Keywords
Ambientalismo, derechos de la naturaleza, derechos de los animales, Ambientalism, enviromental rights, animals rights
¿Son la protección del Medio Ambiente y la defensa de los derechos de los animales compatibles?
Abstract
En los últimos años, la defensa de los derechos de los animales ha pasado de ser un tema fundamentalmente académico a una cuestión jurídica que ha provocado algunos cambios legales. La discusión en torno a los derechos de los animales se ha movido entre el abolicionismo y el regulacionismo. La primera exige la desaparición de las relaciones entre los seres humanos y los animales porque estas siempre implicarán la explotación y el dominio de los primeros sobre los segundos. La segunda considera que siempre van a existir relaciones entre humanos y animales y que estas relaciones pueden ser justas o injustas. Si lo que queremos es lo primero, será necesario realizar cambios legales para proteger el interés de los animales. En este sentido, las propuestas son diversas, desde aquellas que reclaman, por ejemplo, una mayor regulación de la ganadería industrial que incluya un espacio mínimo, la protección de la salud, el bienestar y unas buenas condiciones para estos animales a otras, más ambiciosas, que reclaman el reconocimiento de la plena ciudadanía para los animales domésticos.
Los efectos de la ganadería industrial y el consumo de carne sobre el cambio climático y el calentamiento global han sido ampliamente estudiados. La preocupación sobre estos importantes daños que amenazan la vida en el planeta ha llevado a aprobar algunos Tratados Internacionales y acuerdos como el de París de 2015. Además, el discurso sobre los derechos de los animales y la protección medioambiental no siempre han compartido objetivos y estrategias. El ambientalismo puede llevar en ocasiones a la muerte de animales si su vida afecta al equilibrio de los ecosistemas. Y si entendemos que todos los animales tienen un derecho moral primario a la vida, entonces el animalismo y el ambientalismo parecerían ser incompatibles
En esta intervención se analizará la compatibilidad entre ambas posiciones. En primer lugar, ¿cuál es el significado del derecho al medio ambiente? ¿Quién es el titular de este derecho? ¿El medioambiente o el ser humano que tiene interés en cuidar el planeta en el que vive? En este último caso, ¿el titular del derecho seríamos los hombres que existimos hoy en día o también las generaciones futuras? Cuando hablamos de derechos de los animales, ¿quién es el titular, los propios animales o también el ser humano? Si la respuesta es que los animales son agentes morales y miembros de la comunidad moral y, en consecuencia, titulares de derechos, ¿cómo podemos hacer compatibles estos derechos con los derechos humanos y el derecho al medio ambiente? En la intervención se estudiarán las diversas respuestas a estas cuestiones viendo si ambos objetivos pueden alcanzarse conjuntamente.
In the last years the discourse about animal rights has passed from the academia discussion to some legal changes in some countries considering animals as sentient beings. The debate about animal rights has moved in the framework of the discussion between abolitionism and regulation. The first one demands the elimination of the relations among human beings and animals because those relations always imply domination and slavery (Francione, 2008). Following this contention, the solution would be leaving animals in their environment without any intervention of human beings. The second one considers that there are ways of relationship between animals and humans that can be just; what it is necessary is doing some legal changes in order to protect animal interests, for example, considering that animals are not property objects but beings who suffer and it is necessary to eliminate or reduce that suffering. The proposals are diverse: from those ones who argue for reduce suffering in the industrial farming regulating the space, the health protection and the feeding of these animals (Garner, 2010) to other ones, more ambitious, who demand full citizenship to domesticated animals (Donaldson & Kymlicka, 2011). These different contentions depend on the conception on rights they support and on if they do consider or not animals as moral subjects and, in consequence, they can hold moral and legal rights. The effects of industrial farming and meat consumption over climate change and global warming have been studied (Safran Foer, 2009). The preoccupation about these important dangers to the life in the planet has addressed countries to make some International Conventions and Agreements like the one adopted in Paris in 2015. However, these agreements and the different documents and rules that each country has approved use to be very general and, surprisingly, they do not pay attention to the effects of industrial farming over global warming and their effects over climate change. However, the discourse about animal rights and the protection of the environment not always have shared their objectives and their strategies. Environmentalism can imply sometimes the death of animals if their life can affect the equilibrium of the ecosystems (Faria, 2011). If we understand that all animals have a primary moral right to life, then environmentalism and animalism would be incompatible. In this paper the question about if the legal protection of environment and the legal protection of animals are or not compatible will be analyzed. To answer this question, it is important to clarify some concepts that are behind. Firstly, what is the meaning of the right to a healthy Environment? Who is the holder of this right? The Environment, as some Latino American constitutions have included in recent reforms, or the human being who has an interest in take care of the planet where we live? In this last case, are present human beings the holders or also future generations (Rodriguez Palop, 2002)? Secondly, when we talk about animal rights, who is the holder of these rights, the animals or the human beings? If the answer is that animals are moral agents and members of the moral community and subjects of rights how can we make compatible with human rights and in concrete with the right to a healthy Environment? In this paper the combination of the different answers to these questions will be examined trying to see if the protection of animals and environment is compatible. The analysis will be made from the perspective of legal philosophy using and studying the different cases and the consequences derived for each one with reference to the necessary legal changes would be required to do. In this sense, some concrete cases of legal changes will be used as examples of the arguments that are exposed.
In the last years the discourse about animal rights has passed from the academia discussion to some legal changes in some countries considering animals as sentient beings. The debate about animal rights has moved in the framework of the discussion between abolitionism and regulation. The first one demands the elimination of the relations among human beings and animals because those relations always imply domination and slavery (Francione, 2008). Following this contention, the solution would be leaving animals in their environment without any intervention of human beings. The second one considers that there are ways of relationship between animals and humans that can be just; what it is necessary is doing some legal changes in order to protect animal interests, for example, considering that animals are not property objects but beings who suffer and it is necessary to eliminate or reduce that suffering. The proposals are diverse: from those ones who argue for reduce suffering in the industrial farming regulating the space, the health protection and the feeding of these animals (Garner, 2010) to other ones, more ambitious, who demand full citizenship to domesticated animals (Donaldson & Kymlicka, 2011). These different contentions depend on the conception on rights they support and on if they do consider or not animals as moral subjects and, in consequence, they can hold moral and legal rights. The effects of industrial farming and meat consumption over climate change and global warming have been studied (Safran Foer, 2009). The preoccupation about these important dangers to the life in the planet has addressed countries to make some International Conventions and Agreements like the one adopted in Paris in 2015. However, these agreements and the different documents and rules that each country has approved use to be very general and, surprisingly, they do not pay attention to the effects of industrial farming over global warming and their effects over climate change. However, the discourse about animal rights and the protection of the environment not always have shared their objectives and their strategies. Environmentalism can imply sometimes the death of animals if their life can affect the equilibrium of the ecosystems (Faria, 2011). If we understand that all animals have a primary moral right to life, then environmentalism and animalism would be incompatible. In this paper the question about if the legal protection of environment and the legal protection of animals are or not compatible will be analyzed. To answer this question, it is important to clarify some concepts that are behind. Firstly, what is the meaning of the right to a healthy Environment? Who is the holder of this right? The Environment, as some Latino American constitutions have included in recent reforms, or the human being who has an interest in take care of the planet where we live? In this last case, are present human beings the holders or also future generations (Rodriguez Palop, 2002)? Secondly, when we talk about animal rights, who is the holder of these rights, the animals or the human beings? If the answer is that animals are moral agents and members of the moral community and subjects of rights how can we make compatible with human rights and in concrete with the right to a healthy Environment? In this paper the combination of the different answers to these questions will be examined trying to see if the protection of animals and environment is compatible. The analysis will be made from the perspective of legal philosophy using and studying the different cases and the consequences derived for each one with reference to the necessary legal changes would be required to do. In this sense, some concrete cases of legal changes will be used as examples of the arguments that are exposed.
Información detallada
Materias, derechos, colecciones e identificadores
URI / Handle
http://hdl.handle.net/11531/42910Rights
Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada España