Quote:
|
Originally Posted by [Dan]
Alright do people have rights then? If they do, and animals don't, what's the difference? Don't tell me it's because they're lower in the food chain, cause we can eat humans too..
|
Yes, people have rights.
My argument goes like this:
The difference between other animals and man is reason. If we found an animal that was capable of understanding what a right is and could therefore respect other people's rights, it would get rights, too. Having rights implies accepting rights of others. It's an agreement between rational beings to make civilized life among one another possible.
This can't possibly work if you include animals in the picture. Animals can't possibly have a clue what the concept of having and respecting rights implies. If a stray dog attacks you and bites you, it can't possibly know that it violated your rights. If rats eat your food, they don't know that it was your property. The very idea of rights is way beyond animal cognition.
You need to be able to understand and respect rights to have them. That's why we restrict certain rights for kids because they lack the capacity to understand them and therefore to respect the corresponding rights of others.
Also, animals can't possibly excercise their rights, because they don't even know that they have them. Animal rights, as far as I see it, are a political means for radicals to enforce their subjective views about what's right upon people. They claim to be "the spokesperson of the animal kingdom" (on which basis?) to ensure that their rights (which they don't even understand).
Another thing to consider (but this isn't essential) is that rights need to be enforced by someone if they are to be more than just a pipedream. This cost time, money and effort that has to be made by someone. If you allow rights to animals, then you have the strange situation that humans have to work (pay taxes for police, courts, etc.) to ensure the rights of animals.
I don't like the thought of seeing animals tortured either. People who enjoy seeing animals tortured should really seek counsel. But that is not a reason to grant animals rights. It's not a reason to make something legal that makes no sense at all simply on the basis of a gut feeling.
You can condemn people who hurt animals unneccessarily. But you can't make a law against it. It would lack a reasonable basis. And laws shouldn't be based on feelings.
I'm not here to promote the irrational torture of animals. I find this as sick as anyone else. I share the feeling-part of it. But I just don't think that's enough to make a law about it. My point was that there is no reasonable basis to grant animals rights.