FAQ
"What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?"
Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of
consideration—consideration of what is in their own best
interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to
humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether
any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally-challenged
human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful or even
if everyone dislikes him or her). It means recognizing that
animals are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment,
or experimentation.
"What is the difference between ‘animal rights’ and
‘animal welfare’?"
Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but
allow these interests to be traded away as long as there are
some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice.
Animal rights means that animals, like humans, have interests
that cannot be sacrificed or traded away just because it might
benefit others.
However, the rights position does not hold that rights are
absolute; an animal’s rights, just like those of humans, must
be limited, and rights can certainly conflict.
Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food,
clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Animal welfare
allows these uses as long as "humane" guidelines are followed.
"What rights should animals have?"
Animals have the right to equal consideration of their
interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest
in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We
therefore are obliged to take that interest into consideration
and respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily
inflicted upon him or her.
However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans,
because their interests are not always the same as ours and
some rights would be irrelevant to animals’ lives. For instance,
a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and therefore doesn’t
have the right to vote, since that right would be as meaningless
to a dog as it is to a child.
"Where do you draw the line?"
The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so
much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take
time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth.
Aware of the problems and responsibilities an expanded ethic
brings with it, he said we each must "live daily from judgment
to judgment, deciding each case as it arises, as wisely and
mercifully as we can."
We can’t stop all suffering, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t
stop any.
In today’s world of virtually unlimited choices, there are
usually "kinder, gentler" ways for most of us to feed, clothe,
entertain, and educate ourselves than by killing animals.
"What about plants?"
There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience
pain, devoid as they are of central nervous systems, nerve
endings, and brains. It is theorized that the main reason
animals have the ability to experience pain is as a form of
self-protection. If you touch something that hurts and could
possibly injure you, you will learn from the pain it produces
to leave it alone in the future. Since plants cannot locomote
and do not have the need to learn to avoid certain things, this
sensation would be superfluous.
Plants are completely different physiologically from mammals. If
you cut off the branch of a plant, it grows another one (the
same can't be said for animals' limbs). Unlike animals' body
parts, many perennial plants, fruits, and vegetables can be
harvested over and over again without resulting in the death of
the plant or tree.
If one is concerned about the impact of vegetable agriculture on
the environment, a vegetarian diet is still preferable to a
meat-based one, since the vast majority of grains and legumes
raised today are used as feed for cattle. By eating vegetables
directly, rather than eating animals such as cows who must
consume 16 pounds of vegetation in order to convert them into 1
pound of flesh, one is saving many more plants' lives (and
destroying less land).
"Wasn’t Hitler in favor of animal rights?"
Although the Nazis purported to pass an anti-vivisection bill,
they did not. In fact, they were required by law to first
perform their experiments on animals before carrying them out
on humans. Experiments on humans did not replace animal
experiments; on the contrary, animal experiments made them
possible. John Vyvyan in The Dark Face of Science summed it up
correctly: "The experiments made on prisoners were many and
diverse, but they had one thing in common: All were in
continuation of or complementary to experiments on animals. In
every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is
mentioned in the evidence; and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz
concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried
out simultaneously as parts of a single programme."
However, even if this weren't the case, the merits of an idea
cannot be determined by the character of its proponents. If
Hitler believed in evolution, does that mean we should not
believe in evolution? What if Gandhi also believed in
evolution—how would we reconcile the two? An idea must be
judged on its own merits.
"It’s fine for you to believe in animal rights, but you
shouldn’t tell other people what to do."
Now you are telling me what to do!
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but freedom of
thought does not always imply freedom of action. You are free
to believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others.
You may believe that animals should be killed, that black
people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but
you don’t always have the right to put your beliefs into
practice.
As for telling people what to do, society exists so that there
will be rules governing people’s behavior. The very nature of
reform movements is to tell others what to do—don’t use humans
as slaves, don’t sexually harass women, etc.—and all movements
initially encounter opposition from people who want to go on
doing the criticized behavior.
"Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t
always respect our rights, so why should we apply our
ideas of morality to them?"
Because an animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our
rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or a person with a
developmental disability's inability to do so. Animals are not
usually capable of choosing to change their behavior, but human
beings have the intelligence to choose between behavior that
hurts others and behavior that doesn’t.
"Where does the animal rights movement stand on
abortion?"
There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the
animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides
of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as
the pro-life movement has no official position on animal
rights, neither does the animal rights movement have an official
position on abortion.
"Is PETA pro-life?"
No. We are not pro-life or pro-choice as an organization, for
that is not part of our charter. We are an animal rights
organization and our mission statement is that animals are not
ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.
However, we have pro-life members and this message is brought
to you by people who care about all life. We are asking people
who feel in their hearts and souls that taking the life of an
unborn child is wrong, to also consider the lives of other
wonderful beings who do not want to die.
"It’s almost impossible to avoid using all animal
products; if you’re still causing animal suffering
without realizing it, what's the point?"
It is impossible to live your life without causing some harm;
we’ve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in gnats,
but that doesn’t mean we should intentionally cause unnecessary
harm. Just because you might accidentally hit someone with your
car is no reason to run someone over on purpose.
"What about all the customs, traditions, and jobs that
depend on using animals?"
The invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and
the end of World War II also necessitated job retraining and
restructuring. This is simply an ingredient in all social
progress—not a reason to deter progress.
"Don’t animal rights activists commit ‘terrorist’
acts?"
The animal rights movement is nonviolent. One of the central
beliefs shared by most animal rights people is rejection of harm
to any animal, human or otherwise. However, any large movement
is going to have factions that believe in the use of force.
"How can you justify the millions of dollars’ worth of
property damage by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?"
Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the
law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French
Resistance are both examples of people breaking the law in order
to answer to a higher morality.
"The ALF," which is simply the name adopted by people acting
illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects
such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save
lives. It burns empty buildings in which animals are tortured
and killed. ALF "raids" have given us proof of horrific cruelty
that would not have been discovered or believed otherwise.
They have resulted in officials’ filing of criminal charges
against laboratories, citing of experimenters for violations of
the Animal Welfare Act, and, in some cases, shutting down of
abusive labs for good. Often ALF raids have been followed by
widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring
in the targeted labs.
"How can you justify spending your time on animals when
there are so many people who need help?"
There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our
attention; cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to
alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any
more or less important than helping human beings—they are both
important. Animal suffering and human suffering are
interconnected.
"Most animals used for food, fur, or experiments are
bred for that purpose."
Being bred for a certain purpose does not change an animal’s
biological capacity to feel pain and fear.
"God put animals here for us to use; the Bible gives us
dominion over animals."
Dominion is not the same as tyranny. The Queen of England has
"dominion" over her subjects, but that doesn't mean she can eat
them, wear them, or experiment on them. If we have dominion over
animals, surely it is to protect them, not to use them for our
own ends. There is nothing in the Bible that would justify our
modern-day policies and programs that desecrate the environment,
destroy entire species of wildlife, and inflict torment and
death on billions of animals every year.
The Bible imparts a reverence for life; a loving God could not
help but be appalled at the way animals are being treated.
"Animals in cages on factory farms or in laboratories
don’t suffer that much because they’ve never known
anything else."
To be prevented from performing the most basic instinctual
behaviors causes tremendous suffering. Even animals caged
since birth feel the need to move around, groom themselves,
stretch their limbs or wings, and exercise. Herd animals and
flock animals become distressed when they are made to live in
isolation or when they are put in groups too large for them to
be able to recognize other members. In addition, all confined
animals suffer from intense boredom—some so severely that it
can lead to self-mutilation or other self-destructive behavior.
"If animal exploitation were wrong, it would be illegal."
Legality is no guarantee of morality. Who does and doesn’t have
legal rights is determined merely by the opinion of today’s
legislators. The law changes as public opinion or political
motivations change, but ethics are not so arbitrary. Look at
some of the other things that have at one time been legal in the
U.S.—child labor, human slavery, the oppression of women.
"Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse/vivisection
laboratory?"
No, but enough people have filmed inside and written about what
goes on in these places to tell the story. You do not need to
experience the abuse of animals close up to be able to criticize
it any more than you need to personally experience rape or child
abuse to criticize those. No one will ever be witness to all the
suffering in the world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try
to stop it.
"Animals are not as intelligent or advanced as humans."
If possessing superior intelligence does not entitle one human
to abuse another human for his or her purposes, why should it
entitle humans to abuse nonhumans?
There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent,
creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than
some humans, as in the case of a chimpanzee compared to a
human infant or a person with a severe developmental
disability. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and
the less intelligent humans be denied rights?
"Conditions on factory farms or fur farms are no worse than in
the wild, where animals die of starvation, disease, or
predation. At least the animals on factory farms are fed and
protected." This argument was used to claim that black people
were better off as slaves on plantations than as free men and
women. The same could also be said of people in prison, yet
prison is considered one of society's harshest punishments.
Animals on factory farms suffer so much that it is inconceivable
that they could be worse off in the wild. The wild isn’t "wild"
to the animals who live there; it’s their home. There they have
their freedom and can engage in their natural activities. The
fact that they might suffer in the wild is no reason to ensure
that they suffer in captivity.
