MODULE 50: Animal Rights
Core Module Issues:
• Do animals have rights beyond those required by law?
• If so, what are they?
Module Teaching Notes
Testing products on animals was a big deal, as far as media coverage goes, in the 80s. The issue has not
gone away (many cosmetics companies promise “no animal testing” on their labels), but it receives less
attention in the press.
The same can be said for “fur is murder” and “save the whales” type campaigns. Passionate people are still
involved, but headlines are less frequent.
PETA, on the other hand, seems to generate a lot of media attention with a variety of demands. If you like,
you might lecture on a recent PETA action or two.
Media attention aside, endangered species have, for 40 years, received strong protection in law. There are
many actions that impact endangered species that are flatly illegal.
This module examines animal rights, and whether they are dependant upon legal protection or are
independent of legal protection.
It also examines whether students believe that all animals have the same level of rights, or whether, say,
mammals are more worthy of protection than insects.
Discussion Points for Scenario Questions
1. Did Jake do anything wrong? Would he have done anything wrong if he burned a frog? A
squirrel?
A. YES – DO YOU EVER POISON ANY MOUNDS TO KEEP THEM OUT OF
YOUR HOUSE? DOES YOUR MOTIVE MATTER?
2. Did the zoo act wrongfully by allowing Alice to smoke?
A. YES – DO YOU DISLIKE ZOOS ALTOGETHER, OR IS IT JUST THE
SMOKING?
B. NO – AREN’T THEY OBLIGATED TO WATCH OUT FOR HER HEALTH?
3. Did the research team act wrongfully in carrying out the calorie restriction experiment? What
about carrying out the meth experiment, which killed Alice but generated a useable therapy for
humans? Are you likely to avoid general products that are tested on animals?
[ASK EACH QUESTION SEPERATELY. PROBE WHETHER STUDENTS
TAKE A UTILITARIAN APPROACH AND FOCUS ON THE POTENTIAL
BENEFIT OF THE RESEARCH, OR WHETHER THEY WANT TO PROTECT
ALICE. THEN ASK IF THEIR CONSUMER PREFERENCES WOULD BE
IMPACTED.]
4. Did Larry act wrongfully or reasonably?
A. WRONGFULLY – CAN’T HE LOOK OUT FOR HIS INTERESTS?
B. REASONABLY – MIGHTN’T HE FACT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES? ISN’T
HE AT THE VERY LEAST VIOLATING THE “SPIRIT OF THE LAW”?
5. Going back to the background and the Austin Cave Beetle case, what do you think of the
court’s application of “interstate commerce”? Is the distinction the plaintiffs proposed a
reasonable one: Should insects without a commercial value be less protected than, say, the Bald
Eagle? Or would such a rule, if followed, create an unacceptable slippery slope?
A. REASONABLE DISTINCTION – ANY DOWNSIDE TO MAKING
DISTINCTIONS?