On human and non-human animals (1)

I refer to Alfred E. Zammit's letter of February 10. Mr Zammit got it right when he said that "there is a great gulf separating animal rights from animal welfare". Animal welfare seeks to protect some non-human animals from unnecessary ill-treatment, while it permits ill-treatment, if it is a necessary component of generally accepted practices. We claim that non-human animals are not human property, and that every sentient individual has the right to life. Therefore, animal rights aims for the abolition of practices which treat non-human animals as resources or things, most of which necessarily involve suffering.

Mr Zammit is mistaken in claiming that we deny humanity's uniqueness. Humanity is unique in the same way that all species and individuals are unique. If we were to discriminate on the right to life on the basis of intelligence alone, or any other arbitrary irrelevant attributes, this would sanction the killing of non-intelligent humans. Claiming that even non-intelligent humans are humans begs the question: why should humans be treated differently? And for the record, the same Old Testament which claims that we were uniquely created in God's image, also claims the existence of a historical Adam and Eve, who only had male children, and from whom we are all supposed to be descended. Do we pick and choose what is literal truth and what is not?

Regarding the definition of "murder", I shall not waste any more time arguing about this. To anyone who considers all sentient animals as having a right to life, meat remains murder.

Mr Zammit is also wrong in assuming that in my logic, animals change into persons. Animals do not change into persons (who do not have to be humans). Animals are persons. He is wrong again when he says that we do not differentiate between a man and a mouse. We only claim that species membership, like race or sex membership, is no justification for denying rights. Saying that "meat is murder" is not "pontificating". It is simply expressing one's views in a free democracy.

As a matter of principle, I wish to clarify the point where Mr Zammit says that I claimed that Jesus was an Essene. All I actually wrote was that "the Last Supper was held at an Essene quarters". If having one's Last Supper at an Essene quarters makes one an Essene, then, by the same logic, if Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi were to visit a Labour Party club, that would make him a Labourite!

In any case, let's keep a secular moral debate secular. I only included religion in reply to other correspondents who chose to do so. One will find animal rights people who are members of several faiths (including Catholicism) or none. A moral question which should involve people of all faiths (or none) should not be debated by quoting religious texts, where people of different faiths will obviously disagree, but it should be conducted in a secular rational way.