ZOOPOLIS: A POLITICAL THEORY OF ANIMAL RIGHTS

1. ZOOPOLIS: A POLITICAL THEORY OF ANIMAL RIGHTS by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka

2. Chapter 1 - Introduction This chapter is about the authors’ motivation for writing the book

3. “The animal advocacy movement is at an impasse.” (p. 1) PROGRESS NO PROGRESS 56 billion animals killed for food per year, worldwide more people, more livestock, more factory farming • animal welfare measures passed • e.g. California prop 2 • [and many others they don’t mention]

4. Why? • Why so little progress? • D&K: we need to look at 3 dominant animal ethics frameworks

5. 3 frameworks • WELFARISM – “human beings stand above animals in a clear moral hierarchy” (p. 3) – but we should use animals humanely • ECOLOGICAL HOLISM – ecosystems matter, we should treat individual animals as benefits whole ecosystems • ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY (ART) – animals have basic rights to life and liberty

6. Why is ART so unpopular? • Public has warmed up to welfarism and ecological holism • Very few people embrace ART

7. Some reasons… • “depth of cultural inheritance” (p. 5) • self-interest • “powerful vested interests”

8. D&K: problem is partly with ART as usually formulated Main theorists—Tom Regan, Gary Francione, Joan Dunayer • They proclaim that animals have negative rights only

9. Standard ART (cont.) • They see human relationship with domesticated animals as exploitative – goal is extinction of pets and livestock • They envision a world with us here and wild animals “out there” being left alone

10. D&K say standard ART … • ignores our relationships to animals and duties of care • ignores realities of human-animal coexistence • ignores possibility of positive duties to animals

11. Standard ART is unattractive to the public because … • “no positive conception of human-animal interaction” (p. 9) • ignores “human impulse for contact with the animal world” • this impulse for contact is the main motivation of most animal advocates • standard ART is alienating to public

12. 3 FRAMEWORKS • WELFARISM – “human beings stand above animals in a clear moral hierarchy” (p. 3) – but we should use animals humanely • ECOLOGICAL HOLISM – ecosystems matter, we should treat individual animals as benefits whole ecosystems • ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY (ART) – animals have basic rights to life and liberty • STANDARD – Regan, Francione, etc. • NEW – Zoopolis theory

13. New ART (Zoopolis) • Universal negative rights (all sentient animals) —right to life and liberty • Political categories—citizen, foreigner, refugee, resident alien, etc. • Positive rights depending on category

14. Questions/Objections • Do the three frameworks exhaust the possibilities? Where does Peter Singer fit in? What about DeGrazia and Rachels? • Is the resistance to ART really because of the way it’s been formulated so far? • Will positive rights make more people embrace ART?

15. Chapter 2 – Universal Basic Rights for Animals This chapter is about negative basic rights. D&K defend the claim that all sentient animals have them.

16. Sections Intro, 1 & 4: Why animals have rights 2-3: Debates with environmentalists 5: Implications of animals having negative rights

17. Two meanings of “rights” • Rights in weak sense -- there are limits to the way we should treat animals • Rights in robust sense – inviolability – right to life, right to liberty

18. Why all animals have basic negative rights • “conscious/sentient beings are selves…” (read passages on p. 24 and 25) • the “argument from marginal cases”—how can we assert rights for mentally impaired humans and deny them to comparable animals? • if high intellectual ability were necessary for rights, our rights would be insecure (p. 27) – consider the Telepaths (compare Under the Skin) • “intersubjective recognition (p. 30)

19. Sections Intro, 1 & 4: Why animals have rights 2-3: Debates with environmentalists [interesting] 5: Implications of animals having negative rights

20. Inviolable, universal rights • inviolable – “they are not means to our ends…” (p. 40) • inviolable does not mean absolute and exceptionless • exceptions for “self-defense or necessity” • Stage of history, context matter. Rights apply only if we are in the “circumstances of justice.” “Humans owe justice to each other [and to animals] when they are in fact able to respect each other’s rights without jeopardizing their own existence.” (p. 41)

21. Exceptions (rights don’t apply) • Mr. Caveman and the aurochs • I’m starving in the Arctic, could eat hare • Eskimos without access to plant foods • lifeboat cases • I’m being attacked by a bear

22. Rights do apply • Deciding what to eat today • Using animals in medical research (= using humans) • Using animals for leather and fur

23. New ART not extreme! • “The idea of inviolable rights for animals, therefore, is more complex than it initially appears, and not as absolute or unconditional as it may sound.” (p. 42) • “We have a duty progressively to extend the circumstances of justice so that, wherever possible, we can respect these inviolable rights.” (p. 42)

24. Inviolable universal rights • bullfighting • religious animal sacrifices

25. Questions/Objections • What would it be like to have a universal declaration of animal rights? What would we have to do for wild animals to enforce it? • Is killing out of “necessity” just as permissible whether I’m killing humans or animals? • Why no exception for medical experimentation? Why isn’t that a case of “necessity”?

26. Chapter 3 – Extending Animal Rights via Citizenship Theory This chapter explains a set of political categories (citizen, alien, foreigner, etc.), defends their importance for human life, and defends extending them to animals

27. NEGATIVE RIGHTS right to life right to liberty SAME

28. POLITICAL STATUS US citizen Tourist (from Italy) Temporary worker (from Germany, has work visa) Foreign student Business visitor NEGATIVE RIGHTS SAME POSITIVE RIGHTS VARY

29. DEBATE Cosmopolitanism Citizenship Theory (D&K) We should retain these political categories Life is better if each person is a citizen of some nation • We should get rid of these political categories • Everyone’s a “citizen of the world” • Borders don’t matter

30. D&K: We should extend political categories to animals. But first we need to define citizenship.

31. FUNCTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP Nationality—citizens have secure right of residence Popular sovereignty—citizens are those for whose sake the state governs Democratic political agency—citizens are entitled to be active participants in the political process (via speech, voting, etc.) US citizen

32. FUNCTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP Nationality—citizens have secure right of residence Popular sovereignty—citizens are those for whose sake the state governs Democratic political agency—citizens are entitled to be active participants in the political process (via speech, voting, etc.) Citizens in sense 1 only— people living under tyranny Citizens in sense 1 & 2 only – babies in US Citizens in sense 1 & 2 and SOME of 3 – severely mentally disabled in US teenagers in US DEPENDENT AGENCY – see p. 60 Citizens in sense 1 & 2 and ALL of 3 – most adults in a democracy

33. THE BIG PICTURE Political Categories Functions of citizenship: 1) nationality, 2) those for whose sake state governs, 3) democratic participation

34. Chapter 4 – Domesticated Animals within Animal Rights Theory This chapter looks at the nature of domestication and the moral status of domesticated animals

35. Questions about Domesticated Animals • Purpose of domestication • Process of domestication • Treatment of domesticated animals • Dependency of domesticated animals

36. Abolitionism/Extinctionism Gary Francione • Interview • Blog • pet dependency – they can’t live good lives • domestication was forced on animals • Proper goal of animal movement: extinction of pets and farm animals • See also Callicott and Shephard

37. Objections to Extinctionism (Donaldson & Kymlicka) • Strategically misguided • past injustices not remedied by extinction (think about slavery) • coercive to sterilize all domesticated animals

38. The life of pets Francione D&K dependence compatible with dignity (e.g. disabilities) first pets drawn to human settlements – video neoteny naturally occurs when tamer animals mate video • dependence is demeaning • first pets forced into subservience • neoteny (retention of juvenile traits in adults) is unnatural and forced

39. The future of domesticated animals – 3 possibilities • Status quo, modified (more animal cruelty laws, better enforcement, animal standing in courts, no-kill shelters, avoid pure-breds, etc.) • Extinction (Francione) • Citizenship (D&K)

40. Citizenship for domesticated animals(preview of chapter 5) • How should we train them? • How will they share public space? • What duties do we have to protect them? • Should we ever use animal products (e.g. eggs, wool)? • Should we ever use animals for labor? • Must we give them medical care? • Is it OK to sterilize dogs and cats? • What about letting obligate carnivores (cats) eat other animals? • What sort of political participation is possible for animals?