ZOOPOLIS: A POLITICAL THEORY OF ANIMAL RIGHTSby Sue Donaldson andWill Kymlicka

Chapter 1 - IntroductionThis chapter is about the authors’ motivation for writing the book

“The animal advocacy movement is at an impasse.” (p. 1)

PROGRESS animal welfare

measures passed e.g. California

prop 2 [and many others

they don’t mention]

NO PROGRESS 56 billion animals

killed for food per year, worldwide

more people, more livestock, more factory farming

Why? Why so little progress? D&K: we need to look at 3 dominant

animal ethics frameworks

3 frameworks① WELFARISM – “human beings stand

above animals in a clear moral hierarchy” (p. 3) – but we should use animals humanely

② ECOLOGICAL HOLISM – ecosystems matter, we should treat individual animals as benefits whole ecosystems

③ ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY (ART) – animals have basic rights to life and liberty

Why is ART so unpopular?

Public has warmed up to welfarism and ecological holism

Very few people embrace ART

Some reasons…① “depth of cultural inheritance” (p. 5)② self-interest③ “powerful vested interests”

D&K: problem is partly with ART as usually formulated

Main theorists—Tom Regan, Gary Francione, Joan Dunayer① They proclaim that animals have

negative rights only

NEGATIVE RIGHTS POSITIVE RIGHTS

right to libertyright to liferight to be left aloneETC

right to medical careright to an educationright to be housed and fedETC

Standard ART (cont.)② They see human relationship with

domesticated animals as exploitative – goal is extinction of pets and livestock

③ They envision a world with us here and wild animals “out there” being left alone

D&K say standard ART … ignores our relationships to animals and

duties of care ignores realities of human-animal

coexistence ignores possibility of positive duties to

animals

Standard ART is unattractive to the public because … “no positive conception of human-

animal interaction” (p. 9) ignores “human impulse for contact with

the animal world” this impulse for contact is the main

motivation of most animal advocates standard ART is alienating to public

3 FRAMEWORKS① WELFARISM – “human beings stand above

animals in a clear moral hierarchy” (p. 3) – but we should use animals humanely

② ECOLOGICAL HOLISM – ecosystems matter, we should treat individual animals as benefits whole ecosystems

③ ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY (ART) – animals have basic rights to life and liberty

A. STANDARD – Regan, Francione, etc.B. NEW – Zoopolis theory

New ART (Zoopolis) Universal negative rights (all sentient

animals) —right to life and liberty Political categories—citizen, foreigner,

refugee, resident alien, etc. Positive rights depending on category

Questions/Objections1. Do the three frameworks exhaust the

possibilities? Where does Peter Singer fit in? What about DeGrazia and Rachels?

2. Is the resistance to ART really because of the way it’s been formulated so far?

3. Will positive rights make more people embrace ART?

Chapter 2 – Universal Basic Rights for AnimalsThis chapter is about negative basic rights. D&K defend the claim that all sentient animals have them.

SectionsIntro, 1 & 4: Why animals have rights2-3: Debates with environmentalists5: Implications of animals having negative rights

Two meanings of “rights”① Rights in weak sense -- there are limits

to the way we should treat animals ② Rights in robust sense – inviolability –

right to life, right to liberty

Why all animals have basic negative rights① “conscious/sentient beings are selves…” (read

passages on p. 24 and 25)② the “argument from marginal cases”—how can

we assert rights for mentally impaired humans and deny them to comparable animals?

③ if high intellectual ability were necessary for rights, our rights would be insecure (p. 27) – consider the Telepaths (compare Under the Skin)

④ “intersubjective recognition (p. 30)

SectionsIntro, 1 & 4: Why animals have rights2-3: Debates with environmentalists [interesting]5: Implications of animals having negative rights

Inviolable, universal rights① inviolable – “they are not means to our ends…”

(p. 40)② inviolable does not mean absolute and

exceptionless ③ exceptions for “self-defense or necessity”④ Stage of history, context matter. Rights apply

only if we are in the “circumstances of justice.” “Humans owe justice to each other [and to animals] when they are in fact able to respect each other’s rights without jeopardizing their own existence.” (p. 41)

Exceptions (rights don’t apply) Mr. Caveman and the aurochs I’m starving in the Arctic, could eat hare Eskimos without access to plant foods lifeboat cases I’m being attacked by a bear

Rights do apply Deciding what to eat today Using animals in medical research (=

using humans) Using animals for leather and fur

New ART not extreme! “The idea of inviolable rights for

animals, therefore, is more complex than it initially appears, and not as absolute or unconditional as it may sound.” (p. 42)

“We have a duty progressively to extend the circumstances of justice so that, wherever possible, we can respect these inviolable rights.” (p. 42)

Inviolable universal rights bullfighting religious animal sacrifices

Questions/Objections① What would it be like to have a universal

declaration of animal rights? What would we have to do for wild animals to enforce it?

② Is killing out of “necessity” just as permissible whether I’m killing humans or animals?

③ Why no exception for medical experimentation? Why isn’t that a case of “necessity”?

Chapter 3 – Extending Animal Rights via Citizenship TheoryThis chapter explains a set of political categories (citizen, alien, foreigner, etc.), defends their importance for human life, and defends extending them to animals

NEGATIVE RIGHTS

right to liferight to liberty

SAME

POLITICAL STATUS

US citizen

Tourist (from Italy)

Temporary worker(from Germany, has work visa)

Foreign student

Business visitor

NEGATIVE RIGHTS

SAME

POSITIVE RIGHTS

VARY

DEBATECosmopolitanism

We should get rid of these political categories

Everyone’s a “citizen of the world”

Borders don’t matter

Citizenship Theory (D&K)

We should retain these political categories

Life is better if each person is a citizen of some nation

D&K: We should extend political categories to animals. But first we need to define citizenship.

US citizen

FUNCTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP

1. Nationality—citizens have secure right of residence

2. Popular sovereignty—citizens are those for whose sake the state governs

3. Democratic political agency—citizens are entitled to be active participants in the political process (via speech, voting, etc.)

Citizens in sense 1 only—people living under tyranny

Citizens in sense 1 & 2 only –babies in US

Citizens in sense 1 & 2 and SOME of 3 –severely mentally disabled in USteenagers in USDEPENDENT AGENCY – see p. 60

Citizens in sense 1 & 2 and ALL of 3 –most adults in a democracy

FUNCTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP

1. Nationality—citizens have secure right of residence

2. Popular sovereignty—citizens are those for whose sake the state governs

3. Democratic political agency—citizens are entitled to be active participants in the political process (via speech, voting, etc.)

HUMAN EXAMPLES(Assume US point of view)

ANIMAL EXAMPLES

CITIZENS

• normal adult (1, 2, 3)• teenagers (1, 2, some 3)• dependent disabled (1,

2, some 3)• babies (1, 2)

domesticated animals (1, 2, some of 3)petsfarm animals

RESIDENT ALIENS

• migrant workers from another country

• domestic workers with work permits

liminal animalssquirrels, raccoons, ducks, rats

FOREIGNERS

• citizens of another country living in that country

wild animals:deer, bears, lions, birds

Functions of citizenship: 1) nationality, 2) those for whose sake state governs, 3) democratic participation

THE BIG PICTUREPo

litic

al C

ate

gori

es

Chapter 4 – Domesticated Animals within Animal Rights TheoryThis chapter looks at the nature of domestication and the moral status of domesticated animals

Questions about Domesticated Animals1. Purpose of domestication2. Process of domestication3. Treatment of domesticated animals4. Dependency of domesticated animals

Abolitionism/Extinctionism

Gary Francione Interview Blog pet dependency – they can’t live

good lives domestication was forced on

animals Proper goal of animal movement:

extinction of pets and farm animals

See also Callicott and Shephard

Objections to Extinctionism (Donaldson & Kymlicka) Strategically

misguided past injustices not

remedied by extinction (think about slavery)

coercive to sterilize all domesticated animals

The life of pets

Francione dependence is

demeaning first pets forced into

subservience neoteny (retention

of juvenile traits in adults) is unnatural and forced

D&K dependence compatible

with dignity (e.g. disabilities)

first pets drawn to human settlements – video

neoteny naturally occurs when tamer animals mate video

The future of domesticated animals – 3 possibilities

1. Status quo, modified (more animal cruelty laws, better enforcement, animal standing in courts, no-kill shelters, avoid pure-breds, etc.)

2. Extinction (Francione)3. Citizenship (D&K)

Citizenship for domesticated animals(preview of chapter 5)

1. How should we train them?2. How will they share public space?3. What duties do we have to protect them?4. Should we ever use animal products (e.g. eggs, wool)?5. Should we ever use animals for labor?6. Must we give them medical care?7. Is it OK to sterilize dogs and cats?8. What about letting obligate carnivores (cats) eat other

animals?9. What sort of political participation is possible for

animals?