RetroPalms
Newcomer
For what value of "right?" Rights are a finicky thing that are hard to agree on even for humans. Various countries have rights written right into their laws, while at the same time there is a belief in natural rights that are inherent to all humans and cannot be decided by a state. Figuring out if animals have rights begins with figuring out which are even valid for animals.
There are laws governing what you can do with animals and how they should be treated, but I don't think those really apply as rights. Nothing really guarantees anything to animals in the same way we guarantee to humans. We are forbidden from beating and torturing animals, but we do that more for our own morality than we do for the sake of the animals (not to say that we don't necessarily care about their health). We don't really provide any promises to animals, and even if we did, how would we provide for those promises? We can't even meaningfully communicate with most animals, so how do we bestow anything even approaching a right? If we were to, for instance, claim that animals have some sort of right to peace and well-being, what do we do if another animal attacks them, as part of their nature?
Natural rights seem like they'd fit, being, well, natural, but our idea of natural is entirely subjective. Citizens of the United States might be familiar with "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," which are supposedly unalienable rights that were bestowed by our Creator. That's nice and all, but are they really natural rights that we have? What does the pursuit of happiness mean to an atheist university professor versus what it means to a radical, fundamentalist Muslim? They both likely have very different ideas of what pursuit of happiness is, and both are probably far different from what an animal's is, if it can even comprehend happiness.
We already have a hard time dealing with our own rights among each other, and we've blatantly invented a lot of them. I can't imagine animals as having them in any real, practical form.
There are laws governing what you can do with animals and how they should be treated, but I don't think those really apply as rights. Nothing really guarantees anything to animals in the same way we guarantee to humans. We are forbidden from beating and torturing animals, but we do that more for our own morality than we do for the sake of the animals (not to say that we don't necessarily care about their health). We don't really provide any promises to animals, and even if we did, how would we provide for those promises? We can't even meaningfully communicate with most animals, so how do we bestow anything even approaching a right? If we were to, for instance, claim that animals have some sort of right to peace and well-being, what do we do if another animal attacks them, as part of their nature?
Natural rights seem like they'd fit, being, well, natural, but our idea of natural is entirely subjective. Citizens of the United States might be familiar with "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," which are supposedly unalienable rights that were bestowed by our Creator. That's nice and all, but are they really natural rights that we have? What does the pursuit of happiness mean to an atheist university professor versus what it means to a radical, fundamentalist Muslim? They both likely have very different ideas of what pursuit of happiness is, and both are probably far different from what an animal's is, if it can even comprehend happiness.
We already have a hard time dealing with our own rights among each other, and we've blatantly invented a lot of them. I can't imagine animals as having them in any real, practical form.



































































