Possible moral positions

Full animal rights

It is almost never acceptable to exploit or use animals in a way that is not in the best interests of the animals concerned.

• Animals have rights
• Animals should be treated in the way that is best for the animals concerned - which may not be the way that suits human beings
• It is wrong for human beings to use animals for food, clothing, experiment or anything else
• It is wrong for humans to disregard the consequences to animals of their actions
• This applies to all animals, regardless of the way human beings feel about them
• It may sometimes be morally correct to violate an animal's rights when these conflict with the rights of another animal or a human being - each case must be decided on its merits

Some rights

Under some circumstances it is acceptable to exploit or use animals, as long as we ensure that the animals are treated humanely in the process.

• Animals do not have rights in the same way that humans have rights
• Some animals have fewer rights than others
• Cynics suggest that animals that don't look cute have fewer rights

A more logical approach reduces the rights by criteria like these:

• Simpler animals have fewer rights than more complex animals
• Animals with less apparent consciousness have fewer rights
• Animals with less social behaviour have fewer rights
• Animals that appear to feel pain and fear less, have fewer rights
• Animals that do harm have fewer rights (even though they are not morally responsible for the harm they do).
• Endangered species have more right not to be killed than members of other species (this is not really a rights point - more a wish to preserve the diversity of the world)

Human beings should aim to treat animals in the way that is best for the animals concerned, where this does not conflict with what is best for human beings.

Where there is such a conflict it is acceptable to violate the animal's rights - providing:

• The position of the animals has been properly considered
• There is a significant benefit to human beings
• There is no way of achieving this benefit that causes less harm to animals
  • And a real effort has been made to find a way that is less harmful to animals
• The animals concerned are treated humanely
• Animals may therefore be used for food, clothing, experiments and other purposes under appropriate circumstances

Right to humane treatment

The cruelty and kindness position

This view says that it is morally wrong for human beings to be cruel to animals, and morally good for human beings to be kind to animals.

Although this position isn't particularly clear intellectually, it works pretty well as a guide to the ethical treatment of animals.

Animals can be used or exploited to benefit human beings as long as they are treated humanely in the process.

• Animals do not have rights
• Animals can be used for the benefit of human beings providing:
  • Some consideration has been given to the interests of the animals concerned
  • There is a benefit to human beings
  • The animals concerned are treated humanely
• Animals may therefore be used for food, clothing, experiment, entertainment and other purposes under appropriate circumstances

Two totally human-centred positions

The extreme position is that animals can be treated in any way that humans want to treat them.

The less extreme position is that animals can be treated in any way that is not morally bad for human beings.

For example, some people believe that it is wrong to be cruel to animals because it is wrong to be cruel.

Animal rights are really human rights

This position says that what we think of as animal rights are indirect human rights.

• when we do something 'wrong' to an animal, the ethical wrong is actually done to the human being who 'owns' the animal or has some sort of interest in it
• if that human being doesn't think a wrong has been done, then no wrong has been done