Dmitry Chernikov’s Blog

If the severely mentally handicapped have (negative) rights, why not animals? It seems to me that the former have rights, because we share a common essence, humanity, and, though their intellectual virtues are on the low side, these virtues are accidents. It is dangerous to split mankind into groups, some of which will have rights, and others will not. It worsens the tone of society; it is a slippery slope; it undermines respect for human life in other situations; etc. On the other hand, animals and plants belong to different species. It might be argued that we share with them “animality” or “life,” but we can counter by saying that merely being an animal or being alive without being human is not enough for having rights. It may seem like an arbitrary cutoff point, and some religions command one to care even for insects, but this point “works.” I mean, cats usually care for kittens not puppies. Wolves hunt in packs, helping each other, but harming and killing their prey. Love and consideration seem to be limited to one’s own species. Of course, there are instances of symbiosis, such as when humans keep pets. So, my cat may be said, perhaps somewhat metaphorically, to have rights against being killed (by anyone other than me). At the very least, I have a right not to have my property, the cat, damaged. However, the cat has these rights only because I love him, i.e., this particular cat. If I were to throw him out, he would cease to be protected. On the other hand, human orphans scratching a living on the street have rights independent of whether anyone loves them, i.e., these particular orphans.

Update. Inspired by Danny Shahar.