Libertarianism and Animal Rights

by Gerard Emershaw

In the libertarian worldview, do animals possess rights? Human beings possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property. In addition, they possess the responsibility to respect the natural rights of their fellow human beings. Human beings possess these natural rights simply in virtue of their humanity. The crucial component of humanity which gives rise to these rights is the autonomous nature of human beings. They are rational creatures possessing the capacity to make moral decisions. Because a human being would no longer exist if deprived of life, he or she has a right to life. Because only an individual human being can decide his or her actions, he or she has a right to liberty. Because a human beings is capable of possessing property and because the rights to life and liberty can only be exercised through the use of tangible property, he or she has a right to property.

Animals are not autonomous creatures. Even the most intelligent non-human creatures on the planet—chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins, etc.—are not capable of rational deliberation. They are not capable of morality. They act merely based upon instinct and conditioning. This means that the notion of animal rights is incoherent. Animals cannot possess rights because they cannot be subject to responsibility. A lion cannot have the right to life, liberty, or property because it cannot be expected to respect the life, liberty, or property of other creatures. A lion will kill and consume a gazelle without regard to morality.

If animals do not possess rights, what does this mean? For one thing, it justifies the common human practice of owning animals as livestock, pets, helper animals, etc. If animals possessed rights, then animal ownership would amount to slavery. Even in the case of the beloved and pampered pet. A well treated slave is nonetheless still a slave. However, since animals do not possess rights, they may be held as chattel. In the case of pets, this is good for the animals. Most pets are well treated. In the case of species as a whole, this is good. When humans own animals of a certain type, that species is unlikely to become instinct. There is certainly no shortage of domestic dogs, cats, birds, etc. If exotic animals on the verge of extinction were subject to ownership by private individuals, one expects that their numbers would gradually rise to the point where they would no longer be endangered.

Given that animals do not possess rights, this makes it unjustifiable to prosecute and punish individuals for animal cruelty or the like. Since animals do not possess rights, they cannot truly be considered victims. Victimless crimes should not be treated as crimes at all. Notice the inconsistency and hypocrisy involved with “animal cruelty” laws. Hunting is permitted. There is no legal requirement that an animal killed by a hunter be killed cleanly and quickly. Factory farming is permitted. Despite the fact that factory farms often resemble animal death camps, the corporations that engage in the practice are given wide latitude to essentially torture animals while individuals may be prosecuted for cruelty to animals that pales in comparison.

Perhaps one believes the for the sake of consistency, hunting and factory farming should be outlawed as well. But on what grounds? Many humans love and cherish animals. This is perhaps one of the human race’s most admirable qualities. However, merely because something is commonly adored, it does not give the majority who love that thing the right to punish those who do not love it. Even if that thing is harmed or destroyed. An animal owner has the right to have his or her livestock or pets protected. If one were to harm or kill that person’s animals, then a crime against property has been committed. But how is exploiting, killing, or even torturing your own property a crime? How is doing the same to wild animals a crime?

While far too many people tend to equate morality with law and scream: “There ought to be a law!” for each and every moral problem, libertarians do not foolishly collapse morality into legality. Perhaps it is morally wrong to never call your lonely and widowed granny, but no libertarian would suggest that someone should be arrested for not phoning his or her granny. Therefore, even if cruelty to animals is morally wrong, libertarians should not be willing to claim that it should be illegal.

The question then arises as to whether or not cruelty to animals is morally wrong. Intuitively, it seems that is should be. But on what grounds? From a Kantian perspective, it seems that human beings do not owe animals moral consideration because animals lack moral autonomy. A human being must only refrain from treating other rational creatures as means to an end rather than as ends in themselves. From a consequentialistic perspective, one may attempt to argue that cruelty to animals creates bad consequences. One might begin by claiming that many who mistreat animals eventually go on to mistreat human beings. For example, hurting animals is a common criterion for sociopathy and many sociopaths wind up committing serious crimes against their fellow human beings. But many who harm or kill animals—farmers, hunters, etc.—are no more likely than anyone else to commit crimes. There are many traits associated with a greater likelihood of harming others—being poor, being young, being male, being a member of certain ethnic groups, etc. Should these traits be considered morally bad simply because they are correlated with a greater likelihood of committing crime? Should the people who possess these traits be considered morally repugnant simply for possessing these traits?

Despite not possessing rights, animals are sentient creatures capable of experiencing pain and suffering. Is this not enough of a reason to consider needlessly harming animals at least morally indecent? Should not any rational human being acknowledge that pain and suffering in and of themselves are bad? Torturing animals is clearly morally indecent. So, too, is killing animals without good reason. But what other than self-defense, the defense of others, or basic survival can justify harming or killing animals? Can enjoying a lovely fur coat justify killing animals for pelts? Can enjoying a fine filet, pork chop, or chicken wing justify killing animals for food when human beings can get enough protein without resorting to eating animals? Can the high usage of land and water that is necessary to raise animals for food be justified when so many in the world are starving? Despite the fact that animals do not possess rights and that animal cruelty should not be prosecuted where the animals harmed are not the property of another, questions of the ethical treatment of animals by human beings are difficult to answer. However, unjustly turning potentially immoral behavior into crimes does nothing to address such important ethical concerns.