screamingchicken's theory of animal rights

Screaming Chicken Productions Presents:

The Theory of Animal Rights:Agriculture

This presentation address’s just a couple of the reasons regarding

the theories around animal rights, and in no way represents a

absolute argument for the rights of animals. There are many other

compelling reasons to convert to a plant based diet, what follows is simply one of those reasons.

Most people agree that it is morally wrong to inflict

unnecessary suffering and death to animals.

But what is considered unnecessary suffering and pain?

Most people follow what our society says about this issue. Our society, and consequently

our laws dictate what is considered unnecessary

suffering and pain.

For Example, our society condemns and punishes incidents

of “animal cruelty” such as dog fighting or microwaving cats.

Dog Fighting

Microwaving Cats

Animal Agriculture, however accounts for over 98% of our societies use of animals. It is estimated that over 27 billion animals are brought into the

world and killed each year - in North America alone.

This use of animal agriculture can be considered morally

unnecessary when one considers the following:

Firstly, The Americans Dietic Association, and Dietitions of Canada

state that “…Vegetarian diets are healthful, nutrionally adequate, and

provide health benefits…”

Dietians of Canada

Also, entire nations have had religious vegetarians sustaining themselves off little or no animal

agriculture for thousands of years. Religious vegetarians consist of Hindu’s, Sikh’s, Buddhists and

Jains.

Sikh Vegetarians

Furthermore, many medical and health organizations such as the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine are advocating a vegan diet to reduce cancer, diabetes and a host of other

diseases.

Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine

Therefore, we can conclude that animal products are unnecessary. Once one has

established that animal products are unnecessary to sustain life, the arguments in

support of the continued use of animals agriculture cannot be taken in form of

necessities.

Sentience of animals is one of the most key factors in the argument in

favour of animal rights.

Sentience is defined as:

“the ability to experience pleasure and pain”.

Pleasure

Pain

“The question is not, can they reason? Nor can they talk? But

can they suffer?”

- Jeremy Bentham

“If a being suffers, then there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration....

“No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its

suffering be counted equally with the like suffering of another being”

- Peter Singer

Recognizing Sentience is the first step in understanding the theory of animal rights.

However, it is not just the ability to feel pain that propels the theory of animal rights. The theory is morally supported by the natural

instincts of all animals.

Firstly, all forms of sentient life seek freedom, and consequently liberation

from any oppressor. This is true in the case of human slavery, as well

as in the case of animal confinement.

The degree of moral infringement of these comparisons is irrelevant. The

point remains however, that any captive being desires to live life on

their own accord.

Live life on their own accord.

All sentient beings have a natural desire for basic needs such as food, shelter

and reproduction. Animals desire food above all else so that they may continue

to live.

They desire shelter so that they are kept save from predators. They desire

reproduction so that their species may continue to live on. All animals are

cognitive of these needs as they readily seek them out.

Cognitive of these needs.

If you accept that animal products are unnecessary to sustain human

life, and that animals do indeed suffer, then you already have a basic

understanding of this theory of animals rights.

To further understand this theory of animal rights, one must look at the

arguments that are in favor of exploitative animal use, and why

these arguments are fundamentally flawed, mirroring arguments of

racism and sexism.

One of the most prominent arguments in favour of animal agriculture use is that

animals are inferior to humans, and thus it is morally acceptable to treat them as

commodities.

Treat them as commodities.

Intelligence, however, is not a deciding factor when attributing moral consideration to a

being. Mentally delayed humans, who while admittedly are inferior in terms of intelligence, are given equal rights and consideration when it comes to the right to live free of pain, with a shortened life span and to live free of death.

All mentally delayed humans and animals both share a want to live free

of pain, without death or suffering, because both have some degree of

sentience.

They are more or less the same when viewed for intelligence; yet we

award one moral consideration, when we don’t give a thought to the other.

We do not award moral consideration.

It should be noted however, that it has only been in recent years that those with

mental disabilities have become accepted into society. They were once treated quite similarly to how animals in agriculture are

treated now.

Another prominent argument is that eating animals is natural and that we’ve done it for

thousands of years. The word natural however, is nothing more than a label, and

is often used to defend operations that have been deemed immoral, but still operate

because it is of our “nature”.

This argument has often been used to defend racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination or oppression. There have

been documented vegetarians for over 2000 years, proving that even if animal use for

agriculture was “natural”, it was not necessary.

A Once “Natural” Practices.

Another position defending the consumption of animal product is that they taste good. This argument has no sound moral standing; it is

the same argument that a proponent of slavery or sexism would use. It is enjoyable, profitable, but not a necessity for us to eat

animal flesh.

It is enjoyable, profitable, but not a necessity for us to eat animal flesh.

Similarly, it is enjoyable, profitable, but not necessary for one to commit acts of

sexism, or for one to be a proponent of slavery.

Make no mistake; the degree of moral infringement is not the matter to be

discussed here. The point is that all three of these actions satisfy the proponent, are completely unnecessary, and morally

abhorrent.

No Moral Standing.

Animal Agriculture is first and foremost an unnecessary practice. On top of the

above moral arguments, animal agriculture contributes to many other

massive worldwide problems.

Supporting animal rights isn’t an arduous or impossible task. By cutting out portions of

animal products out of ones diet, and slowly reverting to a Vegan diet one can start to be the voice for the voiceless, and end animal

suffering and death.

“Do we, as humans, having an ability to reason and to communicate abstract ideas verbally and

in writing, and to form ethical and moral judgements using the accumulated knowledge of the ages, have the right to take the lives of other sentient organism, particularly when we are not forced to by hunger or dietary need, but rather

do so for the somewhat frivolous reason that we like the taste of meat?”

- Dr. Peter Cheek