Like the borders between countries, rights are artificial constructs. They are useful in resolving disputes between human beings but they are figments and can be harmful. An example of the harm they can produce is Neo’s view that since dogs are property, it is permissible for humans to do anything they want to them. That is the view of the centuries-old English common law applied in most or all of the states, but it has been modified in modern times by statutes, like the one that Vick violated, that recognize some animals are sentient beings entitled to protection from cruelty.
No moral view can dispute that sentient beings, whether human or not, should be protected from cruelty. An argument, like Neo’s, that necessarily implies it is acceptable, for example, to torture a dog eight hours a day for a month on a whim, is immoral unless dogs have no significant capacity for suffering. Only a person with a blind spot, like, perhaps, Descartes, could believe dogs, and many other animals, have no significant capacity for suffering.
This does not mean that humans are morally obligated to be vegetarians. Humans are omnivores and I am aware of nothing that can change that. It does mean, however, that we are obligated to treat the animals we eat humanely.
The fact that the United States government inflicts unnecessary, illegal or immoral suffering on many, such as the people of Iraq, does not mean that crimes in this country should go unpunished. If, because the government is committing atrocities against other people, it is not justifiable to jail Michael Vick for his crime, it is not justifiable to jail any person who commits murder, rape, torture, or any other crime in the United States. The fact that the government gets it wrong in some instances, such as the war in Iraq, does not mean it gets it wrong in all instances. It got it right with the conviction of Vick.
by
Corpusless on
06/28/2009 05:29:49 PM EST
[
Parent ]
