Politician's Purgatory

The issue of "animal rights" is not being addressed in
academia with a proper analysis of the definition of
"rights". Animals do not have rights, only conceptual
beings who understand what rights are and how they
function have rights. Rights are conditions of existence
required by man in a social context.They are what we have
as the kind of entities we are. An animal cannot respect
rights, understand rights, delineate rights or be given
rights. For instance lets take the right to life. Many
animals eat their young. Does this indicate this is a
recognized right that must be protected by the species?
Hardly. Man is different from animals in that he can
define what is or is not in his interest qua man, convey
these expectations and yes even enforce adherence to
protective behavior. A violation of human rights entails
the initiation of force against a fellow human or his
property. If this initiation of force is done in the
name of the rights of other species it is still a
violation of man's rights because there are no others.
Sympathy for the perceived plight of animals does not
translate into ascribing "rights" to animals. A
biological entity must be able to develop what rights are
to possess them. It must include a conceptual faculty.
All people qualify for rights. Some people violate other
people's rights. Whether people retain and protect their
rights first depends on their definition and
understanding of the concept of rights. Expanding the
concept to include animals, plants, minerals, etc only
obfuscates and ultimately destroys the concept of the
essential meaning that is the protectorate of our
individual and collective survival. If human rights are
compromised either by inclusion or exclusion even those
who claim what they mistakenly deem a noble cause will
suffer at the hands of those who will equate human life
with the worth of a rock. If only some humans or all
that exists has rights is an error of the same kind. This
is not the result that the human race should seek or
condone.