Which Rights are Right?

Yesterday's topic for ethics class was animal rights. Before the speaker began her lecture she drew a line on the white board. At one end was "Full moral rights, as for an adult human," at the other end was "No moral rights." She asked us to place the following somewhere on the continuum: day old human, lizard, chicken, horse, dog. Thankfully, the day old human got top priority. Other than that, there was quite a bit of inconsistency regarding the placement of the other animals. The horse was placed at 3/4 rights, the chicken at 1/2 rights, the family dog at full rights (according to one person). It seemed to make a difference whether the animal was feral or domestic.

I was sitting there commenting to my neighbor and getting worked up. I disagreed pretty strongly with the placement of animals of the continuum.

According to care ethics, an animal has more rights if I care about it more (e.g. pet rat vs lab rat). I think if animals do have moral rights, then those rights are not based on the purpose of the animal. It doesn't matter if it's a wild horse in Eastern Oregon or a million dollar race horse. If they have rights, they have equal rights. Pigs do not have less rights than the family dog just because they are being raised to be eaten. (Maybe it's similar to the love-like difference. I should not treat a person better just because I like them. I should treat all men with equal respect because I agape-love them.) If slave owners ever concerned themselves with ethics, perhaps they employed a form of care ethics. Ultimately, they accorded their slaves less rights than their own children because of the position of those slaves which was in a way related to how much the owners cared about them. In reality, there was nothing intrinsically different between their children and the slaves to justify different treatment of them.
Anyway, if you're going to grant animals moral rights, by all means do it fairly.

Now, do animal have rights? “Right” may be properly defined as: “a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession.” I have a hard time saying that something purely physical (as I currently believe animals to be) can have a claim to something. If an animal does not have a non-physical self, what is there to grant “rights” to? Things purely physical do not have intrinsic value because there is no entity about them that is separate from the rest of creation. It seems that something must have intrinsic value to have rights. (People, on the other hand, are important as individuals because they are made in the image of God and have eternal spirits. They therefore have moral rights.)

There is, however, a definition of “right” that does not take into account the intrinsic value of a being. “It is the notion that a “right” is the flip side of a moral imperative. If, ethically, we must refrain from an act performed on a being, then that being can be said to have a “right” that the act not be performed.”* Hence, if I can show that I should be merciful to animals, then animals have a right to mercy. (And yet I still balk from using the word “right” in that context – it implies to me some intrinsic value about the animal that I do not believe to necessarily exist.) Well, should I treat animals with mercy? A few verses on the subject:

“Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.” - Matthew 10:29

“A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” Proverbs 12:10

“The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.” Psalm 145:9

“He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.” Psalm 147:9

Yes, I think I should.

How far do animal rights extend (rights according to the second definition)? Because God has authorized the killing and eating of animals, they do not have the right to life. God has not condemned the domestication of animals, so they do not have the right of freedom. It seems that they have the right to not suffer at our hands and the right to proper care if we are responsible for them, but their rights do not extend much farther.