Words: 658
This essay will focus on animals we consume for our nutrition. Animals without the basic goal of human beings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The human race cannot give these rights to living organisms without the goal Of the unalienable right and without the basic comprehension of consciousness. Animals are ignorant of the basic sentience and self-awareness, everything is an animal and we are not exempt, and reasoning that we should solely eat plant proteins because we have the intelligence to, and the wolf doesn’t, so therefore we should make the wolf our equal is self-contradictory.
The human race has come up with criteria for judging the sentience of a organism. There are five basic building block of society, which are the criteria for judging the sentience of an animal. The starting point for any species is if they were observed as producing or having produced technological artifacts unique to that species. Next, if they were observed as able to communicate from one generation to the next by a recorded language unique to that species, that is a significant leap.
An important pair is being observed as basing action on abstract reasoning and being observed as engaging in inductive and deductive reasoning processes, and finally, observed as engaging in Nan-utilitarian artistic activity unique to that species. No other species besides man has five basic building blocks of society. Animals eat, eat, reproduce, and die. We, as human beings, are predators. We eat other animals. We need to eat. Isomorphism only happens when we aren’t worried about eating.
If we were not sentient we would still eat animals. By the “survival of the fittest,” which is the law of raw nature, no animal has rights; only the tools to survive as best it can. The chicken has no right not to be eaten by the fox. The gazelle has no ethical recourse against the lion. If we are merely animals, no other animal has any ethical standing to complain against the human animal for eating them or wearing their skins.
The basic rational or “credo” for animal rights consists of changing our diet to exclusively vegetable proteins, based on the notion that human beings have the intelligence to choose to eat soy beans in preference to cattle but wolves can’t and this superior human reasoning ability is a reason to consider animals such as wolves as our equals. Look at the last sentence of the animal sights credo, “This superior human reasoning ability is a reason to consider animals such as wolves our equals,” and therefore realize that that argument admits we are superior, so we should be equal.
This argument is similar with “2=0”. The rational itself is contradictory. Animal rights failed on three other arguments as well. First, human beings are the dominant species on this planet, making decisions regarding use of the land, the sea, the air, and the near space above the air. Man rules and animals have to take what we do with them and lump it. The penultimate argument is there are no animals tightening mankind, their “oppressor,” for an elevated status or recognition of their rights. Third, there are no animals contesting their status as inferiors to mankind.
Animals aren’t protesting for their rights, it is human beings. Animals are not asking for their rights. How do we know to give them rights? If they are sentient, how do we know that they want rights? It is human beings who are asking for rights for animals, but their rational is insufficient. So let’s be prepared for animal rights activists, because after the death of Barry Hornier there are some people who may regard him as a martyr. That includes people who may want to carry out actions against on legitimate scientist working with animals to promote human being’s needs.