Although this response does not encompass the (count it) 20 questions asked in the previous analog discussion, I hope to give my opinion on the matter of animal rights.
As Americans, we have inherited a certain expectation of equality under the law where no man/woman/president/policeman are neither above nor exempt from its rule. Also known as the ‘rule of law’, it has been a mentality that has dominated our courts, our legislatures, and our everyday lives as human beings. Granted, many laws of late pervert this by forcing Lady Justice to peak behind her veil and determine such things as an individual’s ethnicity for enforcing hate crime laws or even an individual’s socioeconomic status for enforcing income tax brackets. But in this example, we can assume that all human beings are equal under the law.
However, this very assumption begins to get muddled and quickly becomes ridiculous when it is applied to the “rights” of animals. Before one can delve into the subtleties of animal rights, a definition of a right is in order. It can be said that everyone has only one right: the right to do as they wish so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another person. Conversely, something cannot be claimed as a right if it obligates another person to accommodate it. Operating under this assumption, can animals enjoy these rights?
The fundamental problem of the concept of animal rights comes straight from the name itself: “animal rights”. Unlike the all too commonly heard equivalent phrase, “human rights”, the difference is that this classification expands these perceived “rights” to everything in the animal kingdom. What people need to realize when addressing animal rights is that we cannot apply the inherit blindness of the rule of law to animals as we do to humans. We cannot assume inalienable rights to all animals. Why? Animals are far different than humans and even other animals, and are therefore treated differently: tuna fish have different rights than dolphins, dogs and different rights than cows, and cats have different rights than rabbits. But this still begs the question: can animals even have rights? Can animals be abused because they are simply one’s property? No and No. The intention in which one owns property must come into play in this situation. If one intends to keep a dog as a pet, one cannot then slaughter it for food the next day. If one intends to keep chlorine tablets for their pool, one cannot then use them to create chlorine bombs the next day. Conversely, if one intends to keep a cow for slaughter, then it is justified. The mere fact we have the right to property should not extend to the improper handling of it, such as abusing animals.
