Professor Markus Wild researches animal philosophy at the University of Basel. He advocates basic rights for primates, calls for a different animal protection law and explains why he describes whales as flagship species. <\/p>\n\n
How should we assess the role of animals in our society?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n The word I always use is schizophrenia. We have a lot of animals in our society. On the one hand, we are very fond of certain animals. There’s a dog lying here next to us [during the interview he’s lying in the office next to us]. Titus. He has already had two operations and has traveled a lot. He knows people who pet him. I can justify all that. On the other hand, we have an incredible number of animals that we don’t take care of, either because they are a factor in the production of meat and milk or because they stupidly cross a road at mating time. They have no intrinsic value. <\/p>\n\n Doesn’t an animal have a basic value that distinguishes it from humans?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Animals are a large category. These include mammals, but also insects and worms. If we now look at vertebrates, there is one view that is relatively stable: they are sentient. They can have positive and negative feelings. They can feel good or bad. We share that with them. But we humans have a second level. We can give meaning to “feeling good or bad”. An effort is worthwhile because I am doing something for my health. We look at ourselves from the outside, so to speak. But basically we are animals too. <\/p>\n\n Is this problematic if we only value animals in relation to humans?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n We don’t just evaluate them in relation to humans. We have a common evolutionary history. Animals had already experienced pain or pleasure before we existed. Our species has evolved from this. I see humans and animals as members of one big family. Of course, there is always the problem that we project our characteristics onto animals. And we have to be careful when anthropomorphizing animals. <\/p>\n\n The main problem, however, is that we dehumanize animals. We don’t take seriously enough how they are related to us. I call this moral downgrading. <\/p>Professor Markus Wild<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n But wasn’t the humanization of the whale in the Baltic Sea problematic? The whale was given a name and described almost like a pet? Isn’t the protective effect stronger if we understand whales as wild animals in the high seas? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n The case is very complex. It has different levels. Over decades, we have made the whale a flagship species, like the gorilla and the polar bear. <\/p>\n\n What does that mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n The gorilla represents the jungle, the polar bear the north and the whale the sea. That was actually a good idea. They became ambassadors for the preservation of these habitats. But this has given the animals an enormous emotional charge. Now there is also the huge media attention. Even if it had made sense to euthanize this whale, it would no longer have been possible. And that is a negative consequence of the attention. <\/p>\n\n Does it make sense for animal welfare to reduce the difference between humans and animals?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n It is actually the oldest concern of animal welfare. We should recognize that we are very closely related to each other – without overlooking certain differences. In addition to the scientific perspective, there is also religious animal welfare, which sees humans and animals as sisters and brothers. And there are people with a very deep emotional connection to animals. In recent years, animal welfare has been supplemented with an urgency that was perhaps not so massive 100 years ago: the destruction of habitat. In addition, despite the vegan movement, global meat consumption is on the rise. Chickens are the most affected. Chickens are the poorest pigs among farm animals. No farm animal’s life has less value globally than chickens. <\/p>\n\n Should animals not be regarded as a source of food?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n This is a view that I hold, and it goes beyond animal welfare. It is the view of animal rights. The basic idea is that animals, as sentient beings, have a right to life. They have the right not to be inflicted with pain. We also concede these rights to humans. This leads to a completely different way of dealing with animals. Behind the vegan movement, to which I belong, is this idea of animal rights. It is the idea that we should not use animals for ourselves. Although there are still misconceptions about this, such as that the Amazon is being cut down to produce tofu for vegans. That’s nice, but wrong. The Amazon is being cut down to produce feed for animals that we then eat. <\/p>\n\n Animals also eat other animals.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n The difference between humans and animals is important here. We have a second level. We consider how we behave and we think morally. That’s why we have a different responsibility for our behavior than animals. However, there is evidence that animals also think morally. There are amazing forms of care. But of course, nature is not just a beautiful place. <\/p>\n\n You spoke out in favor of these basic rights during the debate on the primate initiative, which aimed to grant primates basic rights in the canton of Basel-Stadt. How close are we to primates? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n Biologically speaking, they are the creatures most closely related to us. But even within the great apes, the range is wide. But what’s more: more and more differences are disappearing. We find that there are also apes that share the care of their young, use tools or form complex social groups. This is why primates are the most convincing case for animal rights. What is important is that fundamental rights for animals are not human rights. Fundamental rights for animals can be structured differently. <\/p>\n\n Can you give an example?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n I am an advocate of fundamental rights for animals. However, I believe that under certain circumstances it is right to euthanize an animal against its will. However, this does not mean that I believe that this would be right for humans. In the public debate before the Basel vote, fundamental rights for animals and human rights were sometimes confused. I can understand that too. Fundamental rights for animals is a new idea. <\/p>\n\n Would the consequence be that at some point all animals would receive a basic right?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n There are different opinions. I take the position that fundamental rights are strongly linked to sentience. This would mean that all vertebrates are entitled to fundamental rights. With rights, however, there is a second side to the claim. There needs to be a reason to protect the claim. In the case of monkeys, for example, it is the protection of habitats or the fact that they are endangered species. They need strong protection. Other animals don’t need that. Wild boars are obviously sentient mammals. But at the moment they are the most successful animal in terms of dispersal. They are now almost everywhere. <\/p>\n\n Today, animal welfare is often defined by minimum areas or husbandry conditions. Is this simply a pragmatic approach? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n Animal welfare is not new. It originated around 200 years ago. England introduced the first animal protection laws 200 years ago. They were always laws against cruelty, and they prevented a lot of cruelty. <\/p>\n\n What were the triggers?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n When railroads first appeared, calves were transported by train. To save space, their legs were tied together. The calves were stacked. They could not stand. When the wagons stood in the stations, the animals’ fear and pain was audible. That’s why some animal rights activists came from the railroad industry. They spent nights listening to what was happening in the carriages. Today, the Animal Welfare Act is actually an animal use law. It legitimizes the use of animals. We are caught up in insanely petty bureaucratic discussions. We discuss 30 cm more space for a pig with young. We define minimum standards, which are always in terms of productivity. That is why I am not a critic of animal welfare, but a critic of the Animal Welfare Act. It is now preventing real progress. <\/p>\n\n How should the law be changed?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n One possibility would be to introduce the aforementioned basic rights. This would exclude commercial use. Another approach would be higher standards, organic, or better still higher. This would mean that animal products would become very expensive. They would become a luxury product. To prevent only a few people from being able to afford it, an unconditional basic income could be introduced. Everyone could theoretically afford meat, but they could also use the money for other things. Or you could change production completely. Insects would be a better source of animal protein. However, what all approaches have in common is that they all seem utopian. And that shows how deeply rooted the exploitation of animals is in our culture. The word “exploitation” is not exaggerated or ideological. It is our choice whether we continue this exploitation. The animals have no choice. <\/p>\n\n Doesn’t this view focus too strongly on farm animals as a food product? A pet or a guide dog also brings benefits. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n I mentioned livestock as part of food production because this is by far the largest part. This also includes wild-caught fish. And here we are talking about a very specific benefit. We kill the animal and cut it up. Of course I also “use” a guide dog. But someone who “uses” a guide dog has to have a very good relationship with the animal. That is possible. We could also design our living space in such a way that relationships with animals work better. We need to be more on an equal footing with them. A dog, for example, gives me something, structures my day and has an important function for my health. I give it food and take care of its health and safety. When you have a partnership like that, it’s not really a relationship of use. <\/p>\n\n So that brings us back to humanization?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Above all, we need to learn a lot more about them. Animal husbandry benefits from us knowing more about them. Many animals were used in the First World War. Many horses died. They had to be killed because they were seriously injured when being loaded onto a train. People knew too little about horses back then. They panicked during loading. They injured themselves and had to be killed. This could be avoided simply by not leading them from the light into the dark. You can know things like that if you think about what the world looks like from the animal’s point of view. Incidentally, that’s why I have Titus with me when I teach. <\/p>\n\n What can it contribute to teaching?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n He always reminds us that there is a perspective that is not ours. How does Titus see the world? I call this “animal mainstreaming”. There is a different perspective to ours. <\/p>\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Professor Markus Wild researches animal philosophy at the University of Basel. He advocates basic rights for primates, calls for a different animal protection law and explains why he describes whales as flagship species. How should we assess the role of animals in our society? The word I always use is schizophrenia. We have a lot…","protected":false},"author":52,"featured_media":18631,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"image","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[573],"tags":[],"post_label":[1090],"class_list":["post-18634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-image","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-from-the-sector","post_format-post-format-image","post_label-the-philanthropist"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n