Library of Animal Rights History » Animal Welfare-Animal Rights Activists-Advocates-Quotes Against Cruelty to Animals

Edward Byron Nicholson

1829-1888

1879 | Edward Byron Nicholson, The Rights of an Animal (London, 1879); Online at Animal Rights History, 2003.

The Rights of an Animal

In the history of thought the truth which is to-day's laughing-stock becomes to-morrow's doubt, the wisdom of the third day, and the child's lesson of the fourth.

Right and Wrong

MAYBE all men, and assuredly all men but the lowest savages, are aware of something within them which bids them do certain things and forbear doing certain other things, and which makes them angry with themselves when they have not listened to it. This something we English call, among other names, Conscience; what it bids us do we call Right, what it forbids Wrong.

Happiness: Rights

It is plain that freedom of action includes freedom to live (sharing the fruits of the earth, without which life cannot be supported), and to move. The claims of the individual to such freedom are called the 'Right' of Life and the 'Right' of Personal Liberty.…Man, therefor, has these rights so long as he does not trench upon the equal rights of other men. This is so generally allowed that it would not have needed proving here unless the proof had involved the proof of some other principle not generally allowed.…That other principle is that animals have the same abstract Rights of Life and Personal Liberty with man.

Conscience and Animal-Rights

The Conscience of the most civilized people tells them to treat animals kindly—in other words to consult the happiness of animals as well as that of each other.…It is true that in many cases where some selfish pleasure of man is at stake the same highly civilized people will still practice and defend cruelty. This, however, only shows that in most men Conscience has not yet reached its fullest development. And that it is developing steadily in favour of kindness to animals cannot be questioned…There has been a steady development of our English conscience towards greater kindness to (at least tame) animals—in other words, towards promoting their happiness.…And, when this development embodies itself in laws which fine and imprison a man for using what had been held time out of mind to be his rights over his own property, it is plain that we have already been silently recognizing that some animals at least have some rights.

Animal-Reason

To most animals have been given neither hands nor a speech, I take it, well fitted to convey many and complex thoughts : they are therefor denied the two chief means of culture. The time which they have for living and learning is but short: wild, their life is in some cases all fear and struggle; tame, they are under the rule of one who is often a bad master and seldom a good schoolmaster—man. Even thus we are driven to see in them, despite our contempt, and to acknowledge in them, despite our pride, numberless proofs of the same mental and moral faculties to which we ourselves lay claim often (though not always) different in degree, but not so in kind. Nay, if we are pressed we must admit that many animals are wiser and better than many men and some entire races, of men. And, since we cannot put down these faculties to instinct, ought we not rather to admire and cultivate than disparage and slight the animal-mind ? can we do less than forbear henceforth to bring forward the supposed defects of that mind as a ground for refusing to the animal what would otherwise be its rights as a feeling creature?

The Animal-Soul

The other common objection to allowing animals rights is that they 'have no soul,'…This objection [is no more to the point than the former [that they have no reason]. For put it thus—Animals will have no after life : that is a reason why they should be denied what would otherwise be their rights in the present one'—and its absurdity is plain. Nay, if animals have no chance of happiness in another life we should be the more careful to ensure their happiness in this.…But were the objection ever so much to the point it would still be a bad one. For in the first place it is not capable of proof and therefor cannot be used to bar a natural right. And in the second place, we allow souls to men, I cannot see how we are to deny them to animals.

The Neo-Cartesian View

That animals can not feel—has been put down to Des Cartes by Professor Huxley—but he seems to have overlooked a passage since pointed out in which Des Cartes says that he is speaking of thought and not of feeling, that he grants animals feeling in so far as it depends on the bodily organs, and that his theory is therefor not so cruel to animals as respectful to men. His followers, however, denied animals any kind of feeling, and so I call this view the Neo-Cartesian.

Limitations in Practice

ANIMALS, then, have in the abstract the same Right of Life and the same Right of Personal Liberty as we ourselves. And in a world where no animal did hurt or hindrance to man, and where room and food enough were always to be found by every living thing, no breach of these abstract rights would be warranted. Ours however is not such a world, and we need to break them only too often. When and why such breaches are allowable, I shall now try to show.

Although Nicholson allows for the use of animals by man, he does insist—

There can be no question that vegetable food alone will keep a man in the best health and strength.

Arguing this "economic point of view" he continues—

Vegetable food is known to be much cheaper than flesh-food. It is also known that the grass-land which yields flesh-food enough for one man to live on would yield vegetable food enough for several men. There are social conditions in which these things are worth thought. (Edward Nicholson, The Rights of Animals [1879], "Limitations in Practice")

Extracts from John Lawrence

I cannot now try to build up a life and character of Lawrence.…I will, however, put down a few things about him which I have gathered from glances at one or two of his writings.…Of his general views with regard, to animals he shall speak for himself, ["On the Rights of Animals", "On the Philosophy of Sports" and on "The Animal-Question"] and I shall be surprised if the reader does not agree with me that few men have better deserved to have carven on their tombs the words of Chaucer "Al was conscience and tendre herte."