Animal Rights and Duties?
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:48 am
Animal Rights
To answer this question directly is absurd, to do so merely invites personal whimsy.
The question as to whether the animal kingdom has rights, is perfectly easy to answer, although the specific nature of each right is a matter for debate. ‘God’ naturally accords rights and duties that reflect the form of society involved – human and animal together.
Animals cannot have duties which are the product of the intellect. And we have yet to find cattle going to university, that is other than metaphorically. Therefore animal rights are to be understood by human beings and conferred on the animal part of the local or global society.
In a tyranny or anything of that nature there is no question of rights, and animals are the biblical servants of mankind or more particularly its ruling authority. They are used and kept or destroyed as is convenient – hopefully allowing for the human environment not to suffer.
In anarchistic society, based on the individual ego, animals and nature generally belongs to these individuals. Much as has been the case in England. If a particular ‘owner’ has some residual altruistic intent they will be cared for kindly. Otherwise in a practical way according to their value.
In what this country may be tending towards or not. Altruist society. The animal kingdom is part of the human environment and larger society. Animals will be treated as if they have rights. This means they will have rights and treatment according to their nature. That part of the broader animal kingdom that has no significant intellect and sensory faculties may even be drastically culled, so far as human parasites and diseases are concerned. People may have the care of pets but not their ownership in any respect other than possession with a duty of care.
To answer this question directly is absurd, to do so merely invites personal whimsy.
The question as to whether the animal kingdom has rights, is perfectly easy to answer, although the specific nature of each right is a matter for debate. ‘God’ naturally accords rights and duties that reflect the form of society involved – human and animal together.
Animals cannot have duties which are the product of the intellect. And we have yet to find cattle going to university, that is other than metaphorically. Therefore animal rights are to be understood by human beings and conferred on the animal part of the local or global society.
In a tyranny or anything of that nature there is no question of rights, and animals are the biblical servants of mankind or more particularly its ruling authority. They are used and kept or destroyed as is convenient – hopefully allowing for the human environment not to suffer.
In anarchistic society, based on the individual ego, animals and nature generally belongs to these individuals. Much as has been the case in England. If a particular ‘owner’ has some residual altruistic intent they will be cared for kindly. Otherwise in a practical way according to their value.
In what this country may be tending towards or not. Altruist society. The animal kingdom is part of the human environment and larger society. Animals will be treated as if they have rights. This means they will have rights and treatment according to their nature. That part of the broader animal kingdom that has no significant intellect and sensory faculties may even be drastically culled, so far as human parasites and diseases are concerned. People may have the care of pets but not their ownership in any respect other than possession with a duty of care.