Hunters, threats and animal rights

In his article On Balance And Direction (April 3), Alfred E. Zammit makes the following alarming statement: "Anyone who believes that the end of spring hunting heralds the beginning of a peaceful era is grossly mistaken." This sounds ominously like a threat. Does he mean a repetition of the violence we witnessed last month? Can he kindly elaborate on what he means by this?

In a separate letter (Animal Rights And Evolution, April 5) he tells us that we "partake of the character of God" because human beings "have spiritual souls, which animals do not". Mr Zammit uses this as a basis for arguing that all animal rights arguments "paralleling treatment of animals to treatment of humans" are false.

This is exalted nonsense and nothing more than a crude self-serving argument to support an invalid conclusion. Having a soul does not differentiate us from animals to the extent that justifies, for instance, the hunting and killing of animals for pleasure or without compassion or treating them as our property by virtue of their inferiority, as Mr Zammit seems to imply. If we do indeed possess a "spiritual soul... directly created by God" (to use Mr Zammit's words), surely this should ennoble man's attitude to the animals with whom we share this planet, rather than the opposite?

Apart from the possibility of having a soul, our higher evolutionary development also plays a part in influencing our behaviour towards animals.

Even though our brain function is purely dependent on biochemical processes, we possess the capacity for abstract thought and for making moral judgments through our ability to distinguish between good and evil - all this by virtue of the huge complexity of our brains.

Since we are capable of understanding that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain consistent with their degree of evolutionary sophistication, we should give them corresponding rights and treat them with the respect, compassion and kindness due to them as our fellow living creatures.