Should animals have rights?

The thought is there, and the reasoning is there, it all makes sense, but can it change life as we know it? Pollan backs up his point of view with some very clear points, such as comparing it to humans gaining equal rights through the ages. However, can this argument, even if back up by enough people really change the way we live life and treat and use animals?
Throughout the course of history, as Pollan mentions, “the white man's circle of moral consideration was expanded to admit first blacks, then women, then homosexuals” (Pollan). Our society strived for equality among different groups of people, and it’s only a matter of time before we want equality for animals. If you think about the uses we have for animals, they make sense. We use animals for things such as clothing and food. Are there ways around using animals for these things? If we didn’t use animals we wouldn’t be able to have such a sophisticated society.
Although, you can see the uses for animals, Pollan makes another great point in saying that “Equal consideration of interests is not the same as equal treatment, he points out: children have an interest in being educated; pigs, in rooting around in the dirt. But where their interests are the same, the principle of equality demands they receive the same consideration. And the one all-important interest that we share with pigs, as with all sentient creatures, is an interest in avoiding pain.” (Pollan) It’s true that animals aren’t children, they are clearly different. However, how do they differ? Is it in their intelligence, or their principles and interests? “The moral idea is that everyone's interests ought to receive equal consideration, regardless of "what abilities they may possess." (Pollan) The idea of equality isn’t that each person, place, thing, or even animal, has the same intelligence level, but rather that they are given an equal judging plate. The idea is that they are given a clean slate by everyone to base their morals and interests on, whether or not they are of the same intelligence.
“Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” (Pollan) Here is another great point brought up by Pollan. If animals aren’t ethical towards each other, and they kill each other off, why should we be more ethical towards them? It’s almost the same as with the death penalty in the U.S. If someone gets caught for murdering someone, most likely they will be put to death, now that’s an argument that can be disputed on ethnicity time and time again, but nonetheless is the same concept as animals killing other animals. Is it right for us to treat them better than they treat each other?
Another valid argument brought about by Pollan is the argument that “human pain differs from animal pain by an order of magnitude” (Pollan). The argument to make is that humans have language which allows us the ability to have thoughts, which makes us able to imagine alternatives to our current reality.
As you can see, there are many ways to view the argument of animal cruelty and equality. Pollan makes some valid points, however there is no real way to change the way we live. We rely on animals for food, just as much as they rely on each other. We also rely on them for clothing. We can’t eliminate the way we treat animals because we rely on them too much. Also, they aren’t ethical with each other, so why should we be more ethical with them? There are pros and cons, reasons for and reasons against animals being treated equally; but all in all, it’s a moral dilemma that one has to decide what to do with on their own.


Works CitedPollan, Michael. The New York Times Magazine 10 Nov. 2002. 10 Nov. 2002. 7 Oct. 2008
.