Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Robbing PETA to Spay Paul: Do Animal Rights Include Reproductive Rights?

2003; American Speech–Language–Hearing Association; Volume: 13; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.15368/bts.2003v13n3.1

1945-8487

David Boonin,

Environmental law and policy

Let me begin with a confession.My papers are often praised more for their titles than for their contents.At a job interview a few years ago, I was told that if I didn't have a future in philosophy (hardly the words one wants to hear during a job interview), the quality of my titles suggested that I could always pursue a career in advertising.What, I was asked, was my secret?I declined to reveal my secret at the time, for fear of appearing shallow (it didn't help; I didn't get the job).But I am going to go ahead and reveal my secret now: my approach to philosophical research has always been to start with a good title and then try to figure out what I would have to write about in order to use it.I have been planning for some time, for example, to write a paper on the phenomenology of insect abuse, just so that I could call it "What is it Like to Bat a Bee?"This paper is no exception.The title had been kicking around in the back of my head for some time, waiting for an appropriate topic to go with it, when inspiration arrived one day in the form of a letter from an animal welfare organization asking me for money.The letter made the following argument: two of the greatest sources of preventable animal suffering are factory farming and the overpopulation of cats and dogs.We could end the former by opposing the practice of meat eating, and we could end the latter by supporting the practice of spaying and neutering.But, the letter pointed out, there is tremendous and deeply-entrenched resistance to abolishing meat eating, both at the individual and the institutional level, while there is no such resistance to expanding the practice of spaying and neutering cats and dogs at either level.There is simply a lack of funding.So rather than use my somewhat meager means (since I did not, in the end, pursue a career in advertising) to oppose factory farming by supporting groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), the letter concluded, I should instead send my money to them to promote spaying and neutering.From a strictly utilitarian point of view, of course, the letter's argument was irreproachable.My duty, on such a view, is to prevent as much suffering 1 as I can, and if my contributing to pro-spaying efforts prevents more suffering than does my contributing to anti-factory farming efforts, then that is just what I should do.But I am not a utilitarian.I do not oppose factory farming on the utilitarian grounds that it fails to promote the most overall happiness for humans and nonhumans, though surely it does fail to maximize such happiness.Rather, I oppose it on the deontological grounds that animals have certain rights which practices such as factory farming violate.And I suspect that this is true for many people who support such groups as PETA.PETA's slogan, after all, is not that animals should be used so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of humans and nonhumans, but rather that "animals are not ours to eat, wear, or experiment on."So the letter's argument did not convince me that I should use my limited resources to support spaying rather than to oppose factory farming, and I believe that it should not convince others whose support for such groups as PETA arises from reasoning that is similar to mine.But the letter did nonetheless prompt the following unsettling concern.I oppose factory farming and I support spaying and neutering dogs and cats.And it is easy to see how these two positions can be rendered consistent from a consequentialist point of view.But it is less easy to see how they can be rendered consistent on the deontological, rights-based view suggested by PETA's slogan.Indeed, I came to realize, it is downright difficult.After all, when we spay a cat we typically justify our act by saying that it is warranted because it will prevent others from suffering, not by claiming that it is in the cat's own interest to be spayed.A common bumper sticker advocating spaying and neutering reads simply: "There are not enough homes for all of them.Spay or neuter your pet," and I have yet to see one that says "sterilize your pets: they'll be glad you did."Yet justifying the imposition of costs on one animal by appealing to the Between the Species III August 2003