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

Abstract

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 di...

The Views of the UK Public Towards Routine Neutering of Dogs and Cats

“…While neutering increases the lifespan overall (probably due to the reduction of fatal reproductive diseases, the absence of unwanted or risky behaviours and the reduced risks of infectious diseases), neutering appears to increase risks of several cancers and immune-mediated diseases [5,8,9]. These opposing long term welfare impacts have fuelled much debate, with regard to whether [22,42,43], how [44,45], and when to neuter dogs and cats [26,46,47,48].…”

“…Clearly, there are welfare issues associated with neutering, as well as potential societal benefits related to overpopulation control and prevention of poor welfare in unwanted offspring. Thus, neutering is also ethically problematic [42,43]. While the practice is strongly encouraged in the veterinary professional bodies in the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) [49,50,51], routine neutering is considered unethical by some and must be done for medical reasons in several countries such as Germany, Norway and Sweden [52,53,54,55].…”

Beyond Castration and Culling: Should We Use Non-surgical, Pharmacological Methods to Control the Sexual Behavior and Reproduction of Animals?

“…Recent philosophical work on companion animals has increasingly raised ethical concerns about surgical castration and spaying (Boonin 2003;Donaldson & Kymlicka 2011;Palmer, Corr & Sandøe 2012). Castration of male dogs may have negative health effects both in the short and the long term, as well as causing pain.…”

“…Another right that could be at stake is a right not to be harmed. Boonin (2003) for instance argues that spaying/neutering an animal imposes nontrivial harms on it without benefiting it, and that this violates an animal's rights. The only justification for violating this right, according to Boonin, would be if failing to spay/neuter would lead to the birth of many miserable offspring.…”

Inconvenient Desires: Should We Routinely Neuter Companion Animals?

“…Neutering plausibly falls under a more general right: a right not to be harmed, or a right to respectful treatment. The latter right is defended by Regan (1984), and Boonin (2003) suggests that, in principle, this right applies to neutering. After all, Boonin argues, neutering an animal imposes non-trivial harms on it-for instance, the risks from being anesthetized, and pain and disorientation after the surgery.…”