:: 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. That's the opinion of one who doesn't believe rights are ordained by
God. I'm just highlighting the root of our disagreement. I grant that
your's is a completely legitimate viewpoint if there is no God. My
basic argument is that you or anyone else who injects a moral component
into this discussion is suggesting that my morality is inferior to
yours. Yet your morality, if not based on an ecclesistical standard,
can only be based on your opinion. Opinion is not morality. The
opinions of the ARA's are dwarfed by those who oppose them which should
give pause to any ARA who also ostensibly espouses democracy.
Furthermore, to suggest that certain aspects of Buddism or Hinduism
are accepting of your premise is only a subjugation of an
ecclesiastical standard and is the height of arrogance. I'm answering
Mr. Jaikumar with this - not you. I don't recall you referring to these
religions.
:: 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.
Try as you may Kevin, you have no hope of seeing the world from a
non-anthropocentric perspective. The mere assertion that this is
possible is laughable. The objectivity you seek here requires you to
think like a cow. Our superiority is manifest. The only moral component
that can be legitimately raised is the failure of man to properly
manage his resources, of which animals are a part.
Stuart Gort
