Longtime readers of this blog know that, while I am a conservative, I am not a typical conservative. For one thing, I’m an atheist. Most conservatives are theists. For another, I’m an ethical subjectivist. Most conservatives are objectivists. For yet another, I’m a proponent of animal rights. Most conservatives—indeed, most people—are speciesists. None of these is incompatible with being a conservative. As for why animal rights is thought to be a progressive cause, I don’t know. Most animals (e.g., cows, pigs, chickens, monkeys, rats, dogs, and cats) are sentient beings, which is to say that they have the capacity to suffer. If you believe that suffering is bad, and I’m sure you do (even if you’re a conservative), then why would only human suffering be bad? Suffering is suffering, whether it’s of a white person, a black person, a male, a female, an American, an Ethiopian, a human, or an animal. Racists disregard or discount the interests of members of other races. Sexists disregard or discount the interests of the other sex. Speciesists disregard or discount the interests of other species. If racism and sexism are wrong, then so is speciesism. The logic is the same.
Obviously, human and animal interests can and do conflict, just as the interests of human beings can and do conflict. (Think about human chattel slavery.) What do we do in the case of human conflicts? Do we disregard or discount the interests of one of the humans who is involved, or of the entire category (say, black person) of which that human is a member? No. We ensure that all interests are taken into account and counted equally. Important interests are protected by rights. We have strict rules against killing human beings, because death is the most serious harm a human being can suffer. This doesn’t mean killing is always wrong, all things considered. It means it’s presumptively wrong and must be justified. We also have rules that require reparation for wrongs committed. This is a way of acknowledging that interests were set back. Sometimes we weigh interests and allow the weightier interests to prevail over those that are less weighty. For example, I may steal your food if I am starving. In all cases, we try to minimize the harm done. All of these things can be done in the case of human-animal conflicts. It’s not easy, to be sure, but it’s not easy in the case of humans, either. Whoever said that doing the right thing is easy—or cheap? Morality is hard—and, tragically, costly.
The point of this post is not to make a case for animal rights. Others, such as Tom Regan, have done that far better than I could. It is to induce thinking in those of you who dismiss animal rights as a progressive cause. It has nothing to do with conservatism or progressivism. Those are political moralities. It has to do with treating sentient beings respectfully. To respect a being, literally, is to look (spect) back (re) at it—to acknowledge its existence, interests, point of view, and moral status. If you want to go further into this topic, and I hope you do, here is a good place to start. You might also visit Animal Ethics on a regular basis. If you have questions, I will be happy to answer them, preferably in the comments section, since that will allow others to participate.
