CC BY
67
y ^
Si
a
s
J
Is
c
S §
<8 I
«g Si
S?
S 3
s §
a,
£
THE PHILOSOPHY AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
E.Hadjisterkotis
Ministry of the Interior, Nicosia 1453 Cyprus
Although hunting and animal farming is practiced for millennia, about 35 years ago many people commenced opposing hunting and certain styles of animal farming. This opposition is known as the animal rights movement. This movement is based on the ideas of certain modern philosophers, who have been claiming that hunting, trapping, fur trade, animal experiments, factory style animal farming, keeping domestic animals for slaughter etc. is wrong. Today youth are turning away from hunting in large numbers and despite the effort of management agencies this is a trend likely to continue. According to Gilbert and Dodds (2001) the decline is not just in the percentage of the overall population participating but in some North American jurisdictions is in absolute numbers as well. Although the numbers of hunters are decreasing, the numbers of people supporting and defending the rights of all animals are not only increasing, but are becoming more and more involved in the decision making processes. Among other things the movement achieved to modify the policy of the European Union on a number of issues relating to the trade of certain animal products, succeeding to terminate the import of seal skins mainly from Canada and Norway. This policy took place regardless of the negative effect on the livelihood of the Canadian Inuit, who for the last 3000 years depended on seal hunting for their survival (Wenzel 1994). For many years, elements of the wildlife protectionist and animal welfare movement have attacked wildlife managers, scientists, farmers and businessmen alike with much emotion and few facts. In our vastly changing world, if the politics and people issues are not understood, and wildlife professionals do not become involved in the true arenas of decision making, wildlife management will be but an anachronism (Gilbert and Dodds 2001). Pursuing this line of thought, the endeavour of this short paper is to provide some basic information on the most important animal rights groups active mainly in North America and Europe, their activities and philosophical background, and the possible problems deriving from their activities.
The philosophy of the animal rights groups
During the last 30 years, in philosophy, life sciences, medicine, law, education, religion and other fields, there has been a flood of animal rights literature, which was based on the philosophical writings of several philosophers such as Ruth Harrison (1964), Peter Singer (1975, 1986, 1999), Hall Rebecca (1984), Tom Regan (1975, 2004), A. Nxss (1973,1989) and many others. These philosophers argue that hunting and keeping domestic animals for slaughter is wrong; animals should be considered as equals to humans; it is not right to take the life of another animal; it is inhumane to cause pain to other creatures, and humans should become vegetarians.
As Peter Singer argued, equal pain and equal pleasure should be given equal consideration, regardless of species membership. Failure to comply with this equality principle is speciesism, analo-
gous to sexism and racism. We have no right to end a pleasant life of another species, and possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to exploit nonhumans (Singer 1986 , 1999). Singer's book: Animal liberation: Anew ethic for our treatment of animals (1975) was considered as "the bible" of the animal liberation movement.
A philosopher whose writings turned into an ecological movement with many followers is A. Nxss, who developed the Deep Ecology movement. Deep ecology was born in Scandinavia (Nxss 1973, 1989). The shallow ecology movement, as Nxss (1973) calls it, is the fight against pollution and resource depletion, the central objective of which is the health and affluence of people in the developed countries. The deep ecology movement, in contrast, endorses biospheric egalitar-ianism, the view that all living things are alike in having value in their own right, independent of their usefulness to human purposes. Furthermore, deep ecology also endorses what Nxss calls the relational, total-field image, understanding organisms (human or otherwise) as knots in the biospherical net, the identities of which are defined in terms of their ecological relations to each other. Biospheric egalitarianism was modified in the 1980s to the weaker claim that the flourishing of both human and non-human life have value in themselves. Therefore, hunting or animal exploitation has no position in a philosophical movement, which endorses the view that all living things are alike in having value in their own right, independent of their usefulness to human purposes. Simultaneously, with the moral opposition to the "suffering imposed daily by humans on animals" expressed by the above philosophers, a coalition of environmental and animal welfare activists was developing, each drawing strength from the other.
Animal rights groups
One of the first animal rights groups and perhaps one of the most well known is Greenpeace, which based its philosophy and actions on the Deep Ecology movement. In the 1970s, Greenpeace brought its action policy to bear on the Canadian sealing issue, and the organization remained thus involved until 1985, something which has been very damaging to Inuit ecology and culture (Wenzel 1994). Greenpeace presently is known mainly for its campaign to disrupt commercial whaling and arrest the polluting of the marine environment. Currently, other organizations such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), are continuing the campaign against sealing. PETA's philosophy is based on Peter Singer's writings. PETA is claiming that is an international non-profit charitable organization, with more than 1.6 million members and supporters, and is perhaps the largest animal rights organization in the world. PETA is based in Norfolk, Virginia, with affiliates in the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, India, and the Asia-Pacific Region. Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and defending the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. PETA's activists are known for their controversial advertising campaigns, such as appearing nude in public and on the web http://www.peta.org/about/
Another powerful group of animal rights activists is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) working to save endangered species and for animal welfare. The state of California recently incorporated lessons from HSUS's educational program for school children into the state's new environmental education curriculum guide. HSUS with it's 1.3 million members, also calls it self the nations largest animal protection organization.
Besides the above groups, there are many other animal rights groups around the planet, dedicated to establishing and defending the rights of all animals, and to protect the environment. The goal of the movement in general ranges from the welfare of cats and dogs, to stop every form of animal exploitation including hunting, trapping, fur trade, animal experiments, factory style animal farming etc. Although most of the groups for their campaigns are using peaceful methods (although sometimes controversial), a number of other animal rights groups, such as the Animal Rights Militia (ARM), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty which act mainly in Great Britain and USA are extremists, and in their tactics they use what is known as ecoterrorism, sending letter bombs, committing vandalisms and arsons, causing millions of dollars worth of damage to property. For example, in 1982, letter bombs were sent to Margaret Thacher, then Prime Minister, signed by the Animal Rights Militia. In 1986, ARM claimed responsibility for sending letter bombs to individuals involved in vivisection, and in 1994, ARM activists set fire to stores on the Isle of Wight, causing $6 million worth of damage.
The ALF is composed of anonymous underground cells that oppose any form of animal experimentation and perceived mistreatment, it aims to rescue animals from «places of abuse» and to «inflict economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals». ALF cells have claimed responsibility for hundreds of «direct actions,» a euphemism for crimes that include freeing animals from their owners and property destruction.
The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) is the collective name for anonymous and autonomous individuals or groups that, according to the now defunct Earth Liberation Front Press Office, use «economic sabotage to stop the exploitation and destruction of the natural environment.» The organization has been active in the United States, Canada, Greece, and the United Kingdom, where the movement was founded. The ELF was classified as the top domestic terror threat in the United States by the FBI in March 2001. The ELF has committed more than 1,200 acts of vandalism and arson in the U.S., causing more than $200 million in damage. Similarly to the above terrorist groups, the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
have claimed responsibility for several bombings and dozens of acts of vandalism and harassment in both the U.S. and Europe. Ecoterror cells remain extremely difficult to identify and infiltrate.
Problems for the wildlife profession
The problem with the above ideas and actions is that they can set obstacles for rational wildlife management. The question for the wildlife manager and the wildlife biologist is how to counteract these obstacles? The movement is so versatile and diverse that there is no easy answer to that. The problem is more complicated because besides the above activities, a small number of animal protectionists are using published wildlife data against accepted management procedures, and whether the arguments are valid or not, they are having considerable influence in public and political circles (Gilbert and Dodds 1992). Perhaps the best we can do is to counter this movement with more intensive management based on better data. As it was noted by Gilbert and Dodds (loc. cit.), where our data are not adequate, our "errors" should benefit wildlife population and not the using public: we should err on the conservative site, for wildlife. In spite of the difficulties inherent in ecological systems research and our inabilities to measure and control the elements we study, it is time we adhere as closely to the scientific method as our animals and habitats will allow. In addition, professional consolidation on a worldwide basis is going to provide a single, strong voice in government circles
and in public forums. Concerning the other issues projected by the animal rights movement such as on furbearer trapping, Gilbert and Dodds (2001: 251-256) provides a review of the problem. In addition, one perspective on furbearer trapping and the biological, social, and political issues surrounding that controversy in the United States is provided by Andelt et al. (1999).
REFERENCES
Andelt WFL , RL Philips, RH Smith and RB Gill (1999) Trapping furbearers: an overview of the biological and social issues surrounding a public policy controversy. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27:53-64
Gilbert FF and DG Dodds (1992) (sec. edn.) The Philosophy and Practice of Wildlife Management. Krieger, Malabar
Gilbert FF and DG Dodds (2001) (third edn.) The Philosophy and Practice of Wildlife Management. Krieger, Malabar
Harrison R (1964) Animals machines: The new factory farming industry. Vincent Stuart, London
Hall Rebecca (1984) Voiceless victims. Wildwood House, Hounslow, Middx. Naess A (1973) 'The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement', Inquiry 16, reprinted in Sessions 1995, pp. 151-5.
Naess A (1989) Ecology, Community, Lifestyle, trans. and ed. D. Rothenberg. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Regan T (1975) The moral basis of vegetarianism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5(1975):181-214.
Regan T (2004) The Case for animals Rights. University of California Press Berkeley.
Singer P (1975) Animal liberation: Anew ethic for our treatment of animals. New York Review, New York .
Singer P (1986) All Animals are Equal, pages 215-228, In Singer P. Applied Ethics, Oxford University Press New York.
Singer P (1999) (sec. edn) Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wenzel G (1994) Animal Rights Human Rights: Ecology, Economy and Ideology in the Canadian Arctic. University Of Toronto Press, Buffalo.
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us Ecoterrorism.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism& LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front.
3
s-
Я <u a.
к §
Se a о, i
о к
ff £
к
к
О
а.
Л
ФИЛОСОФИЯ И ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТЬ ДВИЖЕНИЯ В ЗАЩИТУ ПРАВ ЖИВОТНЫХ
Е.Хадйистеркотис
Министерство Внутренних Дел, Кипр
Статья содержит информацию о деятельности современных защитников прав животных. Автор рассказывает о некоторых положениях философии движения за права животных,
о деятельности таких экстремистских организаций как РЕТА (Ethical Treatment of Animals), ALF (Animal Liberation Front), Animal Rights Militia (ARM), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Деятельность этих групп активистов борьбы за права животных наносит серьезный ущерб менеджменту дикой природы.
