Animal Rights

In zoos and circuses, as in many other fields, nonhuman animals are utilised as if they were objects for humans to use. They are locked up in cages, far away from their familiar surroundings. Consequently, they display severe symptoms of stress, boredom and psychological disturbances. A classic example of this is something called “stereotypical behaviour” (constant repetition of certain movements, such as turning around endlessly in circles). This type of behaviour is very common in captive animals. Some, which in nature enjoy complex social lives, are sentenced to a life of complete solitude. Many have to endure climates hostile to them, which in no way resembles that of the places where they come from. Summer is especially hard, because of the heat, for animals such as polar bears and penguins, whereas others, such as lions, suffer terribly during the winter. Aquatic animals (fish, turtles, marine mammals…) are confined to small aquaria, or left to languish in tiny swimming pools, where they can only turn round and round and… The chloride in the water usually irritates and seriously harms their skin and eyes. They can even be blinded by this.

Some zoos try to justify their activities by claiming that they contribute to the survival of certain species. Apart from this claim being false, as, in order to provide zoos with animals, many of them are trapped in the places where they were born, causing many deaths, this argument is unacceptable. The survival of a species can be no justification for torturing its members, because it is the individual creatures that have the capacity for suffering and enjoyment. The species itself does not. Would any of us be happy to be jailed for life on the pretext that it will promote the survival of the group to which we belong? We would certainly not accept to be caged up simply because we were one of very few humans with a particular hair colour. If we imagine ourselves in the same situations which animals suffer in zoos, we’ll see that what they want is to live their lives in freedom, without our interference.

In the case of circuses, we see the same situation as with zoos. Animals spend most of their lives in the small cages in which they are transported, and are only let out for training and performances. This close confinement has serious consequences, both physically and mentally, for the victims. The “tricks” which they are forced to do (bears balancing on balls, monkeys riding bikes, elephants standing on two legs…) are physically uncomfortable, painful and distressing. It is only through fear, caused by training which involves hard and constant punishment, that they act as they do.

The legal trade in animals as “companion objects”

Trading in animals reflects the view that these are objects, property that can be bought and sold as decorations or tools. In pet stores, they are crammed into cages, aquaria or terrariums of minimal proportions, so that the largest number of animals possible can be put on exhibition for sale. A lot of young animals spend a part of their infancy like this. They can’t play or explore their environment as they would normally do. This often causes these animals traumas that they will carry throughout their lives.

The breeding of animals is no better; it means that they are subjected to systematic exploitation. Females are, in the case of many animals, treated as production machines, continuously made pregnant to produce more “products”. The babies are taken away from their mother at an early age. This is, in many cases, very traumatic for both.

The most visible victims of this trade are probably cats and dogs. The circumstances they live in are often frustrating (chained or confined to flats or houses). When they cease to fulfil the function for which they were purchased, they are sometimes simply disposed of. Many of those taken as “pets” die by the millions every year in pounds and shelters that are filled to the limit by abandoned cats and dogs. Breeding and trading is the cause of this situation. But we don’t need to reflect too deeply on the matter to realise that behind it all lies the concept that animals are things that humans may use, rather than beings whose liberty should be respected.

It should be pointed out that adopting an animal from a pound or a shelter is quite a different matter from buying one. Purchasing animals signals our own interest in possessing someone, which is precisely what causes the situation these animals are suffering. Adopting an animal, on the other hand, does save him or her from death and continuous imprisonment, even if the animal won’t be living in ideal circumstances. This kind of rescue represents a “painkiller” for the situation (that is, it eases some of the consequences), but it’s not a solution to the whole of the problem.

Pet Shop Toys?

Other animals, such as hamsters, birds, turtles and fishes, also regularly sold in pet shops, are kept in cages or other kinds of enclosures much smaller than cats or dogs are. Birds are unable to fly, rodents lack soil or grass to run around in, fish are kept in small goldfish bowls where they can only swim in circles, and so on. The circumstances in which they are forced to live and the food they are given, brings about a very early death for many of them.

Finally, many animals are transported from one end of the earth to the other, captured when still young, after their parents or families have been killed. For every animal brought to a pet shop (or circus, zoo or laboratory) from a far away country, up to ten others die on the way. Many do so because of hunger, thirst or diseases, or suffocate in the hold of a ship or a plane. Others perish because of the tremendous stress of being captured. It isn’t possible to explain to them that they have been taken captive and they probably think that death is near. Few can bear such a situation. This clearly demonstrates the fallacy in the claim that animals suffer less because they lack certain intellectual capacities. This lack of understanding aggravates their suffering, it doesn’t lessen it.

The only protection existing today in this field is regulation of the trade in animals of species protected because they are threatened by extinction. But belonging to a group more numerous than others is no reason for receiving less consideration. A hamster, a goldfish or a canary value their lives just as much as any animal of a “protected species”.

Imagine being an elephant after hunters have shot you; as you die, you can see your own child being captured. Imagine you’re a bird or a fish, used to swimming or flying long distances, and all of a sudden you’re confined in a small tank or cage, where all you can do is wait for death. Sadly, this is the reality for a large number of animals who end up in pet stores, circuses or zoos.

What we can do to change their fate

Showing consideration for the interests of animals implies that we respect their lives and the environment they live in, and that we refuse to take part in practices that involve exploiting them, such as going to see them caged up in zoos or buying and selling them as objects to use as our companions.

There are many ways to have a good time without using animals. We can walk in the countryside, take part in sports, go to see films, theatre, concerts or circuses without animals. Some of these are: Circus Oz, Circus Chimera, Flying High Circus, Great Y Circus, Little Russian Circus, Mexican National Circus, Pan-Twilight Circus, Cirque Pouce, Bindlestiff Family Cirkus, Alejandra Botto’s Circus, Circus Ethiopia, Cirque Volte Face, Circus Baobab… and there are many others!

Every year, millions of nonhuman animals are subjected to unimaginable pain, stifling confinement and death in laboratories all over the world. The practice is by no means uncommon; on the contrary, many companies, hospitals, universities and various other institutions have their own testing or research facilities where experiments are carried out. Also, the use of animals is the norm in the academic field: in biology, pharmacy, veterinary medicine or psychology classes, where dissections, vivisections and other exploitative practices involving animals are carried out.

The argument goes that humans and other animals are similar enough for experiments to be useful, yet different enough to justify the use of the latter and not the former as non-consenting test subjects. But can it really be justified to use beings who have the capacity to feel pain and pleasure as means to others’ ends?

Animals are forced to swallow toxic substances, have tumours deliberately grown in their bodies, have their skin and eyes burned with irritant chemicals, have electrodes implanted into their skulls, are deprived of sleep and food, endure radiation tests, suffer electric shocks… For biomedical research, in military investigations, drug or cosmetic testing, in education or in psychological experimentation, animals are used as laboratory tools. They are bred or captured for this purpose and disposed of when the experiment is over – unless they are ‘recycled’ for another experiment. Knowing, as we do, that animals have the capacity to feel pain, it hardly seems reasonable to deny the harm experimentation on these beings causes them.

Like other practices involving the use of nonhuman animals, vivisection reflects a view that they are things, resources, which can be used for human ends, simply because they are not human. It is sometimes argued that while some of the uses of animals that currently take place in laboratories (such as cosmetics or weapon testing) are unjustifiable and should be banned, others should be defended, since they are carried out in the name of science and human health. Let us see what is wrong with this argument.

Sentient beings or laboratory tools?

During the Nazi regime, thousands of human beings died as a result of horrendous experiments. The physicians who carried out such procedures defended them on the grounds that the results obtained contributed to medical and scientific progress. However, any benefits obtained cannot possibly justify torturing and killing others, because the human beings used in these experiments had the capacity to experience pain and joy and suffered tremendously.

The use of animals for this same reason is often defended by making the claim that “they” are “animals”, and “we” are “humans”, without further argument, ignoring the fact that humans are animals, too. It’s interesting to remember that this very same argument was used by the Nazi doctors in their attempts to justify their experiments. The humans who were experimented on were used for that purpose allegedly because they didn’t belong to a certain racial group (that is, the ‘Aryan’). This fact is useful to show that membership of a group is a factor that cannot be used as a reason to discriminate against others, whether the group be ethnicity, gender or species. The only thing that should determine whether to give consideration and respect to an animal, whether human or nonhuman, is if that being can suffer pain or experience joy; if he or she can be harmed by our actions. Any other characteristic, such as a certain degree of “intelligence”, the ability to speak, and so on, has no relevance at all.

In fact, many of the people used in experiments during the Nazi regime were chosen because they appeared to have lesser intellectual capacities than others, that is, for being “mentally disabled”. Also, if we accepted these capacities as a reason to discriminate against someone, babies would fall into this category. Since this argument is rightly rejected today, there is no basis at all for using these very same reasons to justify animal experimentation. None of us, no creature who can feel, can with justification be viewed as only a tool, and subjected to torture and death. Experimentation upon animals is as unjust and indefensible as experimentation upon non-consenting humans.

Good science

Supporters of animal experimentation sometimes claim that those who demand that animals not be used as laboratory tools are “anti-science”. That’s as absurd as saying that those who opposed Nazi experiments with humans were against the development of science. The issue is not whether we are opposed to research, but whether we are right to discriminate arbitrarily against others and harm them for our own benefit, simply because they are not members of our race or species, or because, despite being as capable of suffering as we are, they are supposedly less “intelligent” than us–where intelligence is defined in human-centric terms. As we have already pointed out, there is no justification for giving less importance to the interests of someone who can feel just as much as we do.

This is the reason why the use of nonhuman animals as laboratory tools is unacceptable, just as the use of human beings was during the Second World War. So it should be immediately replaced by test methods which do not use animals. Examples of these are:

• Cell and tissue culture, which allow the scientist to evaluate human reactions to certain substances.
• QSAR (Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships) models and other computer techniques, which use programmes showing dynamic representations of biological processes.
• Physico-chemical techniques, which use non-biological systems to analyse data, such as gas chromatography or mass spectrometry.
• Clinical research – the observation and tracking of the development of different diseases in the patients themselves who give their informed consent.
• Epidemiology – the statistical study of the processes of different diseases.
• Finally, in the field of education, many different methods exist to replace the use of animals in dissection and other procedures – computer modelling, inanimate dummies and models, audio-visual techniques, cadavers of people who have asked for their bodies to be used after death for medical research.

Thus, resources which are currently dedicated to using animals as objects of experimentation must be diverted to the development and use of methods which do not inflict suffering and death on beings possessing consciousness and the capacity for pain and pleasure.

Not long ago, and even today in some places, people who were considered “inferior” were locked up, enslaved and killed, just because they didn’t belong to the same group as their oppressors. Nowadays, most of us are horrified by these practices and relieved that many of them are relegated to a dreadful memory. But we rarely think more deeply about the issue and realise that, for many more than we think, that horror is far from over. Every year, hundreds of millions of animals are locked up, tortured and killed for many purposes, including the production of clothes.

Many people try to dismiss this comparison between human and animal slavery and accuse it of being exaggerated or even insulting. But is it really so outrageous? Let us have a look at the facts: both humans and cows, for example, can experience pleasure, satisfaction, pain and distress. So both have an interest in living, doing so in freedom, without being subjected to suffering. Having such interests is a sufficient reason for others to be duty bound to consider them. Someone’s race, social group, sex or species shouldn’t be a reason to discriminate against him or her.

Certain humans used to be considered “inferior” – indeed, some still are – and this is certainly the case for non-human animals. For this reason, it is seen as perfectly justifiable to exploit them. It might be true that some humans have intellectual capacities that others – both human and non-human – don’t have. But this doesn’t mean that their interests are any more important.

When it comes to enslaving, imprisoning or killing another being, the only thing that matters is the capacity of that being to experience pain and joy, not his or her intellectual skills.

Their skin is their life

Millions of cows and other animals are used as resources to produce leather clothes, shoes or sofas every year. Many argue that the cow would be killed in any case for meat, which would make leather a by-product. It is obviously necessary to stop eating animals in order to respect their lives and well-being. But this aside, we also have to take into account that the skin of a cow represents a very significant part of her “economic value”. This refutes the idea that leather is a by-product. Actually, it is a considerable source of profit, something which financially supports the breeding and killing of these animals.

Drop down

Ducks and geese are used to produce down and feathers, which are pulled off their bodies. Apart from this distressing experience, these animals have their freedom curtailed in order for them to be “available” for use. And, as many others animals utilised as raw material for humans, in the end they are killed in the slaughterhouse.

Reptiles, such as crocodiles or snakes, are captured and killed for making boots, handbags and jackets. Obviously, their lives matter to them much more than a pair of boots or a coat matter to any of us. Many people consider these animals “ugly”, but their lives are just as valuable to them as ours are to us.

Wool’s not cool

Sheep are victims in this way too. They are violently held, tied up and sheared in order to obtain their wool. They are terribly scared during this procedure, and often their skin is wounded. Many die from exposure during the winter, and those who survive this will all end their lives in the slaughterhouse.

Although fur production has declined over the last decades and fur farming has been banned in some countries, millions of animals still suffer confinement and are put to death for their pelts. Many others, like wolves, foxes and mink, are trapped in the wild. Fur coats are often considered “worse” than leather clothes for being a “luxury” product, but for the animals themselves, the actual price tag we put on their lives is irrelevant – they just want to live.

It is time we realised that belonging to a species, just as belonging to a race or ethnic group, is no reason to ignore that individual’s interests. If someone can experience suffering and joy, he or she is, by definition, a “sentient being”, not a “garment”. We don’t live in caves anymore and we have ways to produce clothes without needing to kill someone. Just go to your local store and take a look at the labels on shoes and other clothes. You’ll be amazed at the number that don’t include any animal products! Cotton, polyester, nylon, lycra, etc. make perfect clothes without the need to subdue, brutalise and kill animals. Enjoy your shopping and respect the lives of others!

Eating animals is, without doubt, the human activity that impacts negatively upon the largest numbers of animals. It is estimated that about 90-95% of the animals that suffer and die due to human intervention do so because of the demand for animals as “food”. From our childhood onward, we are brought up in an environment where eating animals is something “normal”. For that reason, most of us never ask ourselves if there could be something wrong with it. As a result, we tend not to see that a meal that for us means a moment of pleasure, for the animals we eat means, quite simply, their lives. It is only possible to do this if we consider the interests of animals to be totally irrelevant. However, if we really think about it, we can see how difficult such an attitude is to maintain.

Are the lives of animals really worth so little?

It is sometimes claimed that only capacities such as intelligence or the ability to reason confer upon a being the right to justice, suggesting that only human beings matter. However, the fact that a being manifests a different degree or type of intelligence does not mean that it lacks it altogether. The important point is that such characteristics cannot be considered as morally relevant. One sentient being doesn’t feel any more than another, just because she or he is more intelligent, or has a different kind of intelligence. Nowadays, who would defend the killing, exploitation or abuse of human babies, or people with severe mental disabilities? In many cases, however, these human beings lack the capacity for having certain abstract thoughts, making certain mathematical calculations or having moral responsibilities towards others… If we defended the view that the possession of certain intellectual capacities is relevant in determining whether someone has any moral worth, we would also justify the exploitation and killing of such people. This comparison can help us to understand why features such as intelligence are unimportant when we evaluate the interests of another being. Only the capacity to feel suffering and joy matters for that. And non-human animals have, like us, the capacity to experience pain and pleasure. They are individuals with needs and interests that we must respect.

Sometimes, certain uses of animals are defended, provided these don’t cause them suffering – such as vivisection with full anaesthesia. But this means we are denying one of the interests all animals have – that of staying alive. Whether painful or not, death always means the deprivation of all our possibilities to have positive experiences. Apart from having an interest in not suffering, we animals (remember that we humans are animals too) also have an interest in feeling satisfaction and experiencing pleasure, which implies an interest in maintaining our physical integrity and our freedom; and, more importantly, in staying alive. This is present to such an extent that only in extreme cases, such as when an unavoidable and painful death is near, can we understand that our interest in not suffering outweighs our interest in living. In fact, most of us will fight to stay alive, even if this means enormous suffering. This shows that it is meaningless to put animals’ interests in not being subjected to suffering above their interest in living itself – both are obviously of great importance.

An immense amount of preventable suffering

To use animals as food means that we are viewing them as resources and thus frustrating their most basic interests. Depriving them of their lives and liberty and causing them suffering is all inherent in the raising of them for food. The following details give an idea of how this affects the lives of animals:

How animals “live”…

Any type of rearing of animals for human consumption inevitably involves some kind of limitation on their freedom. It is normal for such animals to be kept in places where they never see sunlight, or to be confined in extremely small spaces. On many farms, each hen’s accommodation is equivalent to the size of an A4 sheet of paper. In these cages, birds are locked up together in groups of four or five, which does not allow them to escape attacks from other stressed birds. This is particularly common due to the stress of confinement and normally they cannot move at all (turn around, stretch their wings or even lie down). The bars of the cage floor hurt and mutilate their legs, causing wounds and deformations. Sometimes, their feet become completely trapped in the metal (this means that when brought to the slaughterhouse they have to be literally ripped out of the cages).

Cows are similarly imprisoned in narrow indoor stalls in which they do not have enough space even to turn around. Pigs suffer the same fate, or are reared in huge sheds, together with thousands of others of their kind. Other animals (such as lambs, ducks, ostriches and deer) are kept in similar conditions. Excrement accumulates under them and dead animals are sometimes not removed for days. They would die of multiple infections were it not for the enormous amount of antibiotics and chemicals administered to them in their food (which is full of hormones and waste materials, in order to fatten them as fast and economically as possible). Life is no picnic on free-range farms either. These animals may not be in cages, but are mostly confined to sheds or barns and are never really free.

In fish farms, fish are also crammed into small tanks and suffer all types of diseases, which are then treated by antibiotics.

Hunting is not a sport for the hunted

Every year, hundreds of millions of animals fall victim to hunting. Their agony lasts at least as long as the hunt, and they are subjected to pain, fear and distress. Many of the animals that manage to escape die later on from their wounds. Often, they are adults with offspring in their care, who die of starvation in the absence of their parent.
Hunting is sometimes defended by the claim that it is useful for regulating the populations of some animals. Apart from conflicting with the fact that many animals are protected and raised for hunting, and that it is known that many species of animals have been hunted to extinction, this claim is a good example of the human-centred mentality common in our society today. From an ethical point of view, this is unacceptable, as it means sacrificing individual animals with their own interest in living for the sake of entities that can’t feel, such as an ecosystem or a species. Few would suggest that we should kill human beings in order to keep overpopulation under control. Why, then, is this proposed in the case of other animals? Obviously, this is a consequence of speciesist discrimination.

Fish feel as much as other animals

Fish are beings who, like birds, mammals, reptiles and other animals, have nervous systems with pain receptors. These nervous systems are what enable them to experience pain and pleasure. We can put ourselves in their place and understand how they might feel during angling by imagining ourselves innocently going to get something to eat and feeling a hook suddenly perforate our palate and drag us somewhere we can’t breathe. Fish that are put back into the water after being caught often die, due to the wounds they have suffered, exhaustion, or the loss of the protective cuticle that covers their scales, which they lose when handled. But even if they survive, it can hardly be justified to make someone go through such a traumatic experience just for fun.

Other victims of hunting and fishing

Hunting and fishing also hurt other creatures. Large numbers of animals are killed or trapped “accidentally”. Others die trapped in the wire used to enclose breeding establishments, poisoned by swallowing lead pellets or injured by cast-off fishing equipment. It is not uncommon for nylon string to break and turn into a deadly weapon for thousands of fish, birds, otters and many other animals, whom it traps, wounds or strangles. The same thing happens with hooks, floats and weights that come loose. And finally, fish or other animals used as bait are literally nailed alive on the hook.

There are many forms of entertainment that don’t involve the use of animals. It is not necessary to brutalise anyone to enjoy a peaceful day in the countryside.

Don’t animals already have rights?

The current legal system draws a line between “rights-holders” and “goods” (things). At present, animals are considered things, that is, property. Legally, property cannot have rights. There are certain regulations as to how animals can be exploited. For example, the law states that an animal must be stunned at the slaughterhouse before being killed (something that will not, in fact, protect his or her interests). But this does not mean that they have rights (after all, he or she can be killed perfectly legally in that slaughterhouse).

Similarly, in the past there were certain limitations to the ways human slaves could be used, and today laws do exist limiting the way in which, for instance, the owner of a piece of land can use it. However, neither slaves nor pieces of land have ever had rights. A being with rights cannot be considered property, nor be used as such.

Does defending animal rights mean one has to be an “animal lover”?

No. It is not necessary to feel a special sympathy for someone in order to respect him or her as a subject with individual interests. Justice is not a matter of sympathy, but should be based on impartial consideration of our interests. If the contrary were the case, a judge could convict or clear the accused according to how sympathetic he or she finds them – something we tend to find unjust.

On the other hand, no one can be asked to love another, whether it is his or her neighbour, an unknown person, a frog or a squirrel. No one can be asked to be an “animal lover”. And there are no reasons to do so either, since personal likes and dislikes are a private matter. Nevertheless, what we can be expected to do is to avoid harming others, whether they be animals or humans.

Why should animals concern us when so many humans are suffering in the world? Surely we must help them first?

This question presupposes that humans’ interests are more important than those of other animals, something which there is no reason to believe. Animals suffer no less than humans, and we must not ignore or undervalue their interests. Would we really say that we shouldn’t be concerned with the suffering of women, because men are still suffering? Or that the anguish of those with skin of another colour is unimportant, because many of those who share our colour are suffering in some way? One wrong can’t justify another, and the ill-fortune of many humans doesn’t mean that we can excuse animal exploitation or consider it of less importance.

And let us not forget that the number of animals killed for food in one week outweighs the actual number of the whole human population!

Surely what should be done is killing animals without causing them pain?

Let’s imagine that we were in their place, would we find it acceptable to be killed, provided that we felt no pain? Most likely not.

If a being has the ability to experience joy, death means completely thwarting that possibility. That’s why every being with the ability to feel pleasure has an interest in living. And that’s why, apart from there being no justification in making someone suffer, killing a sentient animal is unacceptable.

But animals have always been used for some purpose!

The fact that something has been happening over a long period of time, or “always”, does not make it acceptable. There are many examples of this. In certain parts of the world, young girls are circumcised in accordance with deep-rooted traditions. In many other places, women are considered to be the property of their fathers or husbands. Slavery and racism is far from eradicated. The claim that something has “always been done” is no justification for injustice.

I think the comparison you make between humans and animals is insulting. Do you really think that people are just like animals?

In terms of the abilities they possess, some humans resemble some nonhumans. For example, in a child, the capacity to reason is very much like that of many nonhuman animals. The same goes for adult humans; there are significant similarities with other animals. However, the crucial point is that all beings that can feel matter, and, in this respect, humans and other animals are all alike.

But what this question really reveals are certain prejudices about animals. To “be an animal” is considered something negative, and that is why some find any association offensive (in spite of the fact that humans are animals, too!). In our daily speech, we use certain expressions that betray this attitude: to be “dumb as an ass”, “dirty as a pig”, “sly as a fox”. People use “chicken” to mean “coward”, using this as an insult, and cruelty as “brutality” or “bestiality” (from brute and beast, respectively, which are both used as deprecatory terms for “animal”).

Similarly, some men find it offensive to be compared to women, and expressions like “cry like a woman” are commonplace. “Nigger” is, unfortunately, not uncommonly used as an insult. However, this does not mean that the objects of such similes – pigs, chicken, women, black people- are in some way inferior. Rather, the use of derogatory language like this exemplifies the bias there is against certain individuals – nonhuman and human.

Being a human is not being “better” than some other animal, it is simply being different in some respects and similar in others, in the same way as being a cow is different in some ways from being a sheep.

Wouldn’t it be more productive to protest against practices like bloodsports, which people are already aware of, than, say, the eating of animal products?

Every year, many animals die victims of bloodsports, but the number of animals killed for, say, food is hundreds of times bigger. The difference is overwhelming – clearly the eating of animals is what causes the greatest amount of suffering and death for nonhumans. Consequently, this issue needs to be addressed, if we want to change things significantly for animals.

On the other hand, it is quite true that eating animals is more deep-rooted than bloodsports and other similar practices are. But precisely for this reason we must address the issue, if our aim is to eradicate the concept of animals as resources. Much of the criticism bloodsports receive is motivated by the “excessive” cruelty of the activity, not because it is considered bad in itself to use animals. On the other hand, few people give up eating meat while they support bloodsports.

Do you think all living beings should have rights? In that case microorganisms, plants and fungi should also have rights.

To be a “living being” is not the important factor in considering whether one should have rights or not – but the possibility for experiencing joy and suffering is. Life is valuable for a sentient being because it implies a possibility to have positive experiences. Thus death is harmful in the sense that the one who dies is deprived of experiences she or he could have had, not because of any suffering caused after death – after all, once we are dead we cannot suffer anymore.

Nowadays, someone is considered dead when declared brain dead. However, to be accurate, the rest of his or her organism is still alive (and could be kept alive artificially if connected to a life-support machine). But the subject that the person was is considered dead, because she will never recover consciousness again: her body, though alive, cannot be conscious of what is happening to it, nor can it feel any pain or pleasure. The subject that used to live in that body has ceased to exist.

For death to affect us (that is, for our life to have an intrinsic value), we must necessarily be able to experience things. That’s why animals (all those with the ability to have positive and negative experiences, not protozoa or sponges, for example, which are biologically classified as animals, but do not even have nervous systems) must have the right to life. This is not the case for a virus, a plant or someone whose brain is dead, however, because, although they are living organisms, they lack interests of their own.

What is the difference between the movements for animal rights and animal welfare?

The animal welfare movement accepts the idea that non-human animals can be used as resources, as long as as little suffering as possible is inflicted upon them. The animal welfare movement is speciesist, in that it accepts that non-human animals’ interests can be ignored or undervalued when there is a perceived human interest in doing so. In practice, the animal welfare movement seeks to regulate the ways in which animals are used. Examples of welfare demands are that animals be kept in a bigger space than a cage provides, that transport to the slaughterhouse should not exceed a certain amount of hours and that killing should be preceded by effective stunning.

In contrast, the animal rights movement defends the concept that animals have significant interests that should be respected and protected by legal rights. In practice, the animal rights movement aims at progressively abandoning the use of animals so that fewer and fewer animals have to suffer and die for purposes such as, food, clothing, experimentation or entertainment. It seeks to abolish the use of animals altogether. Just as human slavery should not be regulated but abolished, so should animal slavery. All beings with the capacity to experience suffering and joy have their own interests, and should therefore be granted what justice demands.

What is speciesism?

Speciesism (a term coined some 30 years ago) means moral discrimination based on belonging to a certain species. Undervaluing the legitimate interests of a being because he or she does not belong to a given species means that one is speciesist. And this is an arbitrary and unjustifiable attitude.

Like racism and sexism, it means dismissing other individuals’ interests simply because these other individuals don’t happen to belong to the same species (or have the same skin colour or sex) as oneself. Clearly, these characteristics (sex, species, skin colour) are not morally relevant. Nor is intelligence a reason for discrimination – in the throes of pain, understanding algebra is of little comfort, and heavenly bliss is not limited to those who write poetry. The capacity to experience suffering and joy is the only thing that matters in taking a moral decision to recognise the interests of others.

But we are doing animals a favour by breeding them for food. Otherwise they would not exist!

Would we justify breeding children for our own benefit and use, which would be slavery, just because they wouldn’t exist otherwise? The act of bringing someone into the world does not make us his or her owners, nor can it be a justification for not giving him or her the respect and consideration we owe others.

Do animals such as crustaceans and molluscs have nervous systems?

Some do; others, like zooplankton, don’t. As with other animals (such as birds, fish, mammals and reptiles), some molluscs (octopi, squid and snails, among others) and crustaceans (like prawns, shrimps, crabs or lobsters) have nervous systems extending all over their bodies (with visceral, pedal and cerebral ganglia – that is, nerve knots). When we consider that having a nervous system is the basis for the capacity to feel, and in accordance with present scientific knowledge of this issue, it seems unreasonable to think these animals are not sentient.

Saying that the intellectual capacities of infants or humans with mental disabilities equal those of animals means you are degrading those human beings

It is the other way around! Those who maintain that in order to have rights it is necessary to possess certain intellectual capacities are the ones who seriously lack respect towards all human beings without them, because their argument denies these people moral consideration. Those who morally discriminate against animals on the basis of their intellectual abilities defend a position that implicitly discriminates against many human beings as well, although this wasn’t their initial intention.

Being granted rights must not depend on whether or not one has certain cognitive abilities. So those who defend speciesism by an appeal to intelligence or other capacities related to it, insult and discriminate against mentally disabled people or little children, just as they do against nonhuman animals.

Children shouldn’t be raised as vegetarians. They should have the right to make their own minds up, don’t you think?

Meat eating is no more “natural” than vegetarianism. Feeding kids meat means feeding them certain values, just as feeding them vegetarian food does.

However, it should also be pointed out that there are many things we try to teach children; for example, not to hit or insult others, not to steal, to be considerate to other people. So why would it be wrong to teach them not to cause others suffering, even if those others are nonhuman?

If other animals eat each other, why shouldn’t we eat animals?

Many nonhuman animals do things we wouldn’t accept if one of us were to do them. For example, male lions sometimes eat their rivals’ offspring. Nevertheless, no one claims it would be right for us to do that. Since we can think morally, we have duties. We can choose not to eat others (and eating animals obviously involves harming them since we are denying them the right to live). Those who cannot reflect on their actions, on the other hand, cannot have responsibilities either.

However, the fact that we have responsibilities does not imply, of course, that our interests are more important than those of others – the responsibilities and rights of each individual correspond to their capacities. A mentally disabled human, a baby or a nonhuman animal are not capable of understanding the meaning of duties and responsibilities, but they can suffer harm and obviously they have an interest in avoiding this. All those with interests should have rights to protect them, and all those who can reflect on their actions have responsibilities.

The exploitation of animals is massive and widespread, that’s just how things are, and it isn’t going to change

The same could have been said at other times in history: for example, when women were denied the vote, during feudalism and institutionalized slavery. Over time, the social situation and mentalities change, and, from generation to generation, circumstances and structures that seemed unchangeable have, nevertheless, gradually disappeared. Although we would all like things to happen sooner, this is a slow process. But that is also precisely why we should start now to demand rights for nonhuman animals.

OK, so those who discriminate against nonhuman animals have speciesist attitudes. But then, those who discriminate against some nonhuman animals over others of different species must be speciesist too?

Certainly. Giving more importance to the interests of a certain animal just because he or she is member of a certain species is always ethically unjustifiable. If an ape or a dog has an interest equal to that of a fish, a bird or a pig, there is no reason to favour one over the other. It is arbitrary discrimination, which, just as the human-centred form of speciesism, lacks justification.

If we all went vegetarian wouldn’t we need to grow many more crops, so that there would be neither food nor room, not just for us, but for nonhuman animals too?

It’s just the opposite! Animals raised for consumption (which are literally produced, otherwise they wouldn’t exist) have to be bred. And the amount of food needed for feeding an animal that is going to be eaten is much bigger than the one we will need if we eat vegetables directly. More than 8 kilos of food are needed for a calf to gain about one kilo. A piece of land used for growing vegetables can produce up to 15 times the amount of proteins than another pasture or forage. Hence it is animal husbandry that makes it necessary to cultivate more land. This, in turn, means deforestation of huge virgin land extensions and death for the other animals that used to live there.

Well, maybe we shouldn’t harm animals. But I’ve eaten and used animal products my whole life. Just the thought of giving that up is too much…

It is natural that we might find it difficult to change habits we have lived with for a long time. Sometimes it is easy to feel overwhelmed by such difficulties and it is tempting to look away and ignore reality. But all it really takes is a bit of willpower at the beginning, and it soon becomes normal and easy to avoid animal products. To take those steps seems more difficult than it really is. Once you start to learn about vegetarianism, you will discover what a variety of dishes it offers, many of which you might not even have known before. And if you have problems giving up certain dishes, there are plenty of substitute products which imitate the flavour and texture of animal products and are a good help in changing one’s diet (veggie burgers and sausages, soya yoghurts, animal-free sandwich spreads etc.).