Introduction
A legal person is defined as an individual, company, or other entity which has legal rights and is subject to obligations. The legal position on non-human animals varies between countries and jurisdictions. In many legal systems, non-human animals are considered property and lack legal rights. They are generally classified as chattel, like inanimate objects such as tables or chairs.
A legal object is something that lacks legal rights and duties and over which human beings can acquire rights. This raises the question of why animals are seen as legal objects and why they should not also be given dignity, personhood, and rights.
The law regarding animals
The main legislation protecting animals in South Africa is the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962. The purpose of this Act is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the prevention and cruelty of animals. This Act provides protection for all domestic animals and for any wild animals, but only for those held in captivity. The Act states which offences are prohibited and that they are punishable by a fine or imprisonment. This Act may seem, on the surface, to be aimed at protectinganimals, but the Act does not prevent a person from killing an animal. The prohibition is in the method of killing the animal; in other words, a person may not inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on an animal. The Act also makes no provision for experiments on animals or for hunting animals. The only way this is regulated is by appropriateness and necessity. Furthermore, zoos, circuses and battery chickens are all allowed, which makes one wonder what ‘unnecessary suffering’ really means. The Act is thus not considered about the health and welfare of the animal but rather on the intentions and needs of human beings.
Another statute that so-called animal protection groups claim protects animals is the Meat Safety Act 40 of 2000. The legislation primarily addresses the safety standards for animal products. The only section that protects the animals is the essential national standards. In this section, it is stated that an animal about to be slaughtered must be handled humanely and in accordance with the Animals Protection Act. Abattoirs cannot possibly comply with the requirements in the Animals Protection Act, seeing as the circumstances under which these animals are killed are precisely what would contribute to an offence under the Animals Protection Act. Moreso, this can’t comply with the requirement of being humane, and if abattoirs comply with this requirement, then the test for ‘human standards’ is not very high.
These are just a few of the statutes that are supposed to protect animals, but it is clear that the legal protection afforded to animals is mainly based on animals being the property of human beings. Our laws provide meagre protection for animals, both directly and indirectly. Directly, because animals are given interest that they must be fed and not unnecessarily beaten. Indirect because of the relationship animals have with humans. In other words, they may not be oppressed, as it is offensive to human sensibilities. Animals have no legal rights, and if humans can benefit from something, the interests of animals can be set aside.
Speciesism, the Principle of Equal Consideration and the Argument from Marginal Cases (AMC)
These concepts are the basis for most theories regarding the moral and legal status of animals. Speciesism is the practice of treating members of one species as more important than those of other species. Speciesism is much like racism and sexism in the sense that it prefers the interests of humans over those of animals on the basis of species. The belief is that just because you are a human, you have moral superiority over all other animals.
The Principle of Equal Consideration states that everyone must be given equal moral weight to comparable interests no matter who or what type of being has those interests. This principle balances interests regardless of species, thereby mitigating the bias that arises when humans balance their interests with those of animals.
AMC argues that the interests of human beings and other species are worthy of equal moral consideration. This theory attempts to demonstrate that if animals do not have direct moral status, then neither should infants, the senile or severely disabled people. Seeing that the marginal cases have abilities to the same extent asthose of animals, if not less, then any cases that deny moral status to animals should also deny moral status to the marginal cases. This theory is highly controversial, subject to much criticism, but remains a vital doctrine to consider when deciding whether animals should be granted personhood.
Peter Singer’s utilitarianism approach
One of the most well-known legal theorists for animal rights is Peter Singer. He critiques speciesism based on a utilitarianism approach to how people should treat animals. He further uses the principle of equal consideration to argue against those who wish to give animal interests less weight. He is of the view that we must extend the principle of equal consideration to animals.
Singer argues that humans and animals both experience pain and joy, and that this is why animals are entitled to equal moral consideration. Singer goes on to say that if we were to rely on these properties, namely, being rational, autonomous and being able to act morally, as the reason for determining moral status, then we would be discriminating against certain human beings.
This kind of discrimination would be analogous to racism and sexism. Racists give more consideration to the interests of their own race, and sexists give more consideration to the interests of those of a particular gender. In contrast, species show greater interest in members of their own species. He argues that there is no reason to treat people differently or to give less weight to their interests just because they have a difference in ability. Similarly, to avoid speciesism, we must treat all sentient beings equally.
He also states that if only humans deserve full and equal moral status, then there must be some property that only humans have. Therefore, this must be the reason that animals do not deserve full and equal moral status. When considering this, it is clear that only humans are autonomous, rational and able to act morally. He argues that if that is what gives humans full and equal moral status, then obviously not all human beings are equal, as not all human beings have these properties. He is thus of the view that either we must conclude that not all human beings are equal, or we must conclude that not only are human beings equal. The first optionis too counterintuitive, so the only option we are left with is to conclude that all animals are equal, human or not.
Regan and animal rights
Tom Regan argues that animals have rights just as humans do, but he disagrees with Singer’s approach to grounding equal moral status on utilitarian grounds. He argues that it is wrong that animals have only an indirect moral status and, as a result, cannot have rights. He believes that animals have the same moral status as humans do, but that this moral status is grounded in rights rather than utilitarian principles. Regan argues that animals have inherent value as subjects of a life and should not be treated as means to an end. Seeing as animals are inherent beings with rights, these rights exceed the promotion of the overall good.
Further, Regan distinguishes between moral agents and moral patients. Moral agents have sophisticated abilities, and moral patients are unable to control their actions in a moral sense; you cannot hold them accountable. To determine whether an individual is worthy of moral respect, the subject-life-criterion must be satisfied. To satisfy this criterion, an individual must have a range of abilities, and once this is satisfied, justice demands that they be treated with equal respect. The equality principle extends to both moral agents and moral patients. With this in mind and relying on the AMC, it is clear that animals and humans both have inherent value and should thus be treated equally.
Conclusion
Regan and Singer argue that animals do have direct moral status, but more than this, they also have the same moral status as humans. According to these theorists, there is no reason to place animals and humans in different moral categories. Taking all the points into account, the only solution and logical outcome would be to grant animals personhood and recognise their dignity.
Animals are typically protected through animal welfare laws rather than the recognition of legal rights. These laws aim to prevent unnecessary suffering and cruelty towards animals. They often focus on ensuring proper care and treatment, and preventing abuse.
However, some jurisdictions are beginning to recognise some legal protections for animals beyond mere property status. For example, certain countries have implemented laws granting animals the status of “sentient beings,” emphasising their ability to experience emotions and feelings. These laws may provide animals with certain inherent rights or increase penalties for animal cruelty.
It’s important to note that the legal position on non-human animals is continually evolving as societies, attitudes, and understanding of animal welfare progress. This is a complex and debated topic that involves ethical considerations, scientific knowledge, and the balancing of different interests.
For further assistance, consult an attorney at SchoemanLaw Inc.
Recent Comments