A Bill of Rights for Pets?

In 1791, James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution. They enumerated specific basic human rights that governments are morally forbidden from limiting. This part of the Constitution is why the United States has freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. These rights were supported by the assumption that humans were born with specific rights endowed by God himself. Although the theistic reasoning for rights is no longer widely adhered to, the Bill of Rights is still highly influential today.

Much more recently, a new Bill of Rights has been proposed in the state of California. It’s not, however, an expansion or restriction of the rights protected by the Constitution. It’s a list of rights applied to domestic dogs and cats. The enumerated rights are:

“-Dogs and cats have the right to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse.

-Dogs and cats have the right to a life of comfort, free of fear and anxiety.

-Dogs and cats have the right to daily mental stimulation and appropriate exercise.

-Dogs and cats have the right to nutritious food, sanitary water, and shelter in an appropriate and safe environment.

-Dogs and cats have the right to preventive and therapeutic health care.

-Dogs and cats have the right to be properly identified through tags, microchips, or other humane means.

-Dogs and cats have the right to be spayed and neutered to prevent unwanted litters.”

This bill seems to fundamentally misunderstand what a right is supposed to be. To claim that an animal has rights, you need to claim that it has similar attributes to a human. Naturally, the first feature people tend to resort to is sentience. Sentience is usually defined as conscious experience. If a dog is sentient, then it feels like something to be a dog. Since most people can picture what it would feel like to be an animal, most agree that animals have sentience. However, this does not mean that animals are the same as humans. As humans, we know that we are human. We’re able to think in abstract ways. We can process object permanence and are able to control our actions despite our urges. None of these features could be applied to a dog. To codify animal rights into law, one would have to argue why sentience is enough to state that dogs and cats have rights.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that the assumptions underlying the dog and cat bill of rights are correct. Due to sentience, dogs and cats have rights similar to humans. Even if this were true, the bill would still be inconsistent with the rights enumerated toward humans. The Bill of Rights protects rights that cannot be taken away. Their rights are things people are born with, and the protection of those rights does not mandate an action from others. The government is not allowed to prevent free speech, but it does not have to help you speak. The government is not legally allowed to take your guns away, but they don’t have to give you guns. On the other hand, the rights enumerated toward cats and dogs mandate an action. No dog or cat would ever neuter itself, and they aren’t born with tags or trackers. Almost every right enumerated by the California bill requires owners to give their dogs services. If these rights are mandated services, how can the pets be born with these rights?

It seems like the bill is mostly driven by affection toward pets and a distaste for animal cruelty. I totally agree with these. Animal cruelty is certainly wrong, and as a former owner of three dogs I have a huge affection for pets. However, if this bill were really concerned with the inherent rights of animals, it would protect all animals. Affection for pets and disapproval of animal cruelty may be good things, but they don’t mean that animals have natural rights.