animal rights.doc

Animal Rights: Discriminative Protection 邓长峰 20100301197When the pinky Chihuahua Bruiser reunites with his prisoned mother as the Bruisers Bill, banning all animal testing in cosmetic industry, is brought to the floor of the House, it somehow creates a perfect world where all non-human animals should enjoy deprivable “animal rights”, a concept advocating their endowed rights of survival and other fundamental needs. Though the 2003 Hollywood film Legally Blonde manages to forge such a touching ending, the fact remains to be noticed: the concept of animal rights is unrealistic, and is no less discriminative than humanity itself. When humanity itself is contaminated by brutal killings of our innocent fellow countrymen, preaching the protection of other species is certainly of shaky ground. In the 400 years of slave trade, some 1.5 million Africans shared an inescapable destiny; they were born, raised, sold, enslaved, and killed. Whats more, in the World War II Holocaust, a systematic ethnic cleansing targeting the Jews, 6 million lives were slaughtered because of their “congenital inferiority”. Even in modern India, some lowest-ranking Indian people are still excluded as “Untouchables”. In such cases, wouldnt it be unrealistic and ironical to see Hilter hold an “animal rights” banner using his bloody hands which were the death of thousands?In a word, humanity itself is discriminative; we prefer some from the other. And when it comes to judge the “caste” of animals, such biases are still inevitable. When our nation was outraged at the existence of live bear bile, how many of us mourned for the Peking Duck dismembered at yesterdays dinner? If we are advocating universal animal rights, then, the killings of mosquitos, cockroaches, rats, though as justified as it could be, should be unforgivable and disallowed. Yet we have to acknowledge, animals are often judged by its rarity and its closeness to human beings. Its black-and-white skin crowns a panda with virtually supreme dignity and rights, but a frog might only die a lonely and unknown pond death. A lovely puppy like Bruiser is a treasure for some, but it might be a nightmare for a dog-hater. In such a sense, animal rights remain a very discriminative notion, and as to the limited sorts of species such rights should protect, it is purely up to humans discretion and preference.The notion of animal rights is not only discriminative, but also unrealistic. Take animal testing as an example. Before pilot testing on small groups of patients, newly developed drugs must go through testing to eliminate any possible damages. Animals, because they share many features with humans, become immediately the best alternative for simulation. The BritishRoyal Society believes the use of animals to be an indispensable element in virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century. Echoing the same voice is the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S.National Academy of Sciences, which points to the ineffectiveness of computer simulation of interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas. In addition, when we understand how big the role animals play in supplying nutrition to human bodies, protecting animal rights become even more fantastical. Thus, replacing the rigid idea of animal rights, which frees animals from being human-owned, a more realistic concept would be “animal welfare”. It holds that so long as the adverse effects on animals are minimized, it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals. Robert Garner, professor of political theory at the University of Leicester in the UK, describes the welfarist position as the most popular in modern society. Further clarifying such position is his article Animal Ethics, in which he calls it utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people. He argues that, in order to maximize the well-being of all human, “animals may be used or sacrificed for the benefit of other people or animals only if those benefits are greater than the loss inflicted.”To sum up, human nature is born with prejudice, and when even the basic rights of some humans are stripped, it is groundless to call for universal rights for animals. Moreover, because of their multiple roles in human life, absolute equalization for animals remains unrealistic. However, it doesnt mean that animals should be damaged without justification, and as the notion of animal welfare goes, the use of animals is justifiable only when adverse effects could be minimized.