(January 19, 2014 at 4:47 pm)jg2014 Wrote:(January 19, 2014 at 4:40 pm)plaincents822 Wrote: Yes they have rights because they are still expected to reciprocate those rights and if they don't there are consequences. An autistic kid that goes off the deep end and breaks someone's arm may be placed in an institution to prevent him from hurting anyone else, essentially limiting those rights like we would anyone else that breaks them. What you seem to argue for is that animals should be afforded the rights, but not allowed to face the consequences of the responsibility of those rights. I'm not allowed to kill animals because it's cruel, but other animals are allowed to kill each other and it's not cruel. Do you see the hypocrisy?
And if an animal breaks those rights we give to it will also be placed in an environment where it cant cause harm. If a lion is on the loose that kills people, it will be killed. There are consequences for the animal just like the autistic kid. Both the animal and the person with mental disabilities cannot understand their duties, and so cannot be expected to uphold them. If they are a danger to others they are treated the way they are to protect others, where as you would be sent to jail not just to protect others but as a punishment because you disregarded your duties. Do you see the difference? Do you see your hypocrisy?
But we are not just talking about people harming people or animals harming people. We are also talking about people harming animals and animals harming animals. If animals should have the same right to life as people do, what are the consequences for an animal that ends the life of another animal? Because your answer seems to have been that animals are amoral and should not be punished for eating other animals. Why am I being held to a higher standard as animals if I am going to be sharing the same rights with them?
