Essay: The Rights of Animals by Brigid Antonia Brophy
About the Essayist
Brigid Antonia Brophy
Brigid Antonia Brophy
(12 June 1929 – 7 August 1995) was a British author, essayist, and critic. She
was known for her diverse and intellectually challenging works, which covered a
wide range of topics, including literature, art, feminism, and animal rights.
Brophy's
literary career included novels, plays, essays, and works of non-fiction. Some
of her notable works include the novels "Flesh," "Hackenfeller's
Ape," and "The Snow Ball," as well as the non-fiction book
"Mozart the Dramatist." In addition to her literary contributions,
Brophy was a prominent advocate for animal rights. She wrote extensively on the
subject and was an active supporter of animal welfare causes.
The Main Gist of the Essay
In this text, the author urges human
beings not to kill animals.The writer says that human beings should treat animals with
more respect.Animals have the same
right to live on earth as humans.People are selfish and are hurting animals for their
satisfaction.The author argues that
animals should be allowed to live, just as humans do.The use of animals for the experimental testing of drug treatment is somewhat correct. But it is not good
to kill animals for any reason.The author argues that human beings must behave decently
toward animals.She asserts that human
beings’ relation to animals is one of continuous exploitation and argues that
we are under a moral obligation to respect their rights and spare them pain and
terror.
Summary of the Text
In the essay, The Rights of
Animals, the essayist Brigid Brophy urges human beings
to treat animals with due respect. She suggests that people not exploit animals for
any reason. She wittily argues that the responsibility of human beings is to
behave decently toward animals. She asserts that our relationship with animals
is one of unremitting (continual) exploitation and
argues that we are under a moral obligation to respect their rights and spare
them pain and terror.
The
essayist observed that "the exploitation of the other animal species by
the human-animal species is the most unscrupulous, the cruelest, the most
nearly universal and the longest-lasting exploitation of one class by another
class in the history of the world. And the pattern of mental blind spots that
allows us to do it is a pattern very easily adaptable to any other of the
(fashionable) tyrannies. Brophy notes that while many political activists
include animal rights in their political agenda, others feel that bringing
animal rights into politics diverts attention and energies from more important
issues, from the real struggle. Brophy is concerned that those who practice
"selective intellectual blindness" toward animals may find it easier
to ignore the agonies of unpopular fellow humans.
In the
essay, the essayist talks about the rights of animals and says that animals,
like human beings, have souls, so they mustn't be teased and killed. She adds
that animals, too, have the right to survive on the earth. The forest is
their home, but human beings trap them and put them in zoos and circuses. She
suggests that instead of trapping animals for business, jobless people should
be given physical art training so that they would be involved in productive
work.The writer advocates that
animals should be given the freedom to live their life on their own. She
says that animals should not be killed for consumption; rather, they should be protected. She writes, "If we are going to
rear and kill animals for our food, I think we have a moral obligation to spare
them pain and terror." There is no reason to torture animals or put
them through unnecessary pain. There are many ways to kill an animal without
causing it any pain. According to the writer, many other hygienic foods
can replace animal meat. So, animals must not be tamed
(domesticated) to eat. She is against animal sacrifice in the name of God.
She further says that there is no reason at all to kill the fish from the ocean
and the animals from the forest. Animals can be used for the clinical trial however,
they should not be killed for any reason.To sum up, the writer is
against animal exploitation and asks people to protect and preserve animals.
Cranks and Kill Animals
The
essayist says that every new voice for rights seems cranky (odd/bizarre/strange).
Talking about the rights of slaves would have been considered crass in the ancient world; similarly, in the future, it will seem unbelievable that we do not notice the
immorality of our oppression of animals.Animal exploiters justify themselves by saying
that they are saving animals from winter and that calves do not mind being tied up
because they have never known anything else. The writer is a vegetarian. She
says we eat meat to get joy, but by killing an animal, we put an end to all the
animals' joys along with its life.
Sentimentality
Here, she rejects being a sentimentalist
and is ignorant of economic realities. She says that she won't kill an animal
to eat it, but she will willingly eat an animal that has died of old age, and
the body is kept hygienic. In this sense, she is not a sentimentalist because
she does not respect dead bodies, whereas others never will eat a dead animal.
In this sense, she can save food that could go to waste. It means she is more
aware of economic realities than others. According to her, it is our moral
obligation not to cause pain to domestic animals. They also feel hurt. Even if
we save them from pain, we don't have the right to kill them just because
we like their taste.
The Only Genuine Moral Problem
If there
is a direct clash between an animal's life and a human's, we have
the only genuine moral problem to choose human life over an animal's life. Meat
is not essential to human life; our diet doesn't propose such a clash.Vivisection (doing a scientific experiment), hunting, and
sacrificing activities are atrocities (cruelty). One of the saddest and most
foolish of our superstitious beliefs about sacrificing animals is our belief
that by killing them, we can somehow survive. If we ban animal acts from circuses, many unemployed acrobats and jugglers will get jobs. She does not keep animals
superior or equal to human beings. She just wants that be a superior species,
rational beings who are capable of moral choice- it is our moral obligation and
duty to recognize and respect the rights of animals.
Posts
Post a Comment