—“Curt, please explain “animal rights” in your system.”—
Great Question. My system is just science. But that’s ok. 😉
It is not a necessity, it’s a utility, and as a utility, it’s a political choice. So let’s explain why we should protect animals (and nature for that matter), and I bet I’ll do a better job than most. 😉
1) Technically speaking, an animal can’t have a right because no right can exist that can’t be reciprocated.
2) However, like children, the infirmed, and the disabled, who cannot engage in the exchange of reciprocal rights obligations and inalienations, we can agree among ourselves to grant them protections rather than rights – where the protection is equal in practice to the right, but unlike rights, the protection must be exercised by someone or some group on their behalf – as they lack the capacity.
3) However, this does not settle the problem of a difference between our opinions of what those protections consist of. The prohibition on cruelty is rather obvious to all. The use of animals as a resource is not so obvious to all, despite that
4) The logic of these protections is not sophisticated.
(a) preserve an asset or rather an ecology of assets that are a resource for humans emotionally, psychologically, socially, politically, and economically as well.
(b) continue the slow development and reinforcement of the value of life, and the prohibition on aggression, harm, and suffering worldwide.
(c) prevent the expression and habituation of behaviors by humans against animals that might be eventually extended to humans – which only serves to amplify (b).
(d) filter people who we do not wish among us – which I might add as a personal note, is excessive.
(e) at the cost of having to care for and protect such animals.
Note that I did not mention the feminine tendency to misapply empathy that evolution provided her for the care of her offspring, the offspring of the extended family, clan and tribe, other women, and men under duress.
One of the problems we face in the present era is that puberty extends the nervous system of the female such that it can keep track of the states of her offspring. Yet, without those offspring women then misuse that empathy as well as drama creation, emotional manipulation, the hyperconsumption and hypergamy, virtue signalling, gossiping, shaming, rallying undermining and canceling because like male dominance expression in competition for status, females can not resist exercising those impulsive emotional stimulations either.
In fact, the above problems of women in unregulated schooling, with limited parenting, exposed to the virtue signal warfare of social media, absent responsibilities of the workplace, absent responsibility for siblings, absent regular hormonal cycles because of the pill, absent responsibility for compromise with a mate, and most importantly absence of responsibility for offspring, and the offspring of other women, are in no small part if not the most part, the primary cause of political conflict and the collapse of education, society, morals, traditions, institutions, and even our laws.
Men have had fifty thousand years to develop means of limiting each other’s behavior – and it most of it occurred in the past ten thousand. Women have only had a century, and unfortunately self regulation is much harder for women than men – so women require other women to socially limit them which is why women excel at social construction of behavior. … Because women need it from each other. Just a do children need it from mothers.
So, to answer the question of animal rights I must answer the entire scope of causality that brings up the question and in doing so I create the potential for offense, but offense that if felt is then a necessity to feel and adapt to.
Animals can be given protections that are the equivalent of rights but they cannot have rights because it is impossible for them to exchange that right, and rights can only exist if they are mirrored by an obligation where both right and obligation are inalienable.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @Saurabh_Shah1
