Around , the group proposed an amendment to the U. Ethics, Humans and Other Animals. The problem of 'marginal people' The phrase 'marginal people' or 'marginal human beings' is unpleasant. Animals portal Law portal Discrimination portal Animal rights portal. Some jurisdictions in Europe and the United States adopted bans on wild-animal acts or on the bullhook, a sharp pokerlike device used to train and guide elephants.
Cookies on the BBC website
Legal scholars were devising and evaluating theories by which nonhuman animals would possess basic legal rights, often for the same reasons as humans do and on the basis of the same legal principles and values.
These arguments were powerfully assisted by increasingly sophisticated scientific investigations into the cognitive, emotional, and social capacities of animals and by advances in genetics, neuroscience, physiology, linguistics, psychology, evolution , and ethology, many of which have demonstrated that humans and animals share a broad range of behaviours, capacities, and genetic material.
Meanwhile, the increasingly systemic and brutal abuses of animals in modern society—by the billions on factory farms and by the tens of millions in biomedical-research laboratories—spawned thousands of animal rights groups. Some consisted of a mere handful of people interested in local, and more traditional, animal-protection issues, such as animal shelters that care for stray dogs and cats.
Others became large national and international organizations, such as PETA People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States , which in the early 21st century had millions of members and a multimillion-dollar annual budget. In all their manifestations , animal rights groups began to inundate legislatures with demands for regulation and reform.
Slaves, human and nonhuman, may be indirectly protected through laws intended to protect others. But they remain invisible to civil law , for they have no rights to protect directly until their legal personhood is recognized. This recognition can occur in a variety of ways.
British slavery was abolished by judicial decision in the 18th century, and slavery in the British colonies was ended by statute early in the 19th century. By constitutional amendment , the United States ended slavery three decades later. Legal personhood for some animals may be obtained through any of these routes. In the Nonhuman Rights Project NhRP filed petitions in three trial courts in the state of New York demanding that common law writs of habeas corpus be issued on behalf of four captive chimpanzees—Tommy, Kiko, Hercules, and Leo.
The petitions implicitly asked that the courts recognize that chimpanzees are legal persons who possess the fundamental legal right to bodily liberty. After all three petitions were denied, the cases moved to the New York state appellate courts, where two of the petitions on behalf of Tommy and Kiko were rejected on differing grounds and the third on behalf of Hercules and Leo was thrown out for lack of the right to appeal.
Meanwhile, the organization prepared to file additional lawsuits on behalf of other chimpanzees and elephants. We welcome suggested improvements to any of our articles.
You can make it easier for us to review and, hopefully, publish your contribution by keeping a few points in mind. Your contribution may be further edited by our staff, and its publication is subject to our final approval. Unfortunately, our editorial approach may not be able to accommodate all contributions. Our editors will review what you've submitted, and if it meets our criteria, we'll add it to the article. Please note that our editors may make some formatting changes or correct spelling or grammatical errors, and may also contact you if any clarifications are needed.
Read More on This Topic. Learn More in these related Britannica articles: The emphasis on intrinsic value and the interconnectedness of nature was fundamental to the development of the animal-rights movement, whose activism was influenced by works such as Animal Liberation , by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, and The Case for Animal Rights ,….
Some jurisdictions in Europe and the United States adopted bans on wild-animal acts or on the bullhook, a sharp pokerlike device used to train and guide elephants. The most-important philosophical contribution…. Wild animal acts environmentalism In environmentalism: Animal rights ethical rights In ethics: Dale Hylton View More.
Articles from Britannica Encyclopedias for elementary and high school students. Help us improve this article! Contact our editors with your feedback.
Introduction Philosophical background Animals and the law The modern animal rights movement. You may find it helpful to search within the site to see how similar or related subjects are covered. Any text you add should be original, not copied from other sources. At the bottom of the article, feel free to list any sources that support your changes, so that we can fully understand their context.
Internet URLs are the best. Thank You for Your Contribution! There was a problem with your submission. Please try again later. Keep Exploring Britannica Marketing. Marketing, the sum of activities involved in directing the flow of goods and services from producers….
Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern….
View All Media 1 Image. If you prefer to suggest your own revision of the article, you can go to edit mode requires login. Thank you for your feedback. Facts matter and Britannica Insights makes it easier to find them. Thus adult mammals have rights in just the same way, for the same reasons, and to the same extent that human beings have rights. St Thomas Aquinas taught that animals acted purely on instinct while human beings engaged in rational thought.
This distinction provided the frontier between human beings and animals, and was regarded as a suitable criterion for assessing a being's moral status.
The French philosopher Rene Descartes, and many others, taught that animals were no more than complicated biological robots. This meant that animals were not the sort of thing that was entitled to have any rights - or indeed any moral consideration at all. This view comes originally from the Bible, but probably reflects a basic human attitude towards other species. Christian theologians developed this idea - St Augustine taught that "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their [animals'] life and their death are subject to our use.
St Thomas Aquinas taught that the universe was constructed as a hierarchy in which beings at a lower level were there to serve those above them. As human beings were above animals in this hierarchy they were entitled to use animals in any way they wanted. We may find it difficult to formulate a human right of tormenting beasts in terms which would not equally imply an angelic right of tormenting men.
This argument is no longer regarded as useful, because the idea of the soul is very controversial and unclear, even among religious people. Furthermore it is not possible to establish the existence of the soul human or animal in a valid experimental way. This also makes it difficult to argue, as some theologians have done, that animals should have rights because they do have souls.
Some argue that since animals don't behave in a moral way they don't deserve moral treatment from other beings. Animals, it's argued, usually behave selfishly, and look after their own interests, while human beings will often help other people, even if doing so is to their own disadvantage.
Not all scientists agree: Jane Goodall, an expert on chimpanzees has reported that they sometimes show truly altruistic behaviour. Another reason for thinking that animals don't behave morally is that even the most enthusiastic supporters of animal rights only argue that animals have rights against human beings, not against other animals. May they [animals] be hunted?
To this the answer is no, not by humans; but presumably their rights are not infringed if they are hunted by animals other than human beings. And here the real difficulties start. If all animals had a right to freedom to live their lives without molestation, then someone would have to protect them from one another.
But this is absurd Why this might be relevant to the question of whether animals should have rights becomes clearer if you rephrase it in terms of duties or obligations instead of rights and ask - why should human beings have obligations towards animals, if animals don't have obligations to other animals or to human beings?
Animal and human rights boil down to one fundamental right: Animals with rights must be treated as ends in themselves; they should not be treated by others as means to achieve their ends.
Particular species only get relevant and useful rights - so animals don't get all the rights that human beings get. Two methods can be used to determine the best course of action when there is no alternative to violating the rights of some individual or group:.
This definition of harm benefits people over animals because human beings have far more desires that they want to satisfy than do non-human animals. This resolves many of the traditional problems of humans versus animals in favour of humanity, because the human being under consideration would suffer far more harm than the non-human animal.
The phrase 'marginal people' or 'marginal human beings' is unpleasant. We use it here only because if you read the literature of animal rights you will encounter it often, and it's important to know what it means. We do not intend to denigrate the status or worth of any human being by using it here The problem with the line of thought in the section above that it takes rights away from many human beings as well as from non-human animals.
This is because some human beings babies, senile people, people with some severe mental defects and people in a coma don't have the capacity for free moral judgement either, and by this argument they wouldn't have any rights.
Some philosophers are prepared to argue that in fact such 'marginal human beings' don't have rights, but most people find that conclusion repellent. But this is not an argument; it's a statement that human beings have rights and non-human animals don't, which is pure speciesism , and hardly persuasive.
It's also vulnerable to the probably unlikely arrival of a species of extra-terrestrial creatures who demonstrate the capacity for free moral judgement. This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets CSS enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience.
Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets CSS if you are able to do so. This page has been archived and is no longer updated.
Animal rights is the idea in which some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests—such as the need to avoid suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. Animal rights: Animal rights, moral or legal entitlements attributed to nonhuman animals, usually because of the complexity of their cognitive, emotional, and social lives or their capacity to experience physical or emotional pain or pleasure. Historically, different views of the scope of animal rights have. Animal Welfare Facts and Resources. Use these resources to learn important facts about animal welfare, laws, issues, and activism focusing on the treatment and mistreatment of animals worldwide.