Animal Rights Logic
1. Genetic changes and natural selection have resulted in different 'species'
2. Humans are one of those species.
Given you accept the above you cannot make artificial distinctions between species
beyond those that are objectively observed. Each species has some unique characteristics but each has a common ancestry and so has many more similar characteristics. As you can see from the image below, in the early stages of ontogeny, different species look very similar. This is a remnant of their common ancestry. Note, in particular, that the human embryo (the far right) has a tail.
Now consider that a human has the 'right' not to be tortured by another human.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick clarification: A human does not have the 'right' not to be tortured by an animal.
If a guy goes surfing and gets eaten by a shark (dying a slow painful death) the shark is not at fault.
If a guy gets killed by a bull in the 'Running of the Bulls' in Spain, it is no fault of the animal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason that the human has that 'right' is because torture produces agony, which is a negative emotive response (I submit that it is for this reason in
combination with the species in and of itself). Given a dog
can also experience agony, what exactly prevents the 'right' (of not being tortured by a human) from being applied to the dog? The answer is nothing.
Some will argue that the 'right' is not derived from the ability to experience agony (in combination with species). I will debunk those arguments here:
Why the 'right' is not present due to the 'morality'.
1. Because even humans void of morality retain their rights. (Mentally retarded, sociopaths etc..)
2. Because lack of morality does not preclude the ability to experience agony.
Why the 'right' is not present because it was put there by god.
Maybe it
was put there by god, however, given the human was granted that 'right' by god, why can I not then claim that the dog was also granted that 'right' by god. There is certainly no evidence the 'right' was, in fact, given to the human and not to the dog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: With respect, if you choose to throw the Bible, Koran, Torah or whatever at me, then all logic gets thrown out the window.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having established the above as a universal philosophy, let me expand and consider domesticated animals:
The case of domesticated animals is a specific case within the universal philosophy. Domesticated animals differ from others in that they only exist as a result of human activity. They have lost all ability to compete in the wild because they have been selectively bred for particular characteristics, while neglecting others that were essential for their survival in the wild.
I submit that, because of this, humans are responsible for their welfare in all situations, including their interactions with other domesticated animals and wild animals.
This is in contrast to a wild animal, where the rights only apply in their interaction with humans, as I have established previously. Although it could also be argued, that, in some cases, we are wholly responsible for wild animals also. For example, when humans have interfered with their habitat. That argument is beyond the scope of what I am presenting, so I will not continue any further.
