Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Animal rights not human rights, and the importance of emotion

By Ruth Hatten - posted Monday, 16 May 2016

Recently I had the privilege of speaking at an IQ2 Debate in Sydney, hosted by The Ethics Centre, on the proposition that animal rights should trump human interests.

As a staunch believer in animal rights, I spoke for the motion. With pre-debate votes showing support for the motion, I was disturbed when the post-debate votes showed a substantial swing against the motion. (Interestingly the online vote at the time of writing is 90% for the motion and 10% against).

Perhaps one of the reasons for the swing was confusion about the rights model animal rights advocates are seeking for animals.


Let me be clear here, we are not seeking human rights for animals. We are seeking rights appropriate to the relevant species. Rights akin to those that have been legally recognised for the environment such as the right of nature recognised in Ecuador to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.

For example, a pig would likely have no interest in a right to vote or to own property. Rather, she would likely have interest in a right to life, a right to shelter, a right to good health, a right to bond with and nurture offspring, a right to enrichment, a right to freedom, a right to safety (which would include a right not to suffer).

We are not talking about enshrining in law rights that would seek to protect an antelope being killed by a lion. I agree with the opposition here - that would be nonsensical. Animals need and deserve recognition of rights that provide protection from harm inflicted by humans.

They need these rights recognised because Australian law does not adequately protect animals from harm inflicted by humans. It does not recognise the inherent value of animals.

Instead, animals are regarded as property, much like chairs, cars, books, houses and computers; inanimate objects, with no sense of feeling. They are not recognised as sentient beings – that they feel pain, joy, hunger, loneliness, cold, heat, fear, stress; that they form social bonds, claim ownership, fight for their lives; that they are aware.

Instead the law sanctions animal suffering.


For example, people who engage in the farming of animals, are permitted to inflict cruel practices on farm animals for the sake of human interest. "Normal" animal husbandry practices are allowed. If you're a farmer, you have a defence to a charge of animal cruelty because the law allows you to cut off the beaks, teeth, tails and genitalia of chickens, cows, pigs and sheep without pain relief. You are allowed to confine animals in a way that prohibits any significant movement for extended periods of time; you can transport animals for long periods of time without adequate space, water, feed and attention; you can prevent natural behaviours such as chickens dust bathing; and of course, you can kill.

The sentience of animals and the inadequacies of our laws are just two reasons why animal rights should trump human interests. This is exemplified by the manner in which humans think of animals – that animals are lesser beings, that as a superior species, we can use and abuse animals as we see fit for our own benefit without recognising the inherent value and moral rights of animals.

More than ever, animals are at our mercy. More than ever, animals need their rights recognised. More than ever, humans need to appreciate the inherent value of animals and learn to coexist rather than to discriminate and destroy.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ruth Hatten is a member of the Voiceless Legal Advisory Council; a senior policy officer for the Animal Law Institute; an associate academic at the Centre for Compassionate Conservation, UTS; a board member of Minding Animals International; and a member of the Australian Animal Protection Law Journal Editorial Advisory Panel.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Ruth Hatten
Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy