First, rights do not entail responsibilities. A right is a right. For example, you have a right not to be enslaved. This right comes with no strings attached whatsoever. If you disagree with this, perhaps you could tell me what responsibilities you might neglect that would justify your enslavement.
Second, I suspect you have not really examined the question of animal rights. The phrase itself is unfortunately rather misleading. The standard argument in favour of animal rights makes it quite clear that the rights in question are not the same as those accorded to people, such as the right to vote. The crucial thing is the right to equal consideration. If you accept that animals have interests and moral status (and perhaps you don't accept this), then this argument claims that you should give equal moral weight to the comparable interests of animals and people unless there is a relevant difference between them that justifies unequal consideration. The Australian philosopher Peter Singer expressed this in his book "Animal Liberation". There is a summary of the argument here: http://www.utilitarian.org/texts/alm.html. It is dated 1985, so the examples are out of date, but the argument still holds. It is worth reading the essay all the way through. For a more detailed examination, read the book. -- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 10 December 2005 19:19 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Update: The fur fellow's feet > > People who advocate animal rights don't understand that > rights also entail responsibilities. Animals can't be held > responsible for their actions so they cannot have rights, > it's a two edged sword, unless you wish to completely > redefine what rights are. >
