Moving Beyond Animal Rights: A Legal/Contractualist Critique
Richard L. Cupp Jr.
Pepperdine University School of Law
May 29, 2009
San Diego Law Review, Vol. 46, 2009
Pepperdine University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009/11
Since important legal victories against racial discrimination and other forms of discrimination in the 1950s and 1960s, many legal scholars and lawyers have been increasingly attracted to the "romance of rights." For these scholars and lawyers, analogies to the civil rights movement seem especially appealing as vehicles for achieving societal change in new fields. Animal Law is perhaps the fastest growing field of study in American legal education and scholarship, and calls for legal rights for some or all animals are rapidly expanding. This Article critiques comparisons between rights sought for animals and rights assigned to infant humans, mentally incapable adult humans, and corporations. It argues that legal and societal reforms regarding animals are better suited to social contract - contractualist - ideals than to creation of new rights. Contrary to the increasingly frequent assertions of some animal rights theorists, appropriate treatment of animals in a manner that benefits society's overall interests is attainable through focusing on human responsibility for animal welfare under social contract principles. Developing an artificial construct of formal rights for animals would be harmful both to humans and, ultimately, to animals.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 59
Keywords: animal, animal rights, discrimination, civil rights, romance of rights, animal law, contract, social contract, contractualist, animal welfareAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 30, 2009
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.407 seconds