Column: Animals have rights?

I never thought I would be saying this, but People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has reached an all-time low. That's right, the same organization that passed out bloody, butcher knife-toting Ronald McDonalds to schoolchildren, compared September 11 to the daily activities of the poultry industry and depicted former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani on a billboard reading "Got Prostate Cancer?" has launched a campaign more abhorrent than ever. This time, PETA is equating the treatment of farm animals to the Holocaust.  

Through their latest activism campaign "Holocaust on your Plate," PETA is presenting Americans, through both public displays and the website www.masskilling.com, with images comparing Holocaust victims to suffering animals. The pictures range from an emaciated Jew standing next to an emaciated cow to a pile of Holocaust victims' bodies adjacent to a pile of pig carcasses. And this isn't just an exaggeration for shock value, as PETA spokesman Michael McGraw claimed last week that the Holocaust is "absolutely equal to the suffering of animals."

The offensiveness here is undeniable. I can't imagine how those whose friends and relatives were lost during the Holocaust feel about the horrific and systematic murders of their loved ones being declared morally equivalent to the treatment of cows, pigs, and chickens. But PETA is more than despicable.  They are woefully off-base.

Indeed, the biggest problem with PETA is that they lobby for governmental regulations on the treatment of animals. A government, however, should only forbid actions which violate rights. That is the basis of liberal government. Murder is illegal because it violates the right to life. Pornography is not, though, because it supposedly violates no rights. Likewise, the mistreatment of animals should not be illegal because animals do not have rights.

Why don't animals have rights? Well, let's consider what a right is.  According to Merriam-Webster, a right is a "power or privilege to which one is justly entitled." Rights are attached to the concept of rationality, and rights protection derives from a social contract. To use a basic example, my right to not be shot is only protected because I have, either directly or tacitly, agreed to not shoot anyone else. Animals, however, are not justly entitled to anything. They are incapable of respecting others as rational agents and they hold no responsibilities to others.  

"Wait a minute," you might be saying, "children are not capable of asserting rights claims.  Neither are the mentally handicapped. Are you saying we should be able to kill them?" No, I'm not.  Children are developing into rational human beings. The mentally handicapped are people whose minds don't work the way they're supposed to. But they are still humans, exceptions to the general rule. They deserve rights protection out of respect for humanity. But there exists no possibility that any animal could agree to a social contract or act out of a motivation other than survival. Animals are incapable of fulfilling the obligations needed to secure rights protection.

Groups like PETA often argue that animals should be treated "humanely."  Why?   They are not humans. Chickens have no responsibilities. Pigs do not willingly enter into rights agreements.  According to Aristotle, justice occurs when each gets his or her due. By definition, animals are not due humane treatment. They are due animalistic treatment.  And given that they constantly maim, kill and eat each other without repercussion, that requires very little.

So am I saying that there is nothing wrong with animal cruelty? Of course not - Those who mistreat or torture animals are absolutely sick. But the problem with animal mistreatment is not that it violates rights, but that it is immoral. Just look at the acronym PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  Simply put, animal cruelty is not an issue of justice, it is an issue of ethics.  And as any good liberal will tell you, a government cannot "legislate morality."