Rights on this basis were first afforded to white males as it was considered (by white males!) that black people and women were merely property (of the same white males) and their sufferings were not sufficiently significant on their own to warrant the protection of these new Rights. As a result of protest and campaigning over many decades, the case was successfully made that women and black people do of course possess the same morally relevant qualifications for Rights as white males (to think that it used to be otherwise seems madness to modern society).
Consequently the case for Rights for all humans was successfully made, and has become the morally preferred way of treating all humans.
There are a number of moral theories used to from which to ground our ethical treatment of each other and details of some of these will be discussed in the ‘philosophy’ section of this site. However ultimately they all provide for humans to have rights.
Since the inception of human rights science has proven that many animals also possess these same ‘Rights qualifying’ characteristics and so there are an increasing number of people who now realise that to deny many of these other species Rights when they possess the same entitlements as humans is morally wrong.
Given the above, for humans to be granted rights and non-humans with equal claim to be denied rights is what we call speciesism. That is to say they are denied rights on no more defensible basis than that they are not humans, which of course is not a morally relevant trait for the possession or otherwise of Rights.
This is why the Animal Rights movement was born. Animals unlike women or black people cannot campaign for their own justice so the Animal Rights movement was setup by people who wanted to campaign on their behalf.
Unfortunately, as was once the case with women and black people (only even more so in this case), governments and businesses have vested interests in keeping animals in slavery and subjugation, and in duping the human population into believing that animals should not be allowed Rights, even against all the evidence to the contrary.
For this reason the Animal Rights movement must continue to push for our non-human neighbours to be granted the protection of Rights, for which they are as qualified (and entitled) as humans.