Hunters, dogs, birds and rights

I believe Mother Nature and all creatures will be much better off with Kenneth’s rather than Fabian’s principles – especially when evaluating the term ‘enjoy’!

Fabian, one thing which, it seems, you cannot grasp, is that we are all animals, and the product of evolution. I am not comparing human infants and humans with special needs to non-human animals in a way that implies that they are the same. Of course not. Every individual is unique. But the fact remains that if you deny non-human animals rights just because they do not have responsibilities, how will you explain granting rights to human infants and the mentally disabled. You still have not answered this question.

Just saying "because they are human" simply begs the question: why does it matter to be human to be a possessor of rights? Your answer is circular...it would go something like "because they are human"...and back to the question once again.

It is only the recognition that sentience suffices for having rights that guarantees that human infants and the mentally disabled are recognized as the rights-possessors that they truly are.

I am only comparing like with like. I'm not saying human infants are dogs. I'm only saying that both human infants and dogs lack responsibilities and high intelligence (though actually you would probably find that adult dogs are more intelligent and can act more responsibly than human infants).

Justice requires impartiality. If simply being human is what gives human rights and denies them to non-humans, how would one argue with a racist who claims that simply being white is what gives whites rights and that black people lack rights just because they are not white?

Kenneth, I hope you don`t mind calling you by your first name since we really should be friends as we both seek enjoyment in the natural and animal kingdom even though in different ways.
I think that the `logic` you are insinuating is just ridiculous and deserves a second reading only to be sure of what is being written.
This is the worst things can get as you are bringing up arguments which compare humans (infants and people with special needs) to dogs. Animals protect their offspring even if this endangers their life. This behaviour is also present in us humans as this is a clear instinct we have inherited from our ancestors along with the hunting instinct which may be present in some and less in others.
With regards to people with special needs I will not cross that line in respect of others.

Fabian Borg says that dogs have no rights, the reason being that if they did, they would have responsibilities and the means of protecting their interests.

This argument is both fallacious and dangerous, and would deny any rights to the most vulnerable humans.

Two examples that immediately spring to mind are the rights of human infants and the rights of the severely mentally disabled.

Since these have no responsibilities, Mr Borg's logic, if applied consistently, would deny these two categories of humans any rights.

The only speciesist excuse Mr Borg would have to come up with to grant these two categories of humans any rights would be simply to claim that they are humans. But this simply begs the question: why do humans have rights?

And to stress the point once again, to claim that they do so because they have responsibilities (or intelligence, or whatever) would deny rights to the most vulnerable humans. To deny rights to non-human animals and concede them to humans who are in a relevantly similar predicament is simply speciesist and prejudiced.

Mr Borg says that since non-human animals do not have the means to protect their own interests "it is, therefore, a question of animal welfare, and definitely not of non-existent animal rights".

Once again, since human infants and the severely mentally disabled do not have the means to protect their own interests, Mr Borg, to be consistent, would have to claim that in their case, to respect them is only a matter of charity, since, according to his logic, these would also have no rights.

Mr Borg says that licensed law abiding hunters have a right to hunt. If he is speaking of legal rights, then I will most certainly concede this. However, when opposing hunting, I am not speaking of legal rights, but of moral rights (which precede legal rights). Laws change. Moral rights don't - they are universal and are discovered, usually through philosophy and scientific understanding, and not created. Hence, changes in public opinion often precede change in laws - a case in point being the abolition of human slavery.

Since both human infants and the severely mentally disabled both have rights despite having no responsibilities, there is no unprejudiced and just reason for someone to deny rights to non-human animals who also have an interest in living and not suffering, despite, also like human infants and severely mentally disabled humans, not being capable of protecting their own interests from other humans.

Far from being null and void, the animal rights view is the only view that gives adequate protection to all beings, particularly the most vulnerable, including of course the most vulnerable humans.

Mr. Borg, gosh how you missed the wood for the trees in Mr. Cassar's article. I mean, try to understand what he mean't before putting pen to paper and making mockery of the organisation you represent. I am sure you are much more intelligent than that and the lound bangs of your shotgun has not in anyway clouded your cognitive reasoning.