All of creation, in part and as a package, has the right to responsible and careful treatment where and when placed in the hands of human beings.
A non-human creature cannot violate another creature’s rights. A non-human creature cannot violate a human being’s rights. However, the responsibility of human beings to provide careful and responsible treatment with regard to any and all aspects of creation when placed in the hands of human care, gives rise to the inference of ‘a violation to the rights’ of the creature in any circumstance in which a human being is abusive, corrupt, polluting, neglectful, or behaving with malicious disregard.
A right is what is right regarding the creature, whether human or otherwise, the opposite of a wrong. Only human beings can commit a 'wrong' or support what is right with regard to one another or another creature. So it is the responsibility of the human being(s) to take care to see that other creatures are not abused, corrupted or treated in any ill manner. We know it when we see it and act accordingly... hey you, don't kick that kitty, throw that stuff in the river, etc. cause its ... just wrong.
Simply ask your self if it would be a better world and what is stopping society from living by such a standard. If you can think of any good reason, I'd be interested in seeing it.
The only ones I can think of are the tendencies for us to abuse, corrupt, pollute, neglect, or behave with malicious disregard.”
Professor Gary L. Francione goofed when he said, "...current legal standard of animal welfare does not and cannot establish rights for animals. As long as they are viewed as property, animals will be subject to suffering for the social and economic benefit of human beings." (This poor guy actually wasted his time writing a book on the legalities of animal rights).
You cannot light your kitty on fire and drag it behind your truck for kicks. Common sense always did trump the scribes, pharisees, lab coat clerics, and the educated elite ...
I agree that rights are possessed by the entity as a matter of its state of being, according to how it was inherently created. I, however, disagree that an interest in gain or loss is endemically involved.
All creatures suffer from time to time, humans included, without that suffering necessarily being an issue of right and wrong. Animals suffer all the time without it being an issue of right vs. wrong. Where rights of other creatures are at issue, responsibility of human care and treatment is unavoidably entangled.
Malicious and cruel treatment of a creature is wrong. Cows don't have human rights they have cow's rights. The two are equal and not incompatible. A cow is a beast. Beasts have a different nature than humans. So, when considering a beast’s rights we must also include its natural condition. It is not a violation of a beast’s rights to be slaughtered and eaten since this is its natural condition. We should not automatically conclude that a beast's rights have been violated simply because it has suffered. Beasts suffer wither and die in a Sahara desert drought, without having their rights violated. Suffering from the loss of a pack member is no violation, since social beasts regulate membership in nature and have members violently taken in the course of their existence. We know all of this without concluding that rights have been violated.
So when are a cow’s rights violated? When a human being inflicts, cruel and malicious harm on the animal, especially when it is unnecessary. This might be through neglecting one’s responsibility or actual cruel conduct that inflicts unnecessary suffering. |
