Aesthetic Injuries, Animal Rights, and Anthropomorphism
Jeffrey M. Skopek
Harvard Law School
February 1, 2009
Harvard Law Review, Vol. 122, No. 4, pp. 1204-1216, 2009
In 1386, a female pig was put on trial in France for causing the death of a child by tearing his face and arms. After being found guilty, the tribunal ordered that she be maimed in the head and upper limbs and then hanged in the public square. Today, animals hold a very different place in our law. As the subjects of extensive rights, they are no longer defendants, but rather aspiring plaintiffs in our courts.
This article explores one way in which private suits to enforce animal rights gain access to federal courts: by alleging that the unlawful treatment of animals is causing “aesthetic injury” to a human plaintiff. This type of suit has long been used to enforce regulatory and statutory protections of ecosystems and species, but it is only in the last decade that courts have recognized this type of injury in suits aimed at protecting individual animals.
The significance of this development has not been recognized, perhaps because in retrospect there appears to be no legally relevant distinction between the two types of aesthetic injuries. But the fact that this distinction is not relevant as a doctrinal matter does not mean that it is not of legal importance. Rather, the distinction runs parallel to a real and important underlying philosophical difference. Attention to this difference reveals that these cases mark the beginning of a private means of enforcing of animal rights.
This approach to enforcement may appear crude from the perspective of traditional animal rights theory, as it is only by being transformed into human harms that violations of animal rights are remedied by the courts. However, it is possible that the troubled place of animals in our legal system cannot, as some theorists propose, be solved by positive law alone. What might also be necessary is a change in human value judgments about what type of injuries count – a change that this development in standing doctrine represents.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 14
Keywords: animal rights, standing, aesthetic injuryAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 18, 2013
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.390 seconds