The Unnatural Nature of the Animal Rights/Liberation Philosophy

Abstract

The contemporary animal liberation or animal rights movement (ALARM; we have modified the acronym used by Vance [2]) is derived from antivivisectionist organizations that emerged in Europe and North America during the 1800s (3). The term animal rights is more commonly used in the United States, whereas the label animal liberation is preferred in Europe and elsewhere. In the United States, the ALARM has taken over many well-established animal welfare organizations and has diverted their functions and resources away from welfare and toward opposition to all animal use by humans. By this means, the ALARM is now masquerading behind a facade of animal “protectionism” and is making inroads into the environmental movement as well (4).

Members and supporters of animal “protection” organizations are not all of the same mold. They have been classified into three groups by Jasper and Nelkin (5): welfarists, pragmatists, and absolutists. The welfarists are concerned about animal well-being and are not keenly supportive of animal “rights.” The pragmatists believe that animals should have rights, but they recognize that some use of animals by humans will be necessary for the foreseeable future. The absolutists, who have also been called fundamentalists by Galvin and Herzog Jr. (6), are the extremists of the movement, who insist that all human use of animals must stop immediately.

Most of the pragmatists are probably omnivores but the absolutists are likely to be strict vegetarians or vegans. They consume no animal products whatsoever—no dairy products, eggs, or even honey—and they eschew all use of animals for clothing, even silk, since its production involves killing worms. These fundamentalists, and some of the pragmatists, believe that all animals have rights equal to those of humans (or that they deserve at least equal consideration) and should therefore not be exploited by humans.