: 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,
I honestly am trying to understand your position. Ive read what you had to say (in the past as well) and its clear that you are a very intelligent person and your ideas/opinions are very well thought out and concise. Youve made it clear as to why you believe humans have the right to eat, test on, kill, etc... animals and we both know that nothing I or anyone else can say is going to sway you from your beliefs.
Having said that I would, however, be interested in knowing this:
Regaurdless of where they came from, who is superior, who has what "rights" etc.... animals are living beings that are on this earth and they do suffer physically and psychologically when inflicted w/ various delights from humans. When given the CHOICE to either; abuse, kill/maim, eat, etc.. animals or to simply use the alternatives to those barbaric practices and humans proceed to CHOOSE the former, than isnt that just evil? Isnt choosing to unnecessarily hurt and torture and kill for ones own pleasures evil, unkind, uncompassionate and selfish?
Do you personally have any feelings of kindness or affection towards animals? If you were to witness an animal suffering and screaming in extrutiating pain and terrified out of its mind would that bother you at all? Would you feel hurt or any sympathy or sorrow for the animal whatsoever?
Jeff
