The Rural Voice, 1988-05, Page 19Tom Regan writes that each of our
lives has an inherent value indepen-
dent of age, sex, skin colour, or intel-
ligence. That inherent value, he adds,
guarantees each of us "an equal right
to be treated with respect" regardless
of our usefulness to others. As
animals obviously can experience a
quality of life, Regan says, their lives
must also have an inherent value that
grants them the right to be treated with
dignity and respect.
The animal liberation philosophers say
that humans deny animals this right
any time our welfare conflicts with the
welfare of animals because we don't
recognize that animals have any rights
at all. We inflict pain on animals, kill
them, and extinguish whole species in
the name of human interest. In the
minds of a growing number of people,
this specieism is considered wrong.
Dr. Hurnik, however, says that
accepting the major philosophical
"Welfarists do not want animals to have the same
rights as humans. This is an argument made by the
opposite side. Welfarists do not use it."
— Dr. Frank Hurnik
In a lecture delivered in Montreal
in 1987 to a Bioethics Conference, Dr.
Frank Hurnik commented that this
belief "appears to be in line with the
evolution of human morality. It is
rational then to assume we are wit-
nessing (in the increasing concern for
animal welfare) the beginning of an
irreversible trend in human relation-
ships with animals."
This granting of inherent value to
the lives of animals, accompanied by
an increased level of rights, does not
mean that animal liberation philos-
ophers believe that animals are equal
to humans and must therefore be
treated that way. Peter Singer makes
this clear: "The rights to vote, free-
dom of speech, freedom of worship —
none of these can apply to other ani-
mals. Similarly, what harms humans
may cause much less harm, or even no
harm at all, to some animals." This is
confirmed by Dr. Hurnik: "Welfarists
do not want animals to have the same
rights as humans. This is an argument
made by the opposite side. Welfarists
do not use it."
Instead, according to Peter Singer,
the animal liberation movement "is
saying that where animals and humans
have similar interests — we might
take the interest in avoiding physical
pain as an example ... those interests
are to be counted equally, with no
automatic discount just because one of
the beings is not human."
In other words, an animal has as
much right to a "happy" life (defined
in its own terms) as a human does.
points made by the animal rights
movement does not mean that the
movement's exreme conclusions must
be adopted. The extreme position is
that since an animal's life has inherent
value, the animal, like a human, has
the right to exist. This means that
killing an animal is the moral equiva-
lent to killing a human.
The logical extension of this argu-
ment is that animal life must never be
sacrificed for any human use. Most
people who unhesitatingly endorse
animal rights are vegetarians, and
would like to see animal agriculture,
referred to as the animal welfare
movement (as opposed to the animal
rights movement), and it includes a
wide range of people. A common
thread joining them is the belief that
human moral standards should be
extended to include animals, though
animal use is considered normal
human behaviour. They believe it is
acceptable to rear and eat animals, but
that the rearing process should entail
as little discomfort or suffering as
possible. Clean living conditions and
good food are not enough. The animal
must also be free from conditions that
cause physical suffering (including
abnormal restrictions on movement)
or mental suffering (boredom, frus-
tration, or social tension).
Another common thread joining
animal welfarists is that they tend to
be from outside the sphere of agri-
culture. Most are well-educated,
urban, and affluent. This irritates
many farmers who think city people
are interfering with something they
know nothing about. But Dr. Hurnik
rejects this opinion: "in our open and
democratic society it is legitimate for
people who are not involved in animal
practices to express their concern for
animal welfare."
This view is echoed by Jim
Johnstone, an egg producer in Alliston
and chairman of the Ontario Farm
The biggest problem facing farmers is the potential
for a mass consumer boycott. It is a fact of life for
farmers that the majority of consumers are urban and
have little or no idea of how a modern farm works.
animal experimentation, and hunting
stop. This extreme wing also believes
that any human actions that restrict so-
called normal animal behaviour are
wrong. To them, confinement or
herding of any sort are unacceptable.
But it is to the more moderate •
segment of the animal rights move-
ment that Dr. Hurnik says we should
look. There are, he says, "moderate
positions that are based on ethical
assumptions which are widely
accepted in Western societies and we
may expect that these views will have
significant impact on the future
development of animal agriculture."
This moderate group is commonly
Animal Committee. He thinks pres-
sure from animal welfare groups has
given producers a good opportunity to
look at their rearing methods from a
humane viewpoint and decide if these
methods are good.
Johnstone thinks farmers are upset
rather than threatened by criticism
from the animal welfarists. Farmers
don't want to think they are cruel or
inhumane, nor do they want to have
other people thinking that way about
them. "The problem," Johnstone says,
"is intensification. You have to use
intensive methods to raise this much
food. The old ways don't work. The
marketing system couldn't handle true
MAY 1988 17