The issue of animal welfare has become increasingly prominent across Europe in recent decades, with several animal rights parties now competing in European elections – most notably in the Netherlands where the Party for the Animals (PvdD) is currently represented in the Dutch parliament. But how should animal rights be incorporated into political communities? Steve Cooke writes that adopting a ‘cosmopolitan mindset’, where human beings act with humanity toward other sentient beings, would offer the best principle for establishing animal rights in practice

Cooke, Steve

LSE Research Online

05/01/2015Europe should embrace a cosmopolitan approach to animalrightsblogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/01/05/europe-should-embrace-a-cosmopolitan-approach-to-animal-rights/The issue of animal welfare has become increasingly prominent across Europe in recent decades,with several animal rights parties now competing in European elections – most notably in theNetherlands where the Party for the Animals (PvdD) is currently represented in the Dutchparliament. But how should animal rights be incorporated into political communities? Steve Cookewrites that adopting a ‘cosmopolitan mindset’, where human beings act with humanity toward othersentient beings, would oﬀer the best principle for establishing animal rights in practice.Traditionally, animal rights theorists have argued that species membership, like skin colour, sex,height, or number of toes, is morally arbitrary. Simply being of the species homo sapiens does not count as a goodreason for granting rights. In response to those who claim that humans are special because they possess rationality,moral personhood, or language-use, animal rights theorists remind us that many humans do not possess thosecapabilities.There is in fact no non-arbitrary characteristic possessed by all humans and no non-humans. Therefore, we musteither deny rights to some humans, or grant them to some non-humans. Animal rights theorists think it preferable todo the latter. Even if humans are special in some way, being special may count as a reason to grant rights, but itdoesn’t follow that therefore others are denied them. As the ancient Greek philosopher Porphyry wrote:It does not follow, if we have more intelligence than other animals, that on this account they are to bedeprived of intelligence; as neither must it be said, that partridges do not ﬂy, because hawks ﬂyhigher.Animal rights theorists contend that so long as a creature can feel, and thus can experience pain and pleasure, thenthat creature matters morally for its own sake and has rights. Sentience, not rationality or genetic code, is thenecessary and suﬃcient condition for rights-ascription.If a being has rights, then those rights ought to protect it from harm and from being used as the mere means tobeneﬁt others. Rights mark out that area of morality that should be enforced by coercive means. If I have a right,then you would be wrong to violate it, and others would be right to prevent you from doing so. This means that rightsare very clearly a matter of political concern.Despite this, very few animal rights theorists have given thought to how political communities should relate toanimals. With few exceptions, they have argued that granting non-human animals rights requires that we leave themwell alone and lead separate lives, phasing out domestication and ceasing to interfere in the wild. Neither have theyconsidered what we should do when animal rights are violated. This ‘let be’ approach has quite rightly been criticisedfor being undesirable and unrealistic. Instead of looking for ways to merely avoid harming animals, animal rightstheorists need to develop principles of peaceful coexistence between political communities and other species. But,what would a political theory of animal rights look like?Cosmopolitanism and animal rightsOne way of thinking about animal rights is as an extension of cosmopolitan principles. Cosmopolitans hold that all1/3human beings, merely because they are human, are members of the same moral community and are thereforeowed the same basic rights regardless of their citizenship status or identity. Cosmopolitanism is not just a moralprinciple, it is also a way of thinking. The cosmopolitan mindset is open and accepting of diﬀerence.A key cosmopolitan principle is that respect for the fundamental rights of others does not depend upon whether wecan identify with them or whether we are enmeshed in a relationship with them. What marks us out in our humanityis not just what we will do for those we love, but how we respond to strangers. Cosmopolitanism is, above all, anethic aimed at bringing peace to the world.However, because animals have been largely absent from cosmopolitan discourse, the cosmopolitan peace hasbeen paradoxically tolerant of mind-boggling levels of industrialised violence against hundreds of billions of sentientbeings. By drawing the boundaries of the ethical community on ‘common humanity’, cosmopolitans have left themvulnerable to the charge of speciesism. We can thus regard animal rights as a way of widening the cosmopolitancircle of ethical concern to include non-human animals. What matters when thinking about fundamental rights is notwho we are, where we are from, or what nation or species we are born into, but that we can feel. If a being’sexistence matters to it, then it ought to matter to us.How do we build political communities that are accepting of the diﬀerences between humans and animals, whilstalso ensuring respect for their rights? One way to do this, drawing from themes found in Immanuel Kant’s PerpetualPeace, is to adopt a cosmopolitan ethic of hospitality towards strangers. Kant argues that as humans spread acrossthe globe, they will encounter strangers whom they struggle to understand and have little in common with.Nevertheless, Kant argues, we ought to approach one another peacefully, seeking fair terms of cooperation andcoexistence: “so long as he conducts himself peaceably, he must not be treated as an enemy.” Our limited ability tocommunicate with other animals, and the diﬀerences between us, mean that we can think of animals asparadigmatic strangers. A truly cosmopolitan mindset thus means extending this right of hospitality to strangersacross the species barrier.The right of hospitality applies ﬁrst, where animals enter into human political communities and second, wherehuman activities intrude on the activities of animals living in the wild. In the ﬁrst case, such as when animals enterour communities in search of food or whilst migrating, the duty requires us to treat them peacefully. This duty holdsso long as they pose no threat. Thus, we are not required to allow in the malarial mosquito or man-eating tiger anymore than we are required to oﬀer hospitality to the murderous gunman. Rather, where there is little threat, we mustavoid causing harm, and we must make limited accommodation. In other words, we must act in ways that aremindful of the interests of peaceful non-human animals.The principle of hospitality can also form the basis of a just domestication of non-human animals. Kant argues thatstrangers, having presented themselves peacefully, may enter into agreements and join the political community.Obviously, animals cannot literally enter into agreements, but they are capable of expressing preferences, and it ispossible for us to live mutually beneﬁcial and mutually enriching lives. Thus, we might make use of heuristics suchas Rawls’ hypothetical consent or an Impartial Observer Theory  to determine the parameters of a just relationship.The second case, where humans intrude on the lives of wild animals, can also be governed by Kantiancosmopolitan principles. As Kant writes:…we cannot be inﬁnitely scattered, and must in the end reconcile ourselves to existence side by side.Animals, because they lack rational agency, cannot be duty-bearers, and so they cannot strictly be hospitabletowards us. However, we can nevertheless approach them peacefully, using violence only in response to threat, andin ways that minimise harm to them. In other words, we should enter the territories of wild animals as if we weretheir guests, respecting their rights as we do so.2/3The existential gulf between humans and animals means that they will always be strangers to us. At the same time,they are clearly worthy of moral concern. Because of this, we should adopt a cosmopolitan mindset and let ourinteractions be governed by cosmopolitan principles. Animals who pose no threat have a right not to be treated asenemies. The animal liberation movement can be thought of as the natural endpoint of cosmopolitanism.Humanitarian principles do not just mean protecting the human, they also mean acting with humanity towards othersentient beings.Please read our comments policy before commenting .Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, norof the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Dirk-Jan Kraan (CC-BY-SA-3.0)Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1BywBOx _________________________________About the authorSteve Cooke – University of SheﬃeldSteve Cooke is a University Teacher in Theory and Animal Rights at the University of Sheﬃeld. Hisresearch interests lie in the intersection between animal ethics and political philosophy. He iscurrently researching a cosmopolitan theory of civil disobedience. For more of his work see hisrecent articles in Political Studies and the Journal of Terrorism Research .3/3

Europe should embrace a cosmopolitan approach to animal rights

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online