Right Relationship between Farmer and Animals

In the final chapter of A Plea for the Animals, Ricard discusses animal rights and human obligations. Ricard states clearly that the rights of animals and humans are different based on their relative needs. He makes the point that: “Put a million dollars in front of a sheep: it won’t have much of a reaction, and if you take it away that won’t bother it at all. A man will react in a entirely different fashion.”

However, while our needs (and rights) may differ, they coincide perfectly at times. From a Buddhist perspective the most fundamental coincidence of human and animal rights is based on our ability to suffer, and the desire of all sentient beings to live a life free from undue suffering.

Ricard goes on to discuss the concept of moral agents and moral patients. Moral agents are those who are capable of deciding to do or not do what morality dictates. This presupposes an ability to formulate and understand notions of morality. Moral patients are those who are only affected by the morally good or bad actions of moral agents, and are “… incapable of formulating moral principles and deliberating on whether or not their actions have a moral basis before carrying them out.”

Humans are generally considered moral agents, but animals are generally considered to be moral patients. Moral agents recognise a duty to moral patients.

In short, it is in suffering that the interests of humans and animals as well as the principles of Buddhism clearly coincide. Further, humanity’s moral agency and the central tenets of Buddhism exhort humans to set aside any action that imposes suffering on animals.

This leaves Ricard to suggest that a seminal article of a hypothetical Universal Declaration of the Rights of Living Beings would by that “Every living being has the right to live and not be the victim of suffering imposed on it by others”.