zoopolis: a political theory of animal rights by sue donaldson and will kymlicka
TRANSCRIPT
ZOOPOLIS: A POLITICAL THEORY OF ANIMAL RIGHTSby Sue Donaldson andWill Kymlicka
Chapter 1 - IntroductionThis chapter is about the authors’ motivation for writing the book
“The animal advocacy movement is at an impasse.” (p. 1)
PROGRESS animal welfare
measures passed e.g. California
prop 2 [and many others
they don’t mention]
NO PROGRESS 56 billion animals
killed for food per year, worldwide
more people, more livestock, more factory farming
Why? Why so little progress? D&K: we need to look at 3 dominant
animal ethics frameworks
3 frameworks① WELFARISM – “human beings stand
above animals in a clear moral hierarchy” (p. 3) – but we should use animals humanely
② ECOLOGICAL HOLISM – ecosystems matter, we should treat individual animals as benefits whole ecosystems
③ ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY (ART) – animals have basic rights to life and liberty
Why is ART so unpopular?
Public has warmed up to welfarism and ecological holism
Very few people embrace ART
Some reasons…① “depth of cultural inheritance” (p. 5)② self-interest③ “powerful vested interests”
D&K: problem is partly with ART as usually formulated
Main theorists—Tom Regan, Gary Francione, Joan Dunayer① They proclaim that animals have
negative rights only
NEGATIVE RIGHTS POSITIVE RIGHTS
right to libertyright to liferight to be left aloneETC
right to medical careright to an educationright to be housed and fedETC
Standard ART (cont.)② They see human relationship with
domesticated animals as exploitative – goal is extinction of pets and livestock
③ They envision a world with us here and wild animals “out there” being left alone
D&K say standard ART … ignores our relationships to animals and
duties of care ignores realities of human-animal
coexistence ignores possibility of positive duties to
animals
Standard ART is unattractive to the public because … “no positive conception of human-
animal interaction” (p. 9) ignores “human impulse for contact with
the animal world” this impulse for contact is the main
motivation of most animal advocates standard ART is alienating to public
3 FRAMEWORKS① WELFARISM – “human beings stand above
animals in a clear moral hierarchy” (p. 3) – but we should use animals humanely
② ECOLOGICAL HOLISM – ecosystems matter, we should treat individual animals as benefits whole ecosystems
③ ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY (ART) – animals have basic rights to life and liberty
A. STANDARD – Regan, Francione, etc.B. NEW – Zoopolis theory
New ART (Zoopolis) Universal negative rights (all sentient
animals) —right to life and liberty Political categories—citizen, foreigner,
refugee, resident alien, etc. Positive rights depending on category
Questions/Objections1. Do the three frameworks exhaust the
possibilities? Where does Peter Singer fit in? What about DeGrazia and Rachels?
2. Is the resistance to ART really because of the way it’s been formulated so far?
3. Will positive rights make more people embrace ART?
Chapter 2 – Universal Basic Rights for AnimalsThis chapter is about negative basic rights. D&K defend the claim that all sentient animals have them.
SectionsIntro, 1 & 4: Why animals have rights2-3: Debates with environmentalists5: Implications of animals having negative rights
Two meanings of “rights”① Rights in weak sense -- there are limits
to the way we should treat animals ② Rights in robust sense – inviolability –
right to life, right to liberty
Why all animals have basic negative rights① “conscious/sentient beings are selves…” (read
passages on p. 24 and 25)② the “argument from marginal cases”—how can
we assert rights for mentally impaired humans and deny them to comparable animals?
③ if high intellectual ability were necessary for rights, our rights would be insecure (p. 27) – consider the Telepaths (compare Under the Skin)
④ “intersubjective recognition (p. 30)
SectionsIntro, 1 & 4: Why animals have rights2-3: Debates with environmentalists [interesting]5: Implications of animals having negative rights
Inviolable, universal rights① inviolable – “they are not means to our ends…”
(p. 40)② inviolable does not mean absolute and
exceptionless ③ exceptions for “self-defense or necessity”④ Stage of history, context matter. Rights apply
only if we are in the “circumstances of justice.” “Humans owe justice to each other [and to animals] when they are in fact able to respect each other’s rights without jeopardizing their own existence.” (p. 41)
Exceptions (rights don’t apply) Mr. Caveman and the aurochs I’m starving in the Arctic, could eat hare Eskimos without access to plant foods lifeboat cases I’m being attacked by a bear
Rights do apply Deciding what to eat today Using animals in medical research (=
using humans) Using animals for leather and fur
New ART not extreme! “The idea of inviolable rights for
animals, therefore, is more complex than it initially appears, and not as absolute or unconditional as it may sound.” (p. 42)
“We have a duty progressively to extend the circumstances of justice so that, wherever possible, we can respect these inviolable rights.” (p. 42)
Inviolable universal rights bullfighting religious animal sacrifices
Questions/Objections① What would it be like to have a universal
declaration of animal rights? What would we have to do for wild animals to enforce it?
② Is killing out of “necessity” just as permissible whether I’m killing humans or animals?
③ Why no exception for medical experimentation? Why isn’t that a case of “necessity”?
Chapter 3 – Extending Animal Rights via Citizenship TheoryThis chapter explains a set of political categories (citizen, alien, foreigner, etc.), defends their importance for human life, and defends extending them to animals
NEGATIVE RIGHTS
right to liferight to liberty
SAME
POLITICAL STATUS
US citizen
Tourist (from Italy)
Temporary worker(from Germany, has work visa)
Foreign student
Business visitor
NEGATIVE RIGHTS
SAME
POSITIVE RIGHTS
VARY
DEBATECosmopolitanism
We should get rid of these political categories
Everyone’s a “citizen of the world”
Borders don’t matter
Citizenship Theory (D&K)
We should retain these political categories
Life is better if each person is a citizen of some nation
D&K: We should extend political categories to animals. But first we need to define citizenship.
US citizen
FUNCTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP
1. Nationality—citizens have secure right of residence
2. Popular sovereignty—citizens are those for whose sake the state governs
3. Democratic political agency—citizens are entitled to be active participants in the political process (via speech, voting, etc.)
Citizens in sense 1 only—people living under tyranny
Citizens in sense 1 & 2 only –babies in US
Citizens in sense 1 & 2 and SOME of 3 –severely mentally disabled in USteenagers in USDEPENDENT AGENCY – see p. 60
Citizens in sense 1 & 2 and ALL of 3 –most adults in a democracy
FUNCTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP
1. Nationality—citizens have secure right of residence
2. Popular sovereignty—citizens are those for whose sake the state governs
3. Democratic political agency—citizens are entitled to be active participants in the political process (via speech, voting, etc.)
HUMAN EXAMPLES(Assume US point of view)
ANIMAL EXAMPLES
CITIZENS
• normal adult (1, 2, 3)• teenagers (1, 2, some 3)• dependent disabled (1,
2, some 3)• babies (1, 2)
domesticated animals (1, 2, some of 3)petsfarm animals
RESIDENT ALIENS
• migrant workers from another country
• domestic workers with work permits
liminal animalssquirrels, raccoons, ducks, rats
FOREIGNERS
• citizens of another country living in that country
wild animals:deer, bears, lions, birds
Functions of citizenship: 1) nationality, 2) those for whose sake state governs, 3) democratic participation
THE BIG PICTUREPo
litic
al C
ate
gori
es
Chapter 4 – Domesticated Animals within Animal Rights TheoryThis chapter looks at the nature of domestication and the moral status of domesticated animals
Questions about Domesticated Animals1. Purpose of domestication2. Process of domestication3. Treatment of domesticated animals4. Dependency of domesticated animals
Abolitionism/Extinctionism
Gary Francione Interview Blog pet dependency – they can’t live
good lives domestication was forced on
animals Proper goal of animal movement:
extinction of pets and farm animals
See also Callicott and Shephard
Objections to Extinctionism (Donaldson & Kymlicka) Strategically
misguided past injustices not
remedied by extinction (think about slavery)
coercive to sterilize all domesticated animals
The life of pets
Francione dependence is
demeaning first pets forced into
subservience neoteny (retention
of juvenile traits in adults) is unnatural and forced
D&K dependence compatible
with dignity (e.g. disabilities)
first pets drawn to human settlements – video
neoteny naturally occurs when tamer animals mate video
The future of domesticated animals – 3 possibilities
1. Status quo, modified (more animal cruelty laws, better enforcement, animal standing in courts, no-kill shelters, avoid pure-breds, etc.)
2. Extinction (Francione)3. Citizenship (D&K)
Citizenship for domesticated animals(preview of chapter 5)
1. How should we train them?2. How will they share public space?3. What duties do we have to protect them?4. Should we ever use animal products (e.g. eggs, wool)?5. Should we ever use animals for labor?6. Must we give them medical care?7. Is it OK to sterilize dogs and cats?8. What about letting obligate carnivores (cats) eat other
animals?9. What sort of political participation is possible for
animals?