William Schulz: Leading voice for human rights makes the case for animal personhood
I have become increasingly sympathetic to the idea that we owe it not just to animals but to ourselves to accord nonhuman animals a greater measure of respect. Legal personhood is the best way to guarantee just treatment of animals, and that’s because legal persons have standing in courts to sue for the long-term protection of their rights. Paradoxically, as a leader in the human rights movement over the past 30 years, I’ve seen that often those most resistant to animal rights are human rights activists. A few years ago, I raised the question of animal rights at the board meeting of a prominent human rights organization: 'I say screw ’em,' bellowed one board member, referring to animals the world over. '(Human) torture, genocide, they’re all more important'.
WILLIAM SCHULZ: It’s pretty difficult to find people who support wanton cruelty to animals, as South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem recently discovered in the fierce backlash against her description of killing a hunting dog named Cricket. In fact, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded all the way back in 1866. But often, the conversation stops there. We’re not cruel to animals — at least we’re selectively not cruel to animals, excepting those raised for meat on industrial farms — but animals are not equal to us. We do not necessarily guarantee them the right to eat, drink clean water, or move about freely…
Until recently, Western civilization has almost uniformly regarded only humans as possessing rights. That’s because only humans, we thought, could reason, exercise free will, and possess dignity. But the more we’ve learned about some animals, the less exceptional humans appear. A 2-year-old child has more social skills than a chimp, but the chimp can outperform the child on some numerical and mechanical challenges. Dolphins recognize themselves in mirrors and can use deception to gain increased access to food. Elephants are renowned for grieving their dead. Even pigeons can distinguish Monets from Renoirs, and rats have been known to resist taking chocolate in order to save a companion rat from drowning.
The philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in 1780 of the possibility of giving rights to animals: “The question is not, can they reason? Nor can they talk? But can they suffer?” Now we recognize that not only do they suffer, but they certainly do reason and communicate with one another.
There is a burgeoning international movement to change that. The movement seeks to both protect animals from mistreatment and ensure that the conditions in which they live allow them to thrive. In other words, there is growing interest in bestowing more than mere kindness upon animals — some want to guarantee them rights…
Some countries, for example, often in response to advocacy led by indigenous groups, have begun to endow certain animals with “legal personhood.” In 2013, the government of India declared dolphins to be nonhuman persons and outlawed keeping them contained in giant aquariums…
To be clear, conferring legal personhood on an animal (or even on a river, as New Zealand has done) doesn’t mean it’s human, but it does mean recognizing that the animal has rights to the protection of its dignity and life… no one is suggesting giving the vote to ants or freedom of religion to anteaters. The types of rights that may be claimed on animals’ behalf have to be congruent with their needs. Whales don’t need a right to abortion, for example, but they do need an environment that doesn’t entangle them in fishing gear…
So why aren’t conservation laws enough? Or laws against animal cruelty? Why personhood? US courts have so far resisted recognizing that designation, but it’s becoming increasingly clear, given repeated attacks on environmental laws in recent years, that legal personhood is the best way to guarantee just treatment of animals — and that’s because legal persons have standing in courts to sue for the long-term protection of their rights. So far, efforts to grant personhood to animals have chiefly been directed at large mammals. Many animal rights advocates believe that only relatively complex animals, like apes and elephants, are candidates for legal personhood, because they are the most like humans.
The philosopher Martha Nussbaum disagrees. She has decried this “so-like-us” approach because it keeps humans at the top of the value chain. Instead, she believes we should ask, “What will it take for all creatures to flourish?” — and that all sentient animals are “capable not only of feeling pain but of having a point of view of the world.” She argues that virtually all animals, human and nonhuman alike, deserve justice.
I’ve been a leader in the human rights movement over the past 30 years, and I’ve seen that paradoxically, often those most resistant to animal rights are human rights activists. A few years ago, I raised the question of animal rights at the board meeting of a prominent human rights organization: “I say screw ’em,” bellowed one board member, referring to animals the world over. “[Human] torture, genocide — they’re all more important.”…
I have become increasingly sympathetic to the idea that we owe it not just to animals but to ourselves to accord nonhuman animals a greater measure of respect. The bottom line is this: Animals are part of our world. A good society must honor and protect them. The illustrious anthropologist Loren Eiseley once said, “I love forms beyond my own and regret the borders between us.” We humans will reap greater rewards by doing what we can to diminish the distance between animals and ourselves. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: