( Moral Rights vs Lawful Rights)
backed them up? That is to say: Almost all of mankind has had no "rights" at one time
or another. Most were slaves to each other since the beginning of time, and even today, there are many things that we have no "right" to do (like abuse people or animals)....but those rights are given by man in the form of laws. Then and only then do people and animals have "rights". For instance, the natives in South America still kill and eat precious Hyacinth Macaws. Do they have the right to do this as they have since the beginning of time? Well, until man steps in and outlaws the practice... you bet they do. Now, a
moralist might say that all living things have a "right" to live. And they'd be right also. But as the word "Rights" itself has been abused to the point of reflecting little of it's original intention, we've gone far beyond morals, and use the term "Rights" as in a court of law. When used this way, no animal can petition a court of law for "rights"...... but man can, and does. For instance, the eagle has "rights" and is protected by law to back up those rights. The common pigeon on the other hand has no "rights" in most states. I personally think that large parrots have the moral "right" to fly free as they were intended, not cooped up in a cage. But man (through laws) gave me the "right" to lock them up forever. Does that make it morally right?? No... not in my book! But lawfully yes. So we all have been
deciding since the beginning of time, what's to be killed and eaten, or killed as being a pest. We have also decided what's valuable to us and needs protection.
Hopefully we can continue to change
the laws in order that no animal suffers,
Sorry about the diatribe.... I get carried away sometimes.