Putative "Animal Rights"

1. Introduction

The thesis presented is that brute animals should be treated humanely and properly, but not because of any putatitve "right" possessed by them.

2. The Definition of Person

St Thomas Aquinas and other scholastic philosophers adopt the definition of person developed by Boethius:

A person is an individual substance of a rational nature.

By rational nature is meant a nature which possesses intellect and will. In Catholic Theology this definition of person includes each person of the Trinity, each person which is an angel, and each human person.

Human persons are rational animals. All other animals are non-rational. The higher non-rational animals are also called brute animals. The distinction between human persons and brute animals then lies in the fact that human persons possess intellects whereas brute animals do not. Brute animals do possess intelligence. Some, like chimpanzees, possess intelligence to a remarkable degree. However, not even the higher brutes possess intellects. What then, is the distinction between intelligence and intellect?

3. The Three Acts of the Intellect

In responding to stimuli from the external environment, sensory percepts and intelligence (human or brute) are involved in ascertaing the existence of a concrete singular object.

There are three acts of the intellect, called apprehension, judgment, and inference.

The first act of the intellect, apprehension, is involved in ascertaining what a thing is, i.e., its essence (e.g., "that object is a tree").

The second act of the intellect, judgment, is involved in predicating attributes of a thing (e.g., "that tree is tall").

The third act of the intellect is inference, which involves reasoning to new knowledge from known propositions.

The standard form of an inference, called a syllogism, is modus ponens (affirming the antecedent):

If A, then B. (major premise)
But A. (minor premise)
Therefore B. (conclusion [inference])

Example:
If x is a horse, then x is an animal. (major premise)
But x is a horse. (minor premise)
Therefore x is an animal. (conclusion [inference])

The next most important syllogistic form is modus tollens (denying the consequent):

If Not-B, then Not-A.
But A.
Therefore B

Example:
If x is not an animal, then x is not a horse.
But x is a horse.
Therefore x is an animal.

It is evident from the above that "If A, then B" and "If Not-B, then Not-A" are logically equivalent.

The faculty of intellect is required to perform the above two syllogistic forms because in each, the following statements hold:

The major premise is a statement about universals ("horse" and "animal" in the universal sense).
The minor premise is a statement about a concrete singular ("x is a horse").

The conclusion or inference is a statement asserting a concrete singular being as a particularization of a universal.

4. Properties of the Intellect which Distinguish it from Intelligence

The faculty of intellect is required to perform a syllogism because to grasp the concept of a universal being, a process of abstraction is performed. The process of abstraction cannot be performed by intelligence alone, such as a brute animal possesses. It can only be performed by an intellective being.

A chimpanzee can know this (particular) banana, but it cannot grasp "banana" in the universal sense.

Another defining property of intellect is that of reflection. A person can know that he is knowing. No brute animal can do this.

5. Responsibilities (Duties) and Rights

Human persons are social creatures. One of the most important (two-way) relations that exist among persons is that of commutative justice. The purpose of commutative justice is to guarantee that no one's personhood is unjustly impeded. The two-way relation which is commutative justice gives rise to the following two one-way relations for each person:

1. Person A has a responsibility (or duty) not to impede unjustly the personhood of any other person B;

2. Person A has a right not to have his personhood unjustly impeded by any other person B.

That is, to every right I possess, there exists a corresponding responsibility which applies to every other person, and conversely.

6. Fundamental Axioms Regarding Responsibilities and Rights

Both responsibility and right are abstract concepts. They are therefore understood only by persons. This leads us to the following axiomatic statements:

ONLY PERSONS HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES.
ONLY PERSONS HAVE RIGHTS.

7. Application to So-Called (Brute-) Animal "Rights"

The principal implication of the statement that only persons have rights is the statement that no brute animal possesses rights.

8. Proper Use of Brute Animals

Brute animals have been an indispensable resource for mankind since the dawn of human existence on earth. Some have been of direct use, such as dogs and horses. Others have served as important sources of protein and other key nutrients in the human diet. These statements refer to the proper use of animals.

There have been and continue to be wanton misuse and abuse of brute animals by humans. One example has been the hunting of elephants for their ivory tusks only, leaving the rest of the carcass to rot. Closer to home, conditions in stockyards, slaughterhouses, and chicken farms have been and continue to be appalling.

An ancient adage (attributed to Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor) is abusus non tollit usum (literally: abuse does not deny use). A free translation runs something like this: "the cure for improper use is not disuse, but proper use".

The cure for the current prevalent mistreatment of brute animals is not to stop making use of them, but to use them properly. This will have to be done primarily through legislation.

9. Why Mistreatment of Brute Animals is Immoral

We assert that mistreatment of brute animals is immoral. Our thesis is that such mistreatment is not immoral because of any putative "right" possessed by any brute animal. Only persons have rights. Brute animals do not have rights.

The reason that mistreatment of brute animals is immoral is that the humans involved in the mistreatment of brute animals are violating in a radical way their own intellectual nature. Being endowed with the light of reason, humans act immorally each and every time they violate their rational nature for some base purpose.

Note that this view of immorality goes far beyond mistreatment of animals. It involves any corruption, perversion, or misuse of the intellectual nature of man.

Regarding our use of brute animals, it is incumbent on all men of good will to exercise their intellectual nature to use the resource that brute animals constitute in a proper, enlightened, and humane manner.