- Anything Else -RightsIn Reply to: Animal Rights? posted by Stuart Gort on March 19, 1999 at 12:29:51:
There are those who argue that the concept of "rights" is based on a system of inequality, inadequacy, and exploitation which does not exist in non-human nature. Consider slaves, women, minors, people labeled "handicapped". All of these people are granted rights by those in power. Those in power, in theory, have all the rights, while those people I just mentioned traditionally, and in many cases still today, only have some of those powers. Extending "rights" to animals, therefore, often serves to place "limits" on the amount of respect that animals get from humans. This, in the view of many people, is flawed. Consider that it is illegal to shoot a dog for no reason, yet it is not illegal to shoot a deer for no reason if the time of year is right. It is not illegal to beat a wild racoon to death, but to do so to a doq would warrant stiff fines. To do so to a human would warrant more severe punishment. In the past, the penalty for doing such a thing to an African-American would be about the same as if it had been done to a dog. This is termed "pseudo-speciation", where another member of our species is seen as a different species (in essence), and since traditionally other species are seen as lesser in the "rights" hierarchy. If one takes the time to consider this from an objective, non-anthropocentric perspective, one must recognize that this rationalization of our superiority is absurd. For interesting reading on the concept of "rights" as a human construct, try reading John A Livingston's "Rightness or Rights?" in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal. I will try to track down the specific reference for you. It might help to debunk some of the anthropocentrism of your argument.
|