Riddle me this Batman, animals by definition cannot have rights, in the sense that rights are a human construct. Think about it, (In some ways they don’t exist for humans either, but that’s a whole ‘nuther thread)
Lets back up a little.
Your premise is a bit uncertain.
Even our founding documents acknolwedge that the really important rights come from God. Good governments recognize those rights and enshrine them in positive law.
Governments also create lesser rights, many of which derive from concepts found in the God-given rights.
Its called natural law.
Lets back up a little.
Your premise is a wrong.
Even our founding documents acknolwedge that the really important rights come from God. Good governments recognize those rights and enshrine them in positive law.
Governments also create lesser rights (such as a right to a trial by a certain number of your peers), many of which derive from concepts derived from the God-given rights.
It’s called natural law.
It could be argued that animals have God-given rights.
It could also be argued that man should afford animals similar rights to those that humans have. I think doing so is a dumb idea, but your logical argument is not flimsy at best.
Lets back up a little.
Your premise is a wrong.
Even our founding documents acknolwedge that the really important rights come from God. Good governments recognize those rights and enshrine them in positive law.
Governments also create lesser rights (such as a right to a trial by a certain number of your peers), many of which derive from concepts derived from the God-given rights.
It’s called natural law.
It could be argued that animals have God-given rights.
It could also be argued that man should afford animals similar rights to those that humans have. I think doing so is a dumb idea, but your logical argument is flimsy at best.