Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights

Project name?

I'm not sure we had reached consensus about the name and full scope of the project. Had we? Nrets 02:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The scope is likely to evolve over time. I've put up the most obvious themes to get people started. As for the name, as Localzuk said, this is the shortest and most obvious. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Some distinctions that might be useful

Groups

On the project page, under "Scope," I've separated the list of organizations into three:

• animal rights/animal liberation groups e.g. British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection;
• animal rights campaigns e.g. SPEAK; and
• leaderless resistance movements e.g. Animal Liberation Front.

The only reason I'm stressing this upfront is that it's something a lot of people get confused over.

1) The ALF is an example of a leaderless resistance movement, not a group. It has no structure, no formal heirarchy, no membership list, and only a brief collection of aims and policies. If you act to further that list of aims, you're a "member" by definition. What being accepted as an ALF activist means is that other ALF activists will regard you as a prisoner of conscience if you're arrested; the Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group will adopt you and you'll be sent letters, money, and they'll help to organize vegan food if you're in jail.

2) Animal rights campaigns like SHAC are also not groups. They are campaign names. They have some formal structure (more so than the ALF), but there's a tremendous amount of overlap of activists, so that SHAC, SPEAK and Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs (using these only as examples) might consist of most, or even all, of the same people. They have no list of members, no membership fees. They're not registered anywhere. They own no property.

3) Then there are the groups proper: BUAV, PETA, Animal Aid. They may own property, they have members, membership fees, staff, a formal heirarchy. They are what's called "above ground," rather than "underground."

What constitutes an animal rights group?

The animal rights groups/campaigns/movements are opposed to speciesism and the treatment of animals as property. More specifically, they believe that animals should be regarded as persons in law. They may make these declarations openly and clearly, or they may simply be implied by the positions they take. The crucial distinction between the animal rights movement and people/groups who are concerned about animal welfare is that the latter believe animals may be used — as food, entertainment, objects of experimentation, clothing — so long as there is no unnecessary cruelty. Animal rights groups believe that animals may not be used by human beings.

The distinction is a stark one: philosophically, practically, and legally. For example, to become a charity in the U.S. or UK, and I believe also in the rest of Europe, an organization must (in law) exist for the benefit of human beings. All sizeable animal welfare groups, such as the RSPCA, are charities. I'm not aware of any animal rights group that has charitable status, because animal rights groups exist for the benefit of non-human animals, not for the benefit of humans (though I stand to be corrected if, in fact, some have achieved charitable status).

There is some overlap of activists within these organizations. Robin Webb, for example, started off working for the RSPCA (animal welfare); then became the director of Animal Aid (animal rights, above ground); and now runs the Animal Liberation Press Office (animal rights, underground). But the fact that some animal rights activists started their careers in animal welfare groups should not obscure the enormous gulf that separates the two philosophies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement under the U.S. tax code for an organization to benefit humans in order to receive charitable status, also referred to as 501(c)3 status. The Internal Revenue Service says:

The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. [1]

The U.S.-based organizations PETA, In Defense of Animals, and the National Anti-Vivisection Society (among many others) all have 501(c)3 not-for-profit status, according to GuideStar, which reviews charitable organizations and the reports the groups file with the government. GuideStar's wording for each group is, "This organization is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity." -MichaelBluejay 10:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[There are also] Online animal rights communities e.g. Animal Rights in China(ARC) [2] Template:Unsigned by 130.102.0.176

Hey, I'm not sure all people who advocate animal rights believe in assigning animals (even some animals) the status of people. That would imply a full set of rights. Even PETA doesn't go that far. They state "People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests". But, for example. they do not argue that animals should vote, serve jury duty, or otherwise be held liable for the laws that humans make. Can an animal break the law? Even in the dream-world of the staunchest animal rights activist I don't think animals get "personhood". BUAV is an animal rights group that focusses on animal testing ONLY. Peter Singer is clear in not assigning the same rights as people have to animals, because many of them do not make sense - and his consideration of the rights animals deserve is based on equal consideration for their suffering. Singer is even not uniformly opposed to animal testing - it should come on a cost-benefit according to suffering, and if an animal experiment reduced suffering en todo, it would be allowable under Singer's ethics. The Dalai Lama has similar beliefs - that the greater compassion is the key, and experiments are fine as long as they lead to greater compassion. Is there an honest-to-goodness animal rights group that wants animals to have the same rights as people? Or do they want 1) equal consideration for their pain and suffering OR 2) equal consideration for their "exploitation" OR 3) equal rights to pursue life as they see fit. In reading over animal rights philosophy, I concluded that the morals and ethics driving the movement are very scattered - and although they would all lead to a drastic reduction in human use of animals, they are not equivalent at their end-points. --Animalresearcher 16:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any animal rights group that believes in assigning animals the status of "people," if by that you mean human beings. Perhaps you're confusing "people" with "personhood"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I am misled when I see the suggestion that animals be regarded as "persons" under law. That clearly implies that animals get the same rights under law as people, such as right to vote and serve on jury duty, right to work for money and pay taxes, liability for their actions under law, etc. When I read about the animal personhood movement, the usual claim is that animal rights proponents want animals to have certain "personhood" rights. I think there is a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon between regarding an animal as a "person" under law, as you state in the opening of this section, and granting them certain personhood rights. I know it is somewhat semantic, but this is an important philosophical point. Animal rights proponents believe animals should have certain rights normally assigned only to people - but not that they should be regarded with the same rights as people. These are the two sentences I am referring to

The animal rights groups/campaigns/movements are opposed to speciesism and the treatment of animals as property. More specifically, they believe that animals should be regarded as persons in law. Hope this clarifies this distinction. Although it is certainly possible I am misunderstanding something - that would be further reason to clarify the issues about personhood rights and the animal rights movement(s) - so that others do not misunderstand in the same way. --Animalresearcher 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Awarding personhood doesn't involve giving animals the same rights as human beings. Do you have a source that supports what you're saying? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

they believe that animals should be regarded as persons in law. This statement clearly implies that animals would have the same rights as people, it follows in a very straightforward way from use of the English language. I would recommend rewriting it to say they believe that animals should legally have certain personhood rights. I think the latter statement is a much more accurate reflection of the animal personhood movement than the former. The animal personhood movement clearly believes in assigning animals personhood, but then goes on to say that only certain person's rights should be assigned to animals (and of course NONE of people's responsibilities). --Animalresearcher 18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You won't convince her. It doesn't matter how well-thought your post is, or how obvious the NPOV is, it rarely changes anything. Going 'round and 'round in semantical circles until the other person tires from the game is the most frequently observable activity that SlimVirgin participates in while on these "animal rights" pages. It makes the entire project a joke. Even though it never counted for anything in the past, my interpretation of her wording is the same as yours. Kyle Key 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I created a userbox if anyone wants to put it on their user page. Colours/image are flexible. I did this just to get started. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This user participates in
WikiProject Animal rights.

Critics

I'd certainly be glad to help you round out this project by adding/editing/critiquing text regarding criticism related to his issue. I think perhaps a Cricism section should be added to the WikiProject Animal rights article itself under Scope, don't you?DocEss 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What would such a section contain?-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well let's think about that for a while. We do want to get this right; i.e, we do want to create the most objective, unbiased and indepth yet practicle articles we can, so we shall have to put some thought to this. Any input anyone?DocEss 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)PS Please help me fix this little box here - I got it all out of line and I can't seem to format it right (then delete this PS).

Animal rights vs. Welfare - move from template talk

• The following discussion, regarding whether animal welfare should be within the scope of the animal rights project (and template) has been moved here, to allow a larger scope of opinions. Nrets 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete Animal welfare from template, since this article is as related to animal rights as as Animal testing is. Nrets 02:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth does animal welfare have to do with animal rights? Animal rights is about NOT USING ANIMALS and NOT seeing them as property. Animal welfare concentrates on HOW TO USE ANIMALS without being unnecessarily cruel. The two movements are diametrically opposed.

Nrets, it isn't fair of you to be constantly trying to thwart everything I do, while at the same time not knowing anything about animal rights yourself. I'm sorry to speak like this, but this has gone on for too long. If I say black, you say white just for the hell of it. If you think something might be anti-animal rights, you support it, whether it makes sense or not, whether you've understood it or not.

This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, not a battleground. If you're interested in animal rights, and know something about it, or want to learn about it, I welcome your participation, no matter your POV. But if all you want to do is oppose, revert, argue, without any basic background in the subject, then it's pointless and destructive. Please either let's find a way to work together or stay out of each other's way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nrets. Why delete Animal Welfare? I see your point SlimVirgin, and I happen to agree with it. I think Animal Welfare thwarts the Animal Rights movement. But why delete the entry? Many/Most people feel that AW **IS** an AR topic, and I think it is a related issue. Give people a link to AW and let people make up their own minds Bhuston 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source showing that AW is an AR topic? What most people think, by the way, is irrelevant. We go by what the authoritative published sources say. It's probably true that most people in the world think that homosexuality is a sin, but we don't add that to Gay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

SV, just because I disagree with you does not mean I am "thwarting your every move". I often feel you are doing the same to all my edits. If it was not for the animal rights movement there would be very little in the way of animal welfare, and you very well know this. You really leave no room for gray areas in the way you view the issue, and I feel like you see editors in this issue either for or against you. I have been dealing with animal rights and animal welfarfe issues for a long time and for you to blatantly attack me for not knowing anything about the topic is extremely pedantic and annoying. Nrets 18:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then I think we need to find some new way to accommodate one another. It's true that I do find editing the animal rights pages frustrating, because everyone thinks they can have a view without doing any research. I honestly don't get the impression from your editing that you have dealt with animal rights issues and so I wonder whether we're using the term differently. For example, you say "If it was not for the animal rights movement there would be very little in the way of animal welfare ..." But that isn't true, to the best of my knowledge, unless you have some specific campaigners in mind. Perhaps you could say what you mean, and then I'll be able to see where you're coming from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there are no incompatibilities between AR and AW positions, but to give an example that you will be familiar with. The case of the Silver Spring monkeys is an example where an incident both led to the creation of PETA and to the Animal Welfare Act of 1985. PETA, which is one of the best known advocates for animal rights, is also an advocate for animal welfare. Whether there are philosophical differences between the 2 positions is irrelevant to the fact that Animal Rights and Welfare are closely related issues. By your logic, Animal testing should also be removed from the template, since it is directly incompatible with animal rights. Finally, to add animal testing but omit animal welfare is a subtle way to introduce POV to the template, which is merely a navigational aid and NOT a place to espouse your POV, a point echoed by Bhouston above. Nrets 00:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the POV that is being introduced to the template? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, PETA is not an advocate of the animal welfare position. PETA is an animal rights group. I think you may have misunderstood what the animal welfare position is. Animal welfare groups believe it is all right to eat animals and to use them in experiments. Their focus is purely on the reduction of cruelty. Animal rights groups believe animals should not be used by human beings. If they work toward reducing cruelty, it is only as a side issue, or stop gap. The animal welfare ideology is directly opposed to the animal rights one. It is true that animal rights campaigns can lead to improvements in animal welfare, because for example in the Silver Spring monkeys case, the public was shocked by the evidence animal rights activists found when they took photographs of the lab. But that is very much a byproduct. AR groups don't want animals simply to be treated better in labs. They want the experimentation to stop. Read the introduction to Animal rights, which explains the difference. Describing the difference between them is not introducing a POV; it is a simple statement of fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize there is a difference between the two philosophies, but as you state in many of your comments, there is often substantial overlap, where the two intersect. Thus I see no harm in including articles relating to animal welfare in the Animal Rights project and I see no harm in highlighting these in the AR template. Does anybody else have an opinon about this? Nrets 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would you regard animal welfare as so central to animal rights that it needs to be referenced on the template? The lead of the article you want to link to makes clear it is inimical to animal rights: "Animal welfare is the viewpoint that animals, especially those under human care, should not suffer unnecessarily, including where the animals are used for food, work, companionship, or research. This position usually focuses on the morality of human action (or inaction), as opposed to making deeper political or philosophical claims about the status of animals, as is the case for an animal rights viewpoint" (my emphasis). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I see it the other way around, that animal rights is central to animal welfare. As I said before, you leave no room for any gray areas and portray the AR movement as a coherent whole where you either grant all the same rights to animals as you do to humans, or none at all. But there are middle ground positions that would argue that animals have some rights, such as the right not to suffer, be treated humanely, etc. Such a position, for example is consistent with the quote from Alan Dershowitz I added below. In this middle ground, Animal Welfare does become a central issue. Nrets 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As for why animal testing is there, it's because it's one of the two major concerns of the animal rights movement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If i may offer a comment. I would propose that at some level Nrets is talking about animal welfare while SV is talking about Animal Welfare. Clearly the welfare ("quality of life") of all animals is an important issue in both movements. However the movement that has adopted the moniker Animal Welfare has important philosophical differences from that which is labelled Animal Rights. In terms of animal welfare (no caps) - somewhat ironically, it appears to me - the Welfarists accept a less stringent position on overall welfare than the Rightsists. Thus welfare (again, no caps) could be said to me more relevent to the Rights movement than the Welfare movement.

So, (if you are still with me after this linguistic dance) you might think i'm being facetious her, but i'm trying to make a genuine point. As i think Bhuston was hinting at, giving complex movements simple labels can lead to differences in implication/inference depending on the reader. With this in mind, maintaining strict navbox boundaries, on a philosophical basis, should not be required when the articles themselves make the complexities clear. Thats my tuppence anyway. Rockpocket 06:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Animal testing is clearly a strong motivation for much of animal rights. It definitely should be included. Animal welfare encompasses the entire current moral and ethical framework under which animal testing occurs. In as much as animal rights are proposed as a substitution for animal welfare, it is also enormously relevant. But I would only recommend including it as part of the ethical and moral framework currently instantiated into law - the framework that animal rights feels should be changed. --Animalresearcher 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz

I tried to verify the claim thatg Alan Dershowitz supports the notion of animal rights. The source provided simply linked to an article stating that someone said that he did, but quoted no actual source. I found this source from the Harvard Magazine, where Dershowitz is mentioned in the following quote: Dershowitz argued that animals do not have inherent rights, but rather rights vis-à-vis people. In other words, because great apes can show that they suffer, and because people can see that they suffer, it would be humane to make laws to prevent that suffering. "You can't really make the argument that animals have the right to live," he said. "If we did, humans would have to protect the smaller animals in the jungle from the larger animals."

This reads to me as Dershowitz not supporting the idea of extending rights to animals, certainly not to most animals. I suggest we remove the ref to Dershowitz from the AR page and this Project Page until we can get a more authoritative source. I'll see if I can check out from the library Dershowitz's 2004 book "RIGHTS FROM WRONGS: A SECULAR THEORY OF THE ORIGINS OF RIGHTS", which seems to be the source for his view on AR, and see if it really is accurate to leave the WP statemnt as is. Any objections to me removing this? Nrets 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object to it being removed because it's sourced. If you find a better source, we can by all means revisit the issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, do you intend to spend your time at this WikiProject raising invalid objections and generally being obstructive? Because if so, let me know so that I don't waste any more time here. The source you quoted makes clear that Dershowitz supports animal rights:

It's still legal to buy our closest living relatives as pets," declared Jane Goodall, the renowned primatologist. "You can buy them on the Internet." She spoke at a symposium on "The Evolving Legal Status of Chimpanzees" cosponsored by Harvard Law School's Student Animal Legal Defense Fund and the nonprofit Chimpanzee Collaboratory; the September conference explored legal protections (and lack of same) for the great apes... Goodall's landmark study of chimpanzees in Tanzania helped redefine the boundaries between animals and humans, the very boundaries that were the symposium's focal point. The event attracted primatologists like Richard Wrangham, Moore professor of biological anthropology, who directs the Kibale Chimpanzee Project in Uganda, as well as legal figures such as Stephen Wise, who taught the first animal-rights law class at Harvard, in 2000, and Frankfurter professor of law Alan Dershowitz. Most speakers took as given that chimpanzees can communicate and emote, and that their rights should be expanded ... Several speakers, including Dershowitz and Goodall, compared the chimpanzees' situation with that of slaves in nineteenth-century America. Going even further, Fouts drew an analogy to Nazi Germany: "We abuse animals to make ourselves feel better, and we justify it," he said—just as Nazis justified their attacks on Jews and the mentally retarded. Dershowitz argued that animals do not have inherent rights, but rather rights vis-à-vis people. In other words, because great apes can show that they suffer, and because people can see that they suffer, it would be humane to make laws to prevent that suffering."

Yet you take the above to mean that he does NOT support animal rights, just because he argues that they are not inherent? Do you understand what he means by that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He is arguing they should be treated humanely, again let's quote Dershowitz in the same article:

Dershowitz argued that animals do not have inherent rights, but rather rights vis-à-vis people. In other words, because great apes can show that they suffer, and because people can see that they suffer, it would be humane to make laws to prevent that suffering. You can't really make the argument that animals have the right to live," he said. "If we did, humans would have to protect the smaller animals in the jungle from the larger animals. (my emphasis)

I really can't see how you interpret this any other way. And I do not appreciate your personal attacks and efforts to portray me as obstructive. Nrets 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen a WikiProject people by editors who oppose the topic. It's impossible to proceed at this level. Please tell me what it means to say "animals do not have inherent rights". What does the word "inherent" mean in that context? Are you aware that Peter Singer, possibly the best known of animal rights activists, who wrote what is widely regarded as the "bible" of the animal rights movement, does not believe that animals have inherent rights? Are you saying that means Singer doesn't really support the idea of animal rights/liberation? That all he really wants is for animals to be treated humanely? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing about Peter Singer. All I'm arguing is that the source initially mentioned above as well as my source do not fully reflect Dershowitz's views and we should remove his name until we can find a better source. And please stop trying to bully me out of disagreeing with you and adding personal little jabs at me to your every comment. Nrets 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You are still arguing that we should remove his name? You still haven't looked for a source yourself?

Nrets, even the briefest search of Google returns multiple documents showing Dershowitz supports animal rights, because he's extremely well known for it. For example, here, and in his book, Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights, 2004, pp. 198-99, chapter "Do Animals have Rights?", he argues: "[W]e have made the somewhat arbitrary decsion to single out our own species — every single member of it — for different and better treatment. Does this subject us to the charge of speciesism? Of course it does, and we cannot justify it except by the fact that in the world in which we live, humans make the rules. This imposes on us a special responsibility to be fair and compassionate to those on whom we impose our rules. Hence the argument for animal rights." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the same sources you did, and I haven't seen anywhere where it describes what he means by rights. Yes he argues great apes should be afforded rights (fully agree with that), but does he oppose medical research? Is he a vegan? A vegetarian? Does he wear leather shoes? Does he oppose all uses of animals as other activists do? The way he is featured in the WP article/project seems to imply he does, by taking one quote out of context. As I mentoned before, there are gray areas here, and differences. I'm not saying he does or doesn't, just that we need a more accurate source. Nrets 20:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And where does it say that, in order to support animal rights, people have to do any or all of those things???

This situation can't continue. You're not familiar with the subject matter, which is fair enough. But what's not fair enough is to join a WikiProject and continually lodge objections to other people's work on the basis of that lack of knowledge. It would be like me deciding to join WikiProject Nuclear Physics, and turning up with spurious objections based on issues not being sourced the way I would prefer, even though I wasn't familiar with any of the sources and couldn't understand what they were saying — and then being astonished when people objected to my presence there.

I asked you above, but you didn't answer: what does the word "inherent" mean in the context of arguing that animals do not have inherent rights? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that inherent rights are the same as fundamental rights. In the case of animals, their rights are not inherent to them but come from another source, such as humans. Am I mistaken? Nrets 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that's more or less it. People who argue that rights are inherent are saying the rights exist somehow in virtue of who or what that being is i.e. that they're God given or somehow come from nature. Very few theorists argue this. I doubt Dershowitz argues that human beings have inherent rights either.

That's why I prefer to use the expression animal liberation, because a large number of animal rights supporters aren't rights theorists (though they still argue that animals need to be given legal rights or personhood in order to protect them). But on Wikipedia the term "animal rights" seems to have stuck to describe both camps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"...as the only possessors of souls"? Is this a pretty narrow POV, i would have thought, even in the movement. Rockpocket 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "those rights are not ours to give or take" is often used by animal rights activists. Although I agree Dershowitz aligns pretty far on the animal rights side of the fence, he CLEARLY believes those rights to give/take belong to humans. They get rights when we decide they get rights, and not because they are intrinsic or fundamental. But also clearly, Dershowitz believes we SHOULD give those rights to animals. At the end of the day, I think the distinction between his position and that of PETA is not really that great (at least as applied to apes). In my book he still lobbies that animals should have rights under law that they do not have today, and that pretty much makes him an animal rights proponent. --Animalresearcher 00:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't rights a two-way street? Would animals, if given "personhood", be expected to respect the property and safety of humans, as humans would be expected to respect the property and safety of animals? How would a situation like that happening recently in Olympia, Washington (attacks by wild raccoons) be handled, were the raccoons to have "personhood"? Would the raccoons be arrested, charged with murder (they have killed several cats, who I assume, would also have "personhood"), put on trial, and (if found guilty) imprisoned? I'm very curious to see how that sort of situation, and other situations where animals run amok would be handled; and if the same standards of behavior that the law sets for humans would be applied. If a wolf eats a rabbit, is it murder, or dinner? --Weirdoactor 09:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think an animal personhood proponent would argue that humans value pain and suffering of animals to some degree. And to some, the degree to which animal pain and suffering is valued depends on the sentience of the animal. If an animal has a sense of self, can project and anticipate the future, and feels happy and sad, how should we let humans interact with that animal? Is it OK to put the animal in a cage and feed it Harlan monkey biscuits for years on end? Is it OK if the animal receives enrichment, co-habitation, and social contact with other members of its species? Are there animals that humans should simply not use in animal testing? Hunting? As pets? For food? The animal personhood movement is not about giving animals the same rights as people. It is about giving them certain rights, and among members of the movement there is still a wide variety of ethical and moral arguments, and lists of rights animals should have, and which animals should have them. This project is about clarifying those arguments and issues, and how they relate to animal use and laws today.--Animalresearcher 16:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

An excellent summary, AR, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; but I am still left wondering how animal personhood rights affect animal relationships, outside of human interaction (although humans *are* animals, being great apes). Will some sort of enforcement of human standards on animal behavior need to be implemented? If we are to believe that sentience plays a part; who determines that? Humans? Or animals? Can an animal determine its own sentitnce, or that of another animal? I love my feline owners (you know that humans don't own cats, right?); but I recognize their limits insofar as what they understand about the world around them. Even some humans have animal limits to their sentience. Do we judge an animal to be roughly as sentient as a mentally disabled human? Moreso, perhaps? That's a slippery slope, but an interesting discussion, I'll bet. --Weirdoactor 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"I love my feline owners ... but I recognize their limits insofar as what they understand about the world around them." That's your first mistake right there, innit. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they recognise, with a level of distain, your limits in attempting to understand theirs ;) Rockpocket 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I get it. I should tell them to get jobs, pay rent, and change their own damn litter boxes. I'm such a silly human! Enjoy your fantasy world, guys. --Weirdoactor 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think of it as a fantasy world. First of all, you must understand, the animal personhood movement is quite varied. At one extreme, you may have "a human is a dog is a rat is a jellyfish". At the other end, you may have people who simply think that Chimps are intelligent and self-aware enough that a Chimp that poses no threat to humans should not be enslaved to human interests. There is no need to jump from animal rights to thinking that your cat is going to be serving jury duty, and it doesn't serve the debate any useful goal, either. Perhaps the Chimp should not be caged and used as a subject in awake in-vivo physiology experiments. Because it would be considered truly barbaric to impose that on another human (not to mention against the law and even the Geneva Convention). This is a rather interesting set of ethics, morals, and law that is unfolding. You do bring up a good point though - it is entirely probable that animals will also bear some responsibility in order to attain those rights. For example, should a chimp who threatens the lives of humans (like the birthday cake story - google "chimp birthday cake") receive the same rights as a chimp that poses no threat to humans? And if we extend this basic right to chimps, does it morally follow that we would need to protect the lesser animals from the greater animals as we are protecting the chimps from us? Or do we only need to protect animals with some threshold level of self-awareness and/or sentience? --Animalresearcher 16:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Animalresearcher. In terms of animal testing, I am of the belief that if human volunteers are available, there is no need for animal testing; but animals are cheaper and easier, so that's what most researchers use. Like so many things that human beings do because they are easier and cheaper; this is one of those "buy now, pay later" deals…see: the environment, the failure of the education system, chemically corrupted food, etc. Just out of curiosity; how do those in the animal personhood movement feel about animals cloned with no brains being used for research? Does that eliminate the problem of sentience, or does it open up a whole new can of worms? I think (hope) someday we'll have humans cloned with no brains for organs and testing. But maybe I've been reading too much sci-fi. --Weirdoactor 20:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Animals cloned with no brains? Nrets 21:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically worms? Then forced into cans, to be opened at a later date? Someone, please, think of the children!! Rockpocket 21:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A counter argument comes in the form of "law of the jungle". I have a good reference in mind, but will need to wait until tomorrow to grab quotes from it. Basically, there are many new viruses/bacteria that could threaten humans. Suppose one came along that was devastating, that chimps provided a good animal model, and that devastation to the human race could be avoided by animal testing in a few thousand chimps. Would that be OK? The philosophical argument is that species are inherently in competition, and that IF competition clearly raises its head again, animal rights goes out the window. Or does it? Part of the debate. A similar philosophical argument can be made about the birthday cake chimps. They were terrorizing humans. No one thought twice about killing them. Were those actions just? --Animalresearcher 22:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Joking aside, "rights" as a concept does not exist in nature at the level of the individual. They are not, as mentioned by SV above, inherent. For one to have a "right" to anything, there must be others who accept that right, thus the concept is borne of society.

I would say they are uniquely human, though I guess one could argue there are established "rights" in animal communities also (for example, in meerkat communities everyone understands that the dominant pair are the only ones with the "right" to reproduce). However, the concept of "interspecific" rights is clearly uniquely human.

If we accept that then its not difficult to resolve the moral caveats pointed out above: we simply make an value-judgment based on our own POV. Afterall, thats what the rights movement appears to be. The concept is not one based in strict logic, infact there are huge holes in the logic of some in the rights movement. For example, a general principle invoked is to include species other than human beings within the moral community, but then many of the same activists support the Declaration on Great Apes. If this was accepted, then it would serve to give non-human apes superior rights to other animals, a form of speciesism. In supporting such a movement, one is implicitly accepting that "all animals are not morally equal", and thus some (apes) have more "moral value" than others (fleas). I fail to see how these two moral stances intergrate in a logical manner.

On the other hand, the situation as it stands is, in theory at least, is highly logic based. Its easy to draw a moral line between human rights/benefit and other animals. You hold that line and the moral decisions make themselves. You cross it and, to paraphrase, you find yourself in a seriously big nest of gay vipers. Rockpocket 23:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference Nature 437, 30-32 (1 September 2005). (Subscription required) The authors justify the use of chimps by noting the unique research capabilities of the chimp. For example, similarities in immune system allow monoclonal antibodies to be tested in chimps, because the clearance of the monoclonal antibodies is similar in chimps and humans, whereas in monkeys and non-primate mammals the clearance is much faster because their immune systems recognize the monoclonal antibodies as foreign. Hepatitis B and C only cross-infect chimps and humans, and not any other animals to our scientific knowledge. Therefore they provide scientific power in such studies that cannot be replicated elsewhere. Chimps have a malarial parasite similar to the one that infects humans, but not cross-infecting (ie: humans can't get chimp malaria, but its malaria is closely related to human malaria). Malaria is an enormous world health issue. The authors point out these unique capabilities not to suggest that cures will definitely follow, but to suggest that scientifically these are the best bets. We can look backwards in time and know how chimps contributed to our current health treatments, looking forward is far more difficult, but there is good reason to believe human health care will be impacted by research in chimps in the upcoming decades. And currently the USA doesn't import or breed any chimps for its primate facilities. This article of course presents the scientific issues related to projected health care benefits from chimp research - the issue of their pain and suffering is not addressed, nor is the ethical issue of whether their potential pain and suffering from the primate facility testing justifies the potential benefits. If chimps are specifically exempted from animal testing, how does the reduction in their short-term pain and suffering compensate for the lack of reduction in long-term future human pain and suffering. Or is that trade-off immoral just as it would be immoral to experiment on non-consenting humans? Can chimps understand enough to consent? The majority of doomed late cancer patients consent to experimental low-probability therapies that at best may help future patients. Is it immoral to test on a non-consenting chimp but moral to experiment on a late-term human cancer patient? --Animalresearcher 15:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sort of on subject, but kinda not: I seem to recall reading that for some research, pigs are more like humans (in terms of the needs of the research) than chimps. I can't find the article where I read that. Thoughts? --Weirdoactor 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you are studying. If, for example, you wanted to study sunburn, then pigs are great and chimps are pretty useless. If you wanted to study leprosy (or quadruplets), then you should get hold of some armadillos. See Model organism for more info. Rockpocket 18:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

As per the original proposal, we need to create a guideline for the use of external links on Animal Rights articles. We need to create criteria that links must comply with before being included in articles. Any suggestions?

How about some of these?

• Is/are the official website(s) of the subject matter discussed in the article.
• It must add something to the article - so if it is a site critical of the subject matter, it must add more than just a 'rant' to the article. It should also not have 2 sites critical of the subject matter unless they specifically complement the article. This goes for pro sites also.
• We shouldn't provide lists of different sites ran by a single organisation - for example PETA and their many sites or the CCF and their many sites.
• There should never be a 'pro' and 'anti' subsection of links.
• The external links section should be kept short, preferably to a list of less than 10 links.
• Sites should have a detailed description of their purpose.

Any others/less than these? -Localzuk ^(talk) 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd want to see hard-and-fast rules. I don't agree with having fewer than 10 links; more links are good so long as they're useful or informative, in my view. I agree we shouldn't include sites that only rant, or blogs/personal websites., unless the blog is a notable one, or belongs to the person the article is about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should there never be a pro and anti subsection? I think it is simply a useful organizational scheme. Nrets 00:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Because people see that as a way of adding their own personal pet project to. We end up having battles of links which obviously are bad. Also, sometimes things are not clear cut pro or anti - some organisations may not support part of something but support other areas. -Localzuk ^(talk) 10:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)