Steven Wise’s essay, “Why Animals Deserve Legal Rights,” makes the argument that non-human animals should be granted rights within the U.S. legal system as they meet many of the criteria originally used to stipulate who should and shouldn’t have legal rights. He has written this essay as he feels it grossly unfair that animals have no legal rights and that they are not protected unless a person chooses to harm them. Furthermore, as Wise points out, even when abuse of animals does occur, the abusers are often not brought to justice. Many people today still do not feel that abusing animals is a true crime.
Most of Wise’s essay is dedicated to discussing the various elements that cause humans to be deemed as worthy of legal rights, and evaluating whether some or all animals possess the same qualifying elements. Wise explains how philosophers have offered many different criteria over the years, including: “sentience, a sense of justice, the possession of language or morality, and having a rational plan for one's life” (Wise). He then discusses that, within the legal system, autonomy seems to be the important factor, and the related implication that people act autonomously but animals do not.
Wise talks about how the cognitive abilities of animals have been perceived over the course of history. He points out that recent studies have proved that apes, for example, can experience nearly all, if not all, of the emotions as human beings. Additionally, their conception of language has been shown to be more advanced than that of a two year old human child. He uses these reasons, among others, to demonstrate that animals are worthy of legal rights. He concludes by deducing that as our knowledge of animals has changed so vastly, the legal system should be updated to reflect it.
The arguments that Wise puts forward are certainly persuasive and make logical sense. As he discusses, it is true that, in the past, it was believed that mute people were incapable of thought. Obviously, this belief was very misguided and there has been plenty of research since then to prove it wrong. Research and knowledge about human beings has progressed hugely over the centuries and the legal system has, largely, reflected that. However, vast amounts of research has also been conducted about non-human animals. It is now scientifically proven that many animals have self-awareness, memory and can learn from experience. Surely, then, this places them in the same category as many human beings and should qualify them for legal rights.
Wise’s explanation of the experiment conducted involving an ape and a two year old human child is fascinating. The conclusion of the study was that the ape was more capable of language comprehension than the child. When given obscure instructions such as “feed your ball some tomato” (Wise), the ape pretended to feed a tomato to a Halloween pumpkin toy. The child, on the other hand, did not know how to interpret the instruction. There is little doubt that, in modern day law, the two year old child would be granted equal legal rights as an adult human being, but the ape would not. In terms of autonomy and perception, there is conclusive evidence that apes are comparable to humans in their abilities. Therefore, it makes no sense that apes are not granted rights within the legal system.
Many Christians believe that humans were made in the image of god and, therefore, are much worthier than animals. Many also believe that animals only exist for the benefit of human beings. Therefore, a legal system based on these beliefs would naturally emit animals from being worthy of legal rights. However, the U.S. legal system is supposed to benefit everyone, not just members of certain religions, and therefore this view cannot be used when discussing the fairness of the lack of rights for animals.
Wise believes that the legal system should be updated to reflect current knowledge about animals and their cognitive abilities. In terms of logical sense and also an intrinsic awareness of what is fair and what is not, Wise’s position seems water-tight. The legal system should be based on current knowledge rather than knowledge of the time when the system was first created.
There are doubtless people who would disagree with Wise’s position and who would believe that animals should remain invisible within the legal rights system. However, I think that Wise has the right idea. In the twenty-first century, we are more aware of the workings of animal brains then we have ever been before. We now know that animals can think, can make choices and, in some instances, can interpret abstract information and instructions. Therefore, it seems criminal in itself that animals are not granted legal rights in the U.S. In a developed and leading nation such as America, it is shameful that certain aspects of its legal system are so behind modern day knowledge.
