Animal Rights?
Jul. 27th, 2006 09:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
masque12I'm constantly running into people on pagan lists who want me to both believe that the human species is no more important than any other species on the planet AND be concerned about "animal rights".
First option: we're just animals and we're no better than any other species, and we are therefore under no obligation to worry about the welfare of other species.
Second option:
We are superior, and are therefore to some degree responsible for taking a caretaker position in regards to other species.
You don't get to have it both ways and be logically consistent. Life feeds on life. I don't see any cougars or lions or bears arguing about the impact that their occasional human predation has on the human species. You know why you don't see that? Because they don't have the brain capacity for it to even occur to them. They are animals, and as such, ethical considerations are beyond their abilities. If we are "just dirty, upright, murderous apes" then you are wasting your time worrying about the plight of other species, the Law of the Jungle is kill or be killed, survival of the fittest. If, however, you think that your concern has a valid basis, then that very capacity for concern lifts you above and separates you from the animals. I'm all for reducing cruelty to animals and responsibly relocating predatory species away from human habitations. Don't talk to me about rights for animals, though. Without the capacity to participate in human society, applying human rights to them is a meaningless gesture that they have no way of understanding anyway.
First option: we're just animals and we're no better than any other species, and we are therefore under no obligation to worry about the welfare of other species.
Second option:
We are superior, and are therefore to some degree responsible for taking a caretaker position in regards to other species.
You don't get to have it both ways and be logically consistent. Life feeds on life. I don't see any cougars or lions or bears arguing about the impact that their occasional human predation has on the human species. You know why you don't see that? Because they don't have the brain capacity for it to even occur to them. They are animals, and as such, ethical considerations are beyond their abilities. If we are "just dirty, upright, murderous apes" then you are wasting your time worrying about the plight of other species, the Law of the Jungle is kill or be killed, survival of the fittest. If, however, you think that your concern has a valid basis, then that very capacity for concern lifts you above and separates you from the animals. I'm all for reducing cruelty to animals and responsibly relocating predatory species away from human habitations. Don't talk to me about rights for animals, though. Without the capacity to participate in human society, applying human rights to them is a meaningless gesture that they have no way of understanding anyway.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 10:45 pm (UTC)Sociopathology is billed as a disease, but all a sociopath is really is someone who doesn't play the civilization game. If these silly as pagans really want to see someone in touch with their "animal" side, sociopaths are who they should look at. I'll stick with my "Humanity is superior to animals" notion, thanks.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-28 10:46 pm (UTC)