Who confers rights to animals?Nature? No, I don't think nature could enforce that right even if was to exist naturally. The lamb is not naturally protected from the lion. The lamb has no right not to die to feed him. Evolution as a theory or as an established fact is not ascribed a cognitive capability - is it?
God? No, I don't think God has confered any right to lambs not to die for the sake of lions. Not that I've seen anyway. If true, however, nature breaks God's law every day millions of times. Something very incongruous in a God that can't enforce His will on even the least of life forms.
Man? Of course! The capability of man to think in the abstract and conceptualize is the basis of any right said to exist. The only other position to hold is that man is a conduit or administrator of rights which eminate from a greater intellect. Therefore, there are no rights that exist outside of the purview of man. Hence, there are no animal rights that exist that are not confered upon animals by man.
Furthermore, should man ever choose to confer equal rights to animals to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those rights are only as good as man's desire to enforce them. There is no legitimate right confered upon any group that isn't enforced through the collective power of the state. An unenforced right is no right at all.
But the state isn't going to enforce animal rights is it? Not until there is enough of a majority that wishes it. When that happens, laws will be passed and enforced that will protect animals from human dominance. One can argue that, because it is not currently illegal, it is not necessarily moral - and that is a good point. But once you throw this argument into the realm of morality and immorality, you must then argue the basis of that morality. Then I will have to be convinced why, if morality is a human construct, that the current meating eating, animal testing, and animal exploiting nature of man is immoral. It is the accepted practice of the day. The only other position that can be argued is that morality and immorality are determined by some ecclesistical standard apart from man. Then we get to argue religion a little more.
Do you folks understand that the spiritual facet of man is far more important than the rational and factual aspects? Isn't it wonderful how this issue forces the soul to introspection and forces those who will not acknowledge God to argue superficially and peripherally?
Stuart Gort
