To the Editor:
This is in response to two letters defending "animal rights" in last week's Review, from Aaron Simmons and Correne Spero. Since rights are being given to everything from animals to trees to fetuses lately, I think it would be appropriate to examine the meaning of rights, and where the concept comes from.
Unlike any other species, humans live by reason - by the use of their mind. To use physical force against a human being renders his mind useless. When threatened with force, a person is compelled to do what he would rationally judge as wrong. For humans, therefore, force and mind are opposites. Because of this, humans deal with each other by rational persuasion. When people agree to live in a society, they are agreeing to peacefully interact, without the use of force.
This is the source of the concept of rights. Rights are principles of action that humans abide by, in order to live with other humans. A right guarantees you freedom to act, and imposes no obligation on your neighbors, except to leave you this freedom. The most basic right is a person's right to life, which means the freedom to think and act on his own, to support his own life. To recognize this right means to recognize that it is the mind, not physical force, which should guide human action.
None of this has anything to do with animals. Animals survive by instinct, and are incapable of using reason to deal with one another. If animals come into conflict, their only choice is to use force - to fight for their food, shelter, and survival. If a human is being attacked by an animal, he would be foolish to try to persuade it to stop. Instead, he would realize that animals cannot uphold the principle of rights. To act on principle requires a conceptual mind - a human mind.
Asserting the "equality" of species means denying the characteristics that set us apart from all other animals. For this reason, I oppose the notion of "animal rights." This doesn't mean that I advocate unnecessary cruelty to animals, it means that I don't grant them rights which can only apply to humans.
I would also like to respond to Ms. Spero's accusations of sexism. The word "man" has two meanings, and I was using it to refer to "humans," rather than "male humans." Everything I wrote certainly applies to women, and I apologize for the confusion. I will not respond to her personal attacks and insults, except to say that they were childish, and they have no place in a serious discussion.
Copyright © 1996, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 124, Number 24; May 10, 1996
Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.