Criticism Of Animal Rights Theory

In recent years our environment is deteriorating and the ecological system is onthe verge of collapse. Human beings thus face unprecedentedly great challenges inenvironmental protection. Animals, which play an important role both in nature andthe ecological system, are severely endangered. Species diversity is being destroyed,with many species dying out. As a result, numerous individuals, organizations andgovernments are making great efforts, campaigns to protect environment and animalsconstantly being launched, more and more people beginning to care about the issue ofanimal protection. Scholars of jurisprudence, especially scholars of environmentallaws, hope to solve the severe environmental problem through endowing animals withrights, thus actually elevating animals’ positions to let them become subjects of ourlaws instead of objects and enjoy legal rights as human beings do. This paper, havingfour parts, calls this idea in question through analyzing the philosophical foundationof animal rights theory and different scholars’ theoretical ideas. Then it gives ananalysis of different countries’ legal practice for animal protection, in order to providecases that China may learn for its own legal practice concerning animal protection.The proposal of a theoretical view point, especially a legal theory, must have itsphilosophical foundation. Therefore, the first part of this paper begins with a study ofthe philosophical foundation of animal rights theory, and analyzes different versionsof "animal rights theories". The traditional moral principles centering on humanbeings have always been the guiding power for human behaviors, though the mindsetthat human beings are the center of our concern does have disadvantages and isresponsible for bad results such as the extinction of species. In order to correct this,people propose moral principles not centering on human beings, which is thephilosophical basis of animal rights theory. Scholars such as Peter Singer, Tom Regan,Gary L. Francione and Mary Warren all propose that we should endow legal rights onanimals in order to protect them.Through analyzing the philosophical foundation of animal rights theory and different scholars’ ideas, the second part of this paper systematically questions theanimal rights theory. First, the idea that animals can be the subjects of rights does notconform to the formation of moral principles-in order to become the subjects ofmoral principles, animals must participate in the construction of these principles.However, in fact moral principles are all constructed by human beings. Second, thenature of animals determines that they cannot become subjects of legal rights, simplybecause they do not have self-consciousness. Then, the idea of animals becomingsubjects of rights is not only wrong in terms of legal principle, but is detrimental tothe internal harmony of our legal system. Also, the inclusion of animals into our moralconcerns does not mean that animals should become subjects of moral principles. Inour era, rights are actually being abused. Giving animals legal rights will not serve ourpurpose of animal protection at all.No matter whether approbate the animal rights theory，the protection of animalsshould be spare no effort. The third part of this paper discusses the animal protectionlaws around the world. Animal protection legislation started early in the Westernsociety, which has experienced a enlarged scope of right subject, gradual completionof content and ultimately the formation of animal welfare law system. Among which,United Kingdom first began to oppose cruelty to animals in its legislation of legalpractices. Other European countries such as Germany, and Austria, and Belgium andthe Netherlands have also enacted laws against cruelty to animals in the middle of19th century. In recent years, the EU system has been continually enhanced andimproved in its animal welfare law, especially those related to the international tradeof farm animals. International organizations and international convention have playedan important role in monitoring the implementation process and improvement ofanimal welfare law. In addition, in Asia, Singapore, Philippines, Japan, South Korea,Thailand, and India as well as Hong Kong and Taiwan have modeled on the Westerncountries and developed their own animal welfare legislation in the20th century, andthey have unique characteristics in terms of the scope of definition, objectives and thelegal system of animals.Part four of this article is about the shortage and possible solutions for animal legislation in China. Compared with the Western countries, there are still big gaps inanimal legislation. China has no animal welfare laws, the only exception islegislations concerned with animal welfare, and animal protection related legislationin China is still in the stage of natural resources protection law. Therefore, animalprotection legislation in China still needs to be strengthened in some way. First of all,we should straighten out the ideological understanding to recognize the importance ofanimal protection. Second, we should develop special animal laws to cater fordifferent areas. But definitely, we adhere to the basic principle about animal as theobject of legalization and should not over claim the rights of animals.