If animals have rights?

Back in 1987, 21 members of the European Community signed Strasbourg "European Convention for the Protection of Pets". Our country is still only considering the possibility of accession to this convention. European Convention for the protection of the rights of pets Preamble Member States of the European Council signed the following: - consider that the aim of the European Council is to achieve full consent among its members; - to recognize that a person has a moral obligation to all living beings, and take into account that pets have a special connection with a person; - consider important the contribution of pets to improving the quality human life and their significant value to society; - reckon with the difficulties that arise in connection with the large the variety of animals that live with man; - take into account the risk arising from crowding of indoor animals, for human hygiene, health and safety and other animals; - to consider that the maintenance of representatives of the wild fauna as pets should not be encouraged; - recognize the various conditions that govern acquisition, commercial and non-commercial breeding, placement and trade in pets; - recognize that pets are not always kept in conditions conducive to their health and well-being; - note that the attitude towards pets is very varied, sometimes due to lack of knowledge; - consider that the development of common standards in relation to room animals that increase the responsibility of owners is not not only desirable, but also a real chain. Chapter 1. General Provisions Article 1. Definitions 1. A pet is any animal that which is or will be contained by a person, in particular in your home, for your personal convenience and enjoyment. 2. Trade in pets means regular business transactions in reasonable amounts, in which pet owner changes. 3. Commercial breeding means breeding animals within reasonable limits mainly for profit. 4. Animal shelter means non-profit an establishment where pets are kept, in particular homeless. 5. A homeless animal means a pet, who does not have a home or is outside the boundaries of the property its owner and is not under the control or direct supervision of the owner or person responsible for the animal. 6. Competent authority means the authority designated country of the European Community to comply with this Convention. Article 2. Scope and conditions of performance 1. Each party shall take the necessary steps to fulfillment of the terms of this Convention in relation to; a) pets kept by a private person, or kept for sale, breeding, or kept in shelters; b) homeless animals in countries where this is possible. 2. The signing of this Convention will not affect the implementation of other treaties for the protection or conservation of animals under threat. 3. Nothing in this Convention shall affect the freedom of the Parties to take stricter measures to protect pets or apply the provisions contained in this Convention to categories of animals that were not specifically mentioned in this document. Chapter II. Principles of keeping pets Article 3. Basic principles for ensuring well-being animals 1. No one should hurt a pet, suffering or anxiety. 2. No one should give up their pet. Article 4 Content 1. Any person who keeps pets or looking after them is responsible for their health and well-being. 2. Any person who maintains or looks after animals, provides them with a comfortable room (place) and takes care of them, considering depending on the species and breed animal their environmental needs in particular; a) provides sufficient quality feed and water; b) provides an opportunity for walking; c) take all measures to prevent the animal from escaping. 3. An animal cannot be kept as a pet if: a) the conditions of paragraph 2 above are not met; b) if, despite the observance of these conditions, the animal does not can adapt to adversity. Article 5 Breeding Any person who selects pets for breeding, should be responsible for the anatomical, physiological and behavioral characteristics that can threaten the health and well-being of the offspring and the mother. Article 6. Age restrictions on the acquisition of animals A person under the age of 16 may not purchase any room animal without the consent of parents and persons having parental rights. Article 7. Training No animal should be trained in such a way that it harmed his health and well-being. Especially it is unacceptable to force an animal to exceed its natural abilities or strength, as well as the use of auxiliary agents that may cause injury, pain, suffering, or animal anxiety. Article 8. Trade, commercial breeding and overexposure animals, animal shelters 1. Any person engaged in commercial breeding or trade in pets, also containing a shelter for animals at the time of the entry into force of this Convention in within a period of time determined by each party, should notify the competent authorities. Any person who wishes to engage in one of the above activities, must also declare their intention competent authorities. 2. The application to the competent authority must indicate: a) the type of pets that are handled or planned to do; b) responsible person and his special training; c) a description of the premises and equipment used or will be used. 3. The above activities can only be carried out: a) if the responsible person has special knowledge and abilities required for this job, or as a result professional training or sufficient work experience with pets will acquire the necessary knowledge and preparation; b) if the premises and the equipment used correspond to the requirements of Article 4. 4. The competent authority determines, on the basis of the application, made under the terms of paragraph 1, compliance with its terms, set out in paragraph 3. If the conditions are not adequate, special events are recommended, and if necessary for animal welfare, start and continue such activities are prohibited. Article 9. Advertising, entertainment, competitions and similar Events 1. Pets should not be used as advertising, to participate in entertainment, exhibitions and similar events if: a) the organizers did not create appropriate conditions for pets in accordance with the requirements of article 4, paragraph 2; b) there is a threat to the health and welfare of pets. 2. It is forbidden to give any substances, carry out treatments or use devices that increase or increase decrease in the natural characteristics of the animal: a) during the competition; b) at any other time when it may endanger health and welfare of the animal. Article 10 Surgical operations 1. Surgery to change appearance pet or other non-medical purposes must be prohibited, including: a) cutting tails; b) circumcision of the ears; c) voice change; d) removal of fangs and claws. 2. An exception to this prohibition (paragraph 1) may be done only: a) if the veterinarian considers non-curative interventions necessary for the animal according to veterinary medical indications or for the benefit of the animal itself; b) to prevent reproduction. 3. Carrying out the operation: a) operations in which the animal experiences or may experience severe pain, should be carried out only under anesthesia by a veterinarian or under his supervision; b) operations in which anesthesia is not required, can carried out by competent under national law face. Article 1.1 Killing 1. Only a veterinarian or other competent person may kill a pet, except emergency circumstances, when it is necessary to stop suffering of an animal, and a veterinarian or other competent the person cannot be invited quickly or in other emergencies circumstances provided by the national legislation. Every killing must be done with minimal physical or mental suffering according to the circumstances. Chosen method killing, except in exceptional cases, must: a) cause immediate loss of consciousness and death, or b) begin with deep full anesthesia, accompanied by a shock that will eventually cause death. The person responsible for the killing must ensure that that the animal has died. 2. The following methods of killing must be prohibited: a) drowning and other methods of strangulation, if they do not cause the effect required in paragraph 16; b) the use of any toxic substances or preparations, the dose and route of administration of which cannot be controlled, to give the effect referred to in paragraph 1; c) cutaneous application of electricity, if this is not preceded by loss of consciousness. Chapter III. Special measures for stray animals Article 12. Downsizing If a Party considers that the number of stray animals poses a problem, it must take appropriate legal and/or administrative measures necessary to reduction in numbers in a way that does not cause animals of inevitable pain, suffering or fear. a) such measures should include the following requirements: - capture of animals must be carried out with causing them minimal physical or mental suffering; - the keeping or killing of captured animals must conducted in accordance with the principles set out in this conventions; b) The parties must consider: - cats and dogs must be identified by appropriate ways, with the subsequent registration of their numbers, as well as names and addresses of owners; - reduction of unplanned breeding of dogs and cats by carrying out castration of these animals; - stimulation of the search for stray dogs and cats and information about it to the competent authorities. Article 13. Exceptions for catching, keeping and killing An exception to the principles proposed in this Convention on trapping, keeping and killing stray and homeless animals, can only be done within the national disease control programs. Chapter IV. Information and education Article 14 Information and educational programs Parties should encourage the development of information and educational programs to promote awareness organizations and individuals involved in the content, breeding, training, trade and overexposure of indoor animals, on the terms and principles of this Convention. In these programs, particular attention should be paid to the following moments: a) the need to prepare animals for commercial chains or competitions by persons having the relevant knowledge and capabilities; b) the need to dissuade: - give pets to persons under 16 years of age without the consent of their parents or persons having parental rights; - give pets as a reward, prize or premiums; - unscheduled breeding of pets; c) the possibility of negative consequences for health and welfare of wild animals if they are purchased as pets; d) the risk of irresponsible acquisition of pets, as this leads to an increase in the number of animals from which refuse. Chapter V Article 21 Reservations 1. Any State may at the time of signature or deposit instruments of ratification, approval or agreement of the Convention declare that it reserves the right to one or more reservations to Article 6 and Article 10 paragraph 1 c. None no other reservations can be made. In chapters V, VI, VII, articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 The Convention stipulates the conditions for signing, ratifying, denunciation and notification of this document. The convention was signed by: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Northern Ireland, Germany. Material provided Olga MIRONOVA

(C) Magazine "Friend" 1996 - 6

Animals take care of each other without having anything in common
with rights. The concept of "right" was invented by people and does not apply to any other creatures. Why are we talking about animal rights then? The answer is simple: animal rights are human rights needed to set boundaries for people. If we do not set a limit to human boundaries in the treatment of animals, in a legal form, then we cannot also hold legal liability for violation of these boundaries by other people.
Animals are more vulnerable creatures than people with more power. People who violate the interests of animals should be brought to justice in order to answer for what they have done.

Aspects of.

• Various ways to express love for animals.
• On what basis should animal rights be recognized?
• Some points fall outside the legal framework of animal rights.
• Is there a starting point that fits?
• Animal rights are something other than animal welfare
• Does the right to freedom, as a fundamental law, work if some violate it?

See also:

• Isn't the possession of animals, in fact, contrary to the right to freedom?
• Animal rights protection must be financially attractive.
• All animals have the same right to quality.
• Should all forms of unfair treatment of animals be banned?
• 5 types of freedom that cattle are entitled to

Various ways to express love for animals.

People treat animals very differently:

• Most people who love animals keep them as pets.
• Many who love animals consider them delicious food and eat them.
• Some people who love animals become sexually aroused from animals.
• How many people out there love animals, leave them alone, or let them go?

How we should treat animals and what rights we recognize for them belongs to the field of ethics. Albert Schweitzer has already said that the foundations of ethics should be based on compassion. No rational starting point can convince enough people that animals have rights, even if they agree that an animal has inherent dignity. Without compassion, law will not turn into legal action.

The concept of animal rights can be interpreted in quite different ways. Some would like to retain the right to kill animals for consumption or sport. Others deny themselves the right to accidentally kill even the smallest animal. How this is related to each other will be discussed in this article.
Fundamental rights are unconditional, so it is important to articulate them carefully. It does not matter whether the wording is positive or negative.

On what basis should animal rights be recognized?

It would be desirable to hear the answer to this question from the animals themselves, but, unfortunately, you will not get an intelligible answer from their side. They can only, indirectly, express their protest against mistreatment. And so the answer to this question must be given by the people themselves and for the people.
The points taken as the basis of animal rights are:
inner dignity, well-being, respect, freedom, (self) interest, natural behavior, equality, compassion, etc. Many of these points seem quite acceptable, but on further consideration, especially in relation to specific, practical situations, less real. Below we will consider the acceptability of each individual item.
For clarity in application, we must clearly articulate the starting points that form the basis of animal rights.

Applied starting points:

1. Animal rights must be formulated in such a way that they can be used both practically and legally.
2. Animal rights apply to each individual animal: wild animals, livestock, domestic animals, mammals, and also insects.
3. Animals are so different from each other that one must reckon with their specific nature.
4. Animal rights apply to people and should be able to be called upon by people to help. Animals cannot keep obligations.
5. Death occupies a special position among animal rights: slaughter, legal hunting by specialists and professional anglers. They should be organized in such a way that the death of the animal is quick and painless, not useless (such as unwanted additional catches or mass liquidations). This also applies to harmful invertebrates, with which it is possible to fight only, only by destroying them.
6. The right of the species exceeds the right of the individual (if an animal or plant is threatened with extinction, then people are forbidden to disturb the life of this species). Also, the type of animal (for example, pigs or salmon) has the right not to be bred or to be caught in an immoderate amount for the needs of export, in which production or catch occurs in fact, due to mass character, by far not the most acceptable methods in relation to animals and not aimed at meeting the basic needs of life.

The current Animal Welfare and Health Act (1992) includes moral vacillation limits when evaluating farm production goals. This is based on the recognition of the intrinsic dignity of the animal and the so-called "no, unless" principle. In this case, the following questions should then be asked when using animals: 1) how important is the goal pursued; 2) is there any other alternative; 3) how seriously the health of animals is undermined.
The first paragraph of section 36 of the Animal Welfare and Health Act 1992 states:
“It is prohibited, without a reasonable purpose, or in violation of what is permitted, to achieve that purpose, to cause pain or injury to an animal, or to impair the health or welfare of an animal.”

In theory, animal rights seem well defined, but in practice "reasonable purpose for humans" is (too) broad. Is the basis for animal law well enough then laid down?

Some of the points fall outside the legal framework for animal welfare.

If we start from the starting point, then several concepts will already disappear: first of all, respect. This is a widely used concept. In this case, it is impossible to give an unambiguous formulation in animal rights. There is no harm in using this concept in this connection, but on the other hand, such a concept cannot be used in the legal assessment of human behavior towards animals: "Madam, we are subpoenaing you about your disrespectful attitude towards your lapdog." Or: "Farmer, you must treat your chickens with dignity."
To respect someone means to keep a certain distance (space or freedom), for example, not allowing the other or the group to condemn anyone (“hang labels”).
In principle, through social control, it is quite possible to point out to people a lack of respect in the treatment of animals (for example, cruel games with live animals or excesses in entertainment shows (stunts with circus animals).

For similar reasons, the concept of "intrinsic dignity" is not acceptable as a legal basis for animal rights. At best, this concept can be applied in the case of rare species of animals, in the sense: "This part of nature must be protected, since there is an animal species that is found nowhere else." In all other cases, this concept means nothing. No farmer can be made to take better care of his pigs on the basis that the animal is spiritually deserving of good care. The farmer takes care of his pigs only as much as he is economically interested in it.

The indirectness and vagueness of these concepts - a tactic in referring people to each other in order to accurately point out to others their mistakes in connection with animal rights, these concepts are not suitable and are not legally acceptable.
You cannot, either, oblige a person to have taste or ennoble him. Though you may call upon them
The second entry point (all animals) is worded in such a way as to prevent separate creation of rules for each animal species. Animals include both earthworms and elephants; fish, but also insects. The formulation of animal rights should contain a certain degree of generality, in which different boundaries of requirements can be formulated for the main animal species. The boundaries of the requirements relate mainly to the welfare of animals.

An example of various developments of such requirements boundaries are:

• Availability of suitable food for the animal: meat (prey) or plant food
• Solitary existence or in a group.
• Threat to human health or public safety
• The size and nature of the natural habitat.

Animal rights should include that an animal, depending on its species, should be able to maintain and express species-specific behaviors. And, also in the case when, due to “harmfulness”, their freedom is limited.
There are 5 criteria (5 freedoms defined by the Farm Animal Welfare Council*) in developing requirements for naturalness or natural behavior:

1. freedom of movement;
2. freedom of obtaining food;
3. freedom of reproduction and population formation;
4. the possibility that every animal and every species of animal may live according to its own character and may take part in the natural cycle in which man does not interfere with (natural) sickness and death;
5. lack of consumption, destruction and violation by man.

* Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC is an independent advisory body that oversees the use, sale, transportation and slaughter of livestock and informs the government of animal cruelty.)

Note: This does not apply to animals that are "fauna" (such as feral domestic cats).

Animals that never enter the water do not need developments in which they are guaranteed enough space to swim. Whale habitat cannot be limited to the size of the pool. Wolves are not allowed to places where the risk of contact with people and livestock is too great.
Livestock requires care, while wild animals, on the contrary, cannot be fed.
As well as environmental pollution and neglect, "fake fauna" and "protection" by exterminating predators or the invention of special diseases must be prevented.

Animal rights is somewhat different (broader) than animal welfare.

If we look at the state of affairs such as (self) interest, the welfare of animals, their intellect, feelings and instincts, etc., then we must come to the conclusion that it is practically impossible to rely on these points. Well-being is a goal, not a starting point, and is located for each kind of animal, both literally and figuratively, in different spaces. Then you will need to answer questions such as: “Do fish have feelings?” or “Are pigs or other domestic animals bored?” “Will the rancher harm the welfare of the cows if he does not let them out on pasture this summer?” These kinds of issues cannot be 100% controlled and therefore cannot form the basis on which animal rights can be based. Conversely, these clauses apply if we have to put into practice animal rights (based on the boundaries of claims) or when We consider in terms of precautionary principles, i.e. if we try to avoid violations of this kind as much as possible.

The application of developments in practice will be discussed later, after we determine the best starting point for animal rights, or read the WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals) universal animal welfare statement.
Punishment for torturing animals by causing them pain is provided for by the welfare law, but not passive infliction of suffering by, for example, extreme restriction of freedom of movement. This part of animal welfare violations is not yet regulated by law. Harm to animal welfare is associated with the violation of animal rights, but animals also have fundamental rights when human actions in relation to animal welfare are uncertain. On this point we deviate from the philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), who said that the main question is "can an animal suffer?" The ability to suffer gives the animal, in terms of welfare, the right to equal indulgence with humans, as a basis for compassion, but does not yet lead to animal rights.

Summarizing, we will compile the considered concepts into a diagram. The cells in the diagram will indicate how the various concepts are to be considered in relation to each other. The starting point of the scheme is that animals have rights and that the purpose of recognizing these rights is to guarantee sufficient conditions for their welfare.

An example of how this diagram should be understood is that “emotions” has to do with welfare, but not with animal rights.

It is astonishing to state that the points which have nothing to do with welfare are exactly the points in which animals are very different from humans and the points which are related to welfare are practically the same for both humans and animals. Among the main aspects of well-being, there are no fundamental differences between man and animal, and this should be reflected in the recognition of animal rights by man.

Is such a legal starting point possible that would justify itself in practice?

Perhaps the same notion as in human rights, namely the right to freedom, can be taken as a starting point.
Freedom is a paradoxical concept. This means that it is necessary to formulate the boundaries from the beginning to the end of freedom, otherwise, this concept is impractical. To apply the concept of freedom in practice, we must describe everything that is not it: everything that makes the freedom of an animal (to exhibit natural behavior) impossible is contrary to their rights.
Setting boundaries that are valid for both humans and animals, and this is precisely the whole strength of this concept. We can think about the moral limits of animal freedom, but we can also think about the physical limits (like bars).
How the “no, unless” principle will be implemented is easy to imagine: all restrictions on the freedom of animals are prohibited, if, only, a person can prove that, with a certain measure, the freedom to exercise natural behavior remains possible.

The main advantage of freedom is that it is the highest limit of human duty to take care of the rights of animals. When this right to freedom is guaranteed, then the responsibility of a person for further filling disappears.
The right to freedom for animals includes, in general, the ability to exhibit natural behavior. What and how, this animal, subsequently, at its own discretion and "freely" realizes or not, does not matter for the starting points of its rights.

For wild animals, it is sufficient that the natural balance is guaranteed without human intervention in nature (for exceptions, click here). For pets or livestock, it is important to take care that these animals have the opportunity to maintain their natural behavior as much as possible.
What even more includes the right to freedom is also the right to bodily integrity: no unnatural interventions such as beak clipping, castration of piglets, genetic manipulation (breeding is allowed) or extreme breeding (for example, beef cattle, calves can only be born by caesarean section).

The limits which may be established, without violating the right to liberty in general, are as follows:

• sterilization and castration of pets; separate keeping of male and female animals (cattle), in order to limit the birth rate.
• pasture fencing and road barriers.
• euthanasia and abortions in situations similar to people with whom contact is not (more) possible or there is talk of unbearable suffering.

The setting of boundaries for each individual animal species should be the subject of scientific research about animals. The main thing is that we consider freedom as the starting point when looking at animals, which gives us the opportunity to treat animals with respect.

Possible compromises

An important advantage of the concept of freedom is also its applicability to people who disagree with most extreme consequences. Take, for example, someone who thinks that keeping animals at home is wrong because it violates the right to freedom. It is possible to have a conversation with a person who has pets, because we are talking about formulating the conditions that the owner of the animal should and wants to follow. The conclusion of a compromise does not make the concept of freedom unusable, but rather strengthens it.

Another important advantage of this concept is fast controllability. When it is established what exactly the circumstances limit the freedom of the animal, then in a split second this violation can be established, while, in the case of other points (for example, welfare), the violation can be established only by long observation.

Can then freedom still be considered a basic law if some break the basic animal law?

There are two possible interpretations.

• a legal violation that is allowed under strict conditions.
• illegal violation.

Animals slaughtered or fish caught for consumption are also entitled to a quick and painless death. Also, it can be demanded that if someone restricts the freedom of an animal, he must not deprive him of the opportunity to display natural behavior.

Such an explanation increases the chance for wide public recognition and is an understandable appeal to people.

Carrying out the right to freedom as a starting point and to its extreme consequences, putting it into practice, is a matter for the future.

What do you understand by the term "animal rights"?

Animal rights implies that the interests of animals deserve some attention, whether they are beautiful, useful to humans, or have any meaning for people (just as a mentally ill person has certain rights, despite the fact that it often does not bring any benefit, sometimes it is burdensome for others). Based on the foregoing, it should be recognized that animals are not our property, their life itself has value, so we do not have the right to use them to meet our needs. That is, a person should not eat the meat of animals, wear their fur and skin, experiment on them, use them in entertainment.

What is the difference between the concepts<права животных>and<благополучие животных>?

The concept of animal welfare recognizes that they have certain interests and needs, but puts human needs ahead. That is, according to this theory, animals can<приносить в жертву>to a person. Meanwhile, the concept of animal rights implies that the interests of animals should not be neglected or sacrificed just so that a person receives some benefit from it. As noted above, animal rights organizations are trying to lead the public to the idea that a person should not eat.<братьев наших меньших>, dress in their skins, use them for experimentation and entertainment. However, the concept of animal welfare allows all this, provided that it is well kept and slaughtered without pain.

What rights should animals have?

The needs of humans and animals must be treated equally. For example, a dog is certainly in pain, so we should pay attention to this and not hurt the dog. However, animals do not always have the same rights as humans, because some human needs simply do not apply to animal life. For example, a dog is not interested in participating in elections, so there is no need to give it the right to vote. It is as absurd for a dog as it is for a small child.

Where do you draw the line?

The great humanist Albert Schweitzer, who did so much in his life for both people and animals, stooped down every time he saw a worm on a hot road: he picked it up and let it into the moist soil. This man believed that we should solve as wisely and mercifully as possible any moral problem that arises before us in everyday life.

What about killing plants?

Currently, there is no reason to believe that plants feel pain: they do not have a central nervous system, nerve endings and brain. There is a theory that animals are endowed with the ability to feel pain in order to protect themselves. If a person or other living being touches something that causes pain, then he will no longer touch this object. In plants, the feeling of pain would be redundant, since they cannot move and escape from aggressors. The physiology of plants is very different from the physiology of mammals. If a piece of the animal's body is cut off, it will never recover again. However, in plants, most of the lost parts are able to grow back, for example, when picking fruits, a person does absolutely no harm to the plant body. In addition, farm animals eat significantly more plants than humans. It takes 16 pounds of grass, grains and legumes to produce 1 pound of beef, so vegetarians save far more plants than meat eaters.

Of course, you can believe in animal rights, but why tell others what to do?! Now you are talking about it to me!

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion, but this does not always mean the right to freedom of action. You can think what you want, but you have no right to harm others. You have the right to believe that animals can be killed, blacks can be enslaved, etc., but this does not mean that you have the right to implement your beliefs. There are always some laws that govern the behavior and lifestyle of people. There is always a category of people who make adjustments to the social way of life. Largely due to their efforts, people are no longer used as slaves, women and men have the same rights. But, as world experience shows, any progressive reform movement meets with the resistance of people who do not want to give up their habits, etc.

Animals do not understand their rights, why should they be fought for?

A child or a mentally ill person also does not understand their rights, but this does not mean that they should be deprived of their rights. Animals are not able to choose for themselves this or that variant of behavior, but a person always has the opportunity to go in such a way that one can do without harming our smaller brothers.

What is the position of the animal rights movement on abortion?

Members of our movement have different attitudes towards this issue. And the members of the movement<За жизнь>different attitudes towards the protection of animal rights. Motion<За жизнь>takes no official position on animal rights, and the animal rights movement on abortion.

Your organization is a movement<за жизнь>?

No. We are an organization for animal rights, and our main motto is that animals have intrinsic value, so we have no right to eat them, make clothes out of them, experiment on them, use them for entertainment. Of course, we would very much like people who oppose the killing of an unborn child to take care of the lives of other creatures.

After all, it is almost impossible to refuse any use, killing or harming animals: If you are still causing animals suffering, even without realizing it, then what is the point of trying?

Indeed, it is almost impossible to go through life without ever harming anyone. We've all accidentally stepped on ants, but that doesn't mean you have to inflict suffering on animals ON PURPOSE. A person can drive a car and accidentally knock down a pedestrian, but he will not deliberately crush people.

Many of our habits, customs, etc. etc. are associated with the use of animals, moreover, if the exploitation of animals is abandoned, many people will be left without work.

The invention of the automobile, the end of the Second World War, the abolition of slavery - because of all these events, many professions also became unnecessary.<Упразднение>a number of professions is an indispensable component of any social progress.

This should not be a reason to slow down progress. Don't animal rights activists commit terrorist attacks?

Nonviolence is one of the key principles in the animal rights movement. Animal rights people will not accept any harm done to people or animals. However, like any other major movement, there are factions in the animal rights movement that advocate the use of force.

How can you justify the organization<Фронт освобождения животных? Они уничтожили имущество, стоящее миллионы долларов!

There have been cases in world history when, in order to achieve justice, it was necessary to break the law.<Фронт освобождения животных>is the name of a group of people who do illegal things to help fight for animal rights. In order to save lives, they break stereotasis and decapitation devices. They also set fire to empty rooms where, at other times, animals are tortured and killed.<Рейды>This organization opened the eyes of the public to incredible cruelty to animals, it would be impossible to do this legally. As a result of such underground activities, criminal cases were opened against some, and the Animal Welfare Act blacklisted experimenters notorious for their cruelty to animals. And some labs have closed forever. Very often, this organization's raids on the laboratory have led to widespread condemnation of cruelty to laboratory animals, even in scientific circles.

You are wasting your time with animals and there are so many people in the world who need help!

There are many very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention. Animal cruelty is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever possible. Helping animals is just as important as helping people. Human and animal suffering are interconnected.

Most of the animals that are used for food, furs, and most of the experimental animals are specially bred for this.

Any animals, regardless of whether they are raised for some purpose or not, feel pain and fear.

God created animals for man to use them, the Bible gives us power over animals.

Power and tyranny are two different things. The Queen of Great Britain has power over her subjects, but this does not give her the right to eat them, dress in them, or experiment on them. If God has given us power over animals, it is so that we protect them, and not use them to satisfy our own needs. You will find no excuse in the Bible for the brutal slaughter of billions of animals. The Bible emphasizes the value of life.

Hitler was a supporter of animal rights.

Although the Nazis were going to pass a law against vivisection, they did not. Moreover, the law ordered them to conduct experiments first on animals, and then on people. Human experiments did not become an alternative to animal experiments; on the contrary, the existence of the former made it possible for the latter to exist. John Vivien in the book<Темное лицо науки>notes:<Эксперименты на заключенных при всем своем разнообразии имели одну общую черту - все они были продолжениями опытов над животными. В лагерях Бухенвальд и Аушвиц эксперименты на животных и на людях были составляющими одной и той же программы и проводились одновременно. Кроме того, об идее нельзя судить по ее сторонникам и противникам. Почему мы не должны верить в эволюцию только от того, что в нее верил Гитлер? А что бы мы делали, если бы Ганди тоже верил в эволюцию? Об идее надо судить по ее содержанию.

Monkeys learned to talk, mastered the computer. Well, the line between man and animal is completely blurred? About what place a person occupies in the system of animals and plants, reflects Archpriest Roman Bratchik, systematic zoologist.

Reference. Archpriest Roman Bratchik K was born in 1949 in Baku. In 1972 he graduated from the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University. Worked in the laboratory of evolutionary zoology and genetics of the Biological and Soil Institute of the Far Eastern Scientific Center. He received baptism in 1985. In 1989 he was ordained Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Kursk and Belgorod. Since 2005 - Rector of the Assumption Church in the city of Kurchatov, Kursk Region. He teaches the course "Science and Religion" at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of Kursk State University.

Main difference

Father Roman, experiments with monkeys who were taught sign language refute the idea that man differs from animals in the presence of reason ...

A very long time ago I was struck by an experience. A monkey living with humans for a long time was shown photographs of dogs, humans, monkeys, and her own, and asked to classify them. She identified herself as human, not ape. Mowgli, apparently, would have classified himself as a wolf (this is imprinting - an unconscious imprinting of an image that is assimilated as a native; normally, this is a mother, but in the experiment it can be anything). But, speaking of the presence of a mind in a monkey, we will run into the definition of a mind that does not exist. If by mind we mean the ability to form concepts and perform certain operations with them, yes, at some level the monkey copes with this. Another question is how long chains of such operations will it be able to build? A person can think through and accumulate material, writing it down, encoding it with a system of signs. This is not the case with the monkey, in the monkey community. It seems to me that there is a lower mind - the ability to think abstractly - and there is a higher mind, inaccessible to the monkey.

So what is the difference between humans and monkeys?

It is impossible to give a definition. Biology cannot even give a clear definition of how a dog differs from a cat. We will find a lot of intermediate forms. There are cats that are more like dogs and vice versa. There are certain types of animals that resemble both dogs and cats. We divide all the diversity of the animal world into some groups, but there is always something that doesn’t fit completely, this is generally a headache for all taxonomists, and I was engaged in taxonomy. Any definition is a boundary setting. And in empirical reality, the boundaries are always blurred to one degree or another. For example: a person has an internal environment, but where it begins and where it ends is unclear. When the mouth is closed, what is in my mouth is the internal environment, but if the mouth is open, where is the boundary? So even now in science the boundary between man and monkey is blurred.

The unbeliever will simply lose this boundary. The believer will define clearly - the presence of the spirit of God, only this makes a person a man. Outside of this, a person is just a taxonomic unit in the system of living organisms, a little more complex. Because of this, there will always be an opportunity for materialists to call some of the people not people. Tell me, if a person lost his mind as a result of some kind of trauma, did he cease to be a person? From our point of view, it has not stopped. And a non-believer here can easily reach the point where you can kill such people, believing that they are simply not people. If a person is one whose IQ is not lower than such and such a value, then such a patient, therefore, is not a person. And then its destruction will be considered as a social good! In Orthodoxy, we can define a person without the danger of losing some representative of humanity, regardless of what physical defects he has, what color of skin he has, nationality, education.

In Orthodox anthropology, there are two approaches to the definition of a person: trichotomous and dichotomous. According to the dichotomous, a person has a body and soul, and according to the trichotomous, a body, soul and spirit. The word "soul" is used here in different senses: the soul of the trichotomous system is the highest manifestation of the bodily, emotional, mental sphere. It is by the presence of this "corporeal" soul that we converge with our smaller brothers. Perhaps the latest research on monkeys suggests just that the mind, rationality, also belongs to this bodily area. The spirit, which makes us godlike, animals do not have. Another thing is why the Lord breathed His spirit into a person, could He breathe it into an amoeba? What, a spirit cannot fit into one cage? Maybe. The soul of a person is given to him immediately after fertilization, and there is only one cell, and there is already a spirit in this cell. So, the amoeba could be the same cell? But this is not. In the amoeba, apparently, there are no those abilities that could perceive the spirit. Man, on the other hand, is the most complex of the known living organisms, this is the fertile soil in which the grain of the spirit can germinate and bear fruit. Another thing is how we will deal with this grain, these are our personal problems.

This cardinal difference of a person can be observed even in the simplest situations. For example, a person has an aesthetic sense. It happens, of course, that birds bring flowers to their females. But this is not yet the aesthetics that a person has, which evaluates the world around him, singles out harmony in it, and this harmony causes a resonance, an amazing state of mind. And what can resonate with harmony? Not flesh, anyway. The presence of God in the beauty of the world - this is harmony, it takes your breath away, you see the sunrise or sunset: "Ah!" - and that's it. Man is "ah!" before sunset. I don't know if the younger brothers have this "ah!" Internally, I don't think so.

Dandelion death

Many are convinced that before the fall of man there was no death in the world at all: neither animals nor plants died (although plants were given for food from the very beginning).

In my concept, the death of a dandelion is death. And if so, then we will have to admit that the death of plants existed before the fall. Or we must introduce two concepts of death. Just as we introduced two concepts of "man" - biological and theological. The Scripture directly says about man that he was created immortal and after the fall he passed from one state to another, from immortality to mortality. Nothing is said about animals.

The point is that idle curiosity is alien to Orthodox theology. We have never attempted to find out in detail what is happening in hell, what is happening in heaven.

Orthodoxy is essentially very practical, it shows the way, teaches us how to go, and gives us faith. And what will happen there, then - go and see. The Bible says a lot about the world of the soul, about love - we will find a colossal number of references and direct commandments of Christ about this. Evangelist John ends his sermon with only one thing: children, love one another. If you love, love will teach you everything, it will teach you how to walk, how to communicate with people, everything will be fine. But about the creation of the world... This was told to the Jews, who had just spent several centuries in Egypt, probably infected with the Egyptian ideas about the universe, which had to be cut off immediately. There was no task to give a consistent picture of the creation of the world. It is said that the sun was created on the fourth day, respectively, the solar god Ra is in the backyard, animals that were also deified in Egypt, all these cats, birds, crocodiles, and so on, it turns out, were also not created on the first day. It is emphasized that they are created, they are not gods, they are creations, above all is the uncreated God, who has the nature of being in himself. Often they try to see a detailed scientific picture of the world in this stroke, but this is wrong.

Geese and cannonade

– Protecting the rights of animals is now very fashionable. People do not eat meat, do not wear fur, protest against experiments on rats, against animal testing of cosmetics and medicines. Should a Christian be involved in this?

- If he sees that someone is senselessly mocking an animal, he should intervene. But we are not defending the rights of animals, we are defending the morality of the divine law. We fight the spread of malice and hatred. For the sake of cosmetics, the animal should not be tortured - cosmetics are not vital. And if a vaccine is needed so that people do not die, I think it can be tested on animals. This limit must be defined by the individual. It is impossible to give a list here: it is possible, but it is impossible. It seems to me that we just need to cultivate a sense of conscience in a person, and he himself will feel the line that it is better not to step over. I personally think that if St. Sergius could walk in leather shoes, then, therefore, this is already unprincipled.

- Is it necessary to save the endangered Amur tiger?

Just not to the detriment of the person. If it enriches the gene pool of nature, which, again, a person uses.

- But a man does not use a tiger!

He doesn't use a tiger. The gene pool is a kind of complex, in which there should be a fairly large variety, we use something directly and something indirectly. Then, we never know what we will need tomorrow. But if it turned out that in order to save the Amur tiger, we need to leave twenty thousand people without food, without territory ... If a tribe is dying and it is necessary to kill the last representative of the species from the Red Book - say, a whale, then it is better to kill the whale than people will die.

- And hunting can be an occupation of a Christian, what do you think?

I myself hunted, but even before baptism I gave up. I once had a dream: I heard, as if far, far away, a military cannonade was coming, beyond the horizon. And slowly this cannonade begins to approach me. I see a flock of geese flying and firing around them. And now they fly further, and the cannonade goes further, further, further after them. I woke up no longer a hunter. That is, if I had to feed my family, there would be no problem. Such hunting is simply an inevitable or hard to avoid evil of our sinful world. But when they hunt for pleasure, it seems to me that this is wrong. Now for the sake of food in Russia, almost no one hunts, this is already more entertaining. Moreover, some hunters generally do not eat what they kill. They don’t like this food: why, because you can get good food. And this boar still needs to be boiled for several hours, just to chew. I remember someone brought us a piece of elk from the hunt at the university. It was boiled, in my opinion, for six hours, until it became possible to eat it.

Please note: some people cannot cut off the head of a fish that flutters. It's one thing when we overpower this normal reaction for the sake of the fact that we need to feed someone. And another thing is when we turn it into the norm or even into pleasure. I think it's some kind of bitterness. Because for a Christian, killing is unnatural.

• Save a cat - kill 75 sheep- Maxim Stepanenko

What about stray dogs? They are dangerous, but the trapping service simply kills them - should the Christian conscience put up with this?

It's like a war. Stray dogs can be a direct threat, and there are cases where these dogs form packs where they are even more dangerous. A wolf does not attack a person, but dogs just attack, so they have to be destroyed. But at the same time, it is a pity for them, of course, because in this situation our fault is that we have bred them. Here is a feeling of universal human guilt, this is our universal human oversight that we abandoned these dogs, and now we are forced to kill them. Now it’s good, there is sterilization of animals. And before, they usually drowned puppies. We had a poodle. She had the first litter of about ten puppies, the second litter was also somewhere around that, and I drowned the puppies if I could not give them away. At the same time, the very fact of killing puppies with a disease resonated in the soul. And then we just got baptized. And I got to Father John (Krestyankin), I had many questions, and here I say, father, I am ashamed, I have such a question. He says: well, what? I say: yes, this is the situation, the dog is whelping, the soul does not lie to kill these puppies, you understand. I can sink, but it's hard. He says: if you don't want to kill, everything will work out. As a result, the dog gave birth to only two live puppies and several stillborn ones. I didn't have to kill anyone.

In Austria, it is forbidden to keep chickens in cramped cages, in Argentina, a chimpanzee is equal in rights to a person, and in Switzerland, the courts decide who the pet will stay with if the owners divorce.

Austria: chicken cage

Once in the Russian outback, the Austrian is likely to be horrified by the conditions of keeping pets. According to the animal protection law introduced in Austria in 2004, chickens are not allowed to be kept in cramped cages, and livestock cannot be tied with tight ropes.

But legislators were especially reverent about dogs. It is forbidden to keep them on a chain, dog sled racing on asphalt, and docking of ears and tails. Moreover, the export of dogs with docked tails and ears is also prohibited (the exception is animals born before January 1, 2008).

If it seems to the authorities that someone is abusing their pet, the latter may well be taken away, and the violator faces a fine of up to € 7,000 or even imprisonment.

Switzerland: court on the side of the cat

The courts in Switzerland resolve the problems not only of people, but also of animals. When spouses divorce, it is the servant of the law who determines with which of the owners the pet will remain, based on the interests of the latter. So, if a husband bought a dog or a cat, but does not have time to fully engage with the animal, most likely, in the event of a divorce, the animal will be given to his wife. The law protects all pets without exception - from cats and dogs to guinea pigs and parrots.

If the owner is in debt, it is forbidden to confiscate the animal in payment of the debt. The Swiss believe that a pet should not be responsible for the actions of its owner. True, in this case it is not clear what the owner will feed his pet if he himself is left without money. However, the main thing for him is not to forget that in case of neglect of a pet, you can get a fine of up to 20,000 Swiss francs. So don't eat it yourself, give it to the dog.

Another “animal” issue is being resolved in a Swiss court. If a four-legged friend was injured due to someone else's fault, the judge may oblige the culprit to pay for the treatment of the animal at the veterinarian - regardless of its high cost and the cost of the victim himself.

India: 'special rights' for dolphins and other animals

One of the leading religions of India is Jainism, whose teaching says that all living things have a soul. It is not surprising that the attitude towards animals in this country is especially humane, and the cow is considered sacred at all. This animal, seen on the street without an owner, should be immediately reported to the nearest police station - after all, a cow can be hit by a transport, or it can eat something wrong and get sick, and even worse, die. Anyone who harms a cow will not be in trouble. For example, for her murder threatens up to 14 years in prison!

Wild animals have no less rights. In all states of India, except for Jammu and Kashmir, it is forbidden to hunt. For a single violation, one faces up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 rupees. For the second, in addition to the same prison term, the perpetrator will have to pay a fine of up to 25,000 rupees (negligent treatment of pets is softer, but also threatens with a real term - from one to two months in prison).

But if the cow and other animals of India have the right of inviolability, dolphins are generally equated with individuals. This status was awarded to them by the Ministry of Environment and Forests of India, which noted that cetaceans are intelligent and very sensitive. Therefore, they must have some kind of "special rights" and not perform on variety shows.

Argentina: a monkey is also a man

At the end of 2014, the whole world heard the story that happened in Buenos Aires. The Association of Professional Animal Rights Lawyers has filed a lawsuit to unlawfully imprison Sandra the orangutan (she spent about 20 years in the zoo; however, orangutans are sometimes even kept in human homes and adapting them back to the environment costs animal rights activists a lot of effort and money. Read about them and other unusual pets in our article).

The plaintiffs made very unusual arguments, stating that although the orangutan is not biologically identical to a person, it is emotionally very close to him. Consequently, he will feel much better in a semi-wild environment. The judge dismissed the complaint several times, but ultimately admitted that Sandra's lawyers were right. Thus, for the first time in Argentina, it was agreed that the orangutan has partial human rights - it is a free "non-human person" illegally deprived of liberty. And Sandra was sent to one of the Brazilian reserves.

In 2016, another Argentine judge ordered the release of the chimpanzee Cecilia from the Mendoza Zoo. The lawsuit was filed by the same Association of Professional Lawyers for Animal Rights. Its representatives said that the conditions of keeping the animal negatively affect its health. And they won again. Cecilia was also transferred to one of the reserves in Brazil.

Thailand: Elephant Nursing Homes

In Thailand, elephants are sacred animals and the national symbol of the country. Therefore, they have the rights enshrined in law. For example, they are entitled to a regulated working day that lasts no more than eight hours, passports and medical insurance. In addition, elephants are allowed to work only from 14 to 60 years old.

And at the age of 60 they retire, and for every elephant living in captivity, the state gives allowances in the form of peeled bananas. True, this applies only to those animals that have earned it with their labor. For retired elephants, the country has even created special nursing homes, where they can do “doing nothing” in their old age. However, not everyone lives to retirement age.

Italy: sleep on schedule

Perhaps, the Italian Turin approached the protection of animal rights most responsibly - orders on the rights of animals and the obligations of their owners take up a whole brochure of more than 20 pages!

So, the authorities of Turin make sure that the animals alternate day with night. If, for some reason, natural lighting in the life of an animal is impossible, it must be compensated by artificial lighting. At least from 9:00 to 17:00. Otherwise, the owner will have to pay a fine of €50 to €500. Business is business, but you can’t forget about the sleep of pets. It must be on schedule.

Dog owners who take their pets for walks less than three times a day face a fine of up to €500. And for the “business cards” of your pet not cleaned in a public place, you will have to pay up to €700.

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.