Snippets from my AU Animal Rights DB

What rights do animals have?

I always find an ethical debate about animals and their rights to be muddled up with the higher intelligence/which species deserves rights/what rights should they have rather than how they should be treated. Sometimes I think that an ethical debate is more about proving the other person's theory wrong rather than what is being debated. Or maybe I have no patience for ethics today. However, I believe Nussbaum's essay (Sunstein, p. 300) points us in the right direction. We share limited resources with other creatures and not all resources are for us. After all, we are not the only species that relies on natural resources to sustain us, so why should we be polluting another's water and air supply? Francione (Sunstein, p. 108) argues his point from eliminating animals as property and suggests we are treating them as resources. He also points out that laws protecting them revolve around protecting the people that own them. After reading his essay, I began to realize that we often measure an animal's rights and intelligence to our own, so maybe Wise's theory falls flat. We've judged other humans as being savages so therefore they have fewer rights (look at our own history). Maybe we shouldn't fall into the same mind-set when considering animals and their intelligence/rights either.


Sunstein, C., & Nussbaum, M. (Eds.). Animal rights: Currents debates and new directions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/

Oiled animals from BP Blowout:

The animals that were oiled did have a legal right for themselves and their habitat to be cleaned. The most important reason is that it was humans who made the mess in the first place, not the animals. We are the ones who have a fossil-fuel based economy and are the ones who are demanding oil. While oil is a necessity right now, we must take responsibility to clean up any harm that occurs to the environment and other species that live there.


The people who devote their time to cleaning these animals feel the burden of this responsibility and act on it. Most depend on this area for their livelihood, research, or just people who want to help. While many of us watched the BP spill on TV, these people acted and helped clean the oiled animals. I admire their tenacity and resolve to make a difference any way they could.

I believe that these actions reveal that many people do not want our society to operate in a "one generation society...[and]...that the future matters" (Thiele, 1999, p. 62). Nature is important, not only for our benefit, but for the future of the entire planet. The Earth may go on without us if we pollute it enough, but it shows poor judgment on our part to let it go in such a way. I also believe we should strive to ensure a healthy environment and encourage our lawmakers to make a contract with the future (Thiele, 1999, p. 74). We should be transitioning to renewable energy sources rather than remaining stuck in the past with fossil fuels and the harm they cause.

Reference:

Thiele, L. (1999, April). Environmentalism for a new millennium: The challenge of coevolution. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/docDetail.action?docID=10142340

Who should represent an animal and its rights?

Animals have human advocates for their rights, since they have no legal standing as humans do. The organizations listed in our guidance are examples of people protecting animals and their habitats. Habitat protection is the key to maintain biodiversity and ensure survival of many endangered species. Without these organizations and people who devote their time to educating the public, many species would be extinct--including our own National Bird the Bald Eagle.

I'm old enough to remember the Weekly Reader that highlighted DDT, its effect on eggshells, and its contribution to lower survival rates of many bird species including the bald eagle. Some may argue that DDT did not contribute to this ecological problem, but they are ill-informed. DDT does break down into different metabolites and DDE is thought to be the one that interfered with calcium deposition in the eggshells. Thinner shells lead to the adults accidentally breaking the eggs in the nest which equals lower survival rates.


I realize DDT is used to protect humans against malaria in developing countries and has lowered human death rates, but at what cost to their ecosystem I wonder? I haven't read any studies concerning this, but can rely on my own work and readings to figure out what is happening to the birds, fish, and aquatic microorganisms. So while we save poorer countries from malaria, we are at the same time destroying their livelihood in many instances. We are left with an ethical dilemma in this situation that isn't easily answered.