| Then we must agree to disagree.
I feel one has to make laws & rules (in this case lets say rules of behaviour to other living beings) on general principles and cases and only then refine towards the individual cases. If rules are hand taloired to each individual case the system becomes complex and inconsistent (even more so than it is already).
So on general principles and until proof of the contrary, I say there is a difference between humans and animals, in that humans as a species have shown a remarkable combination of self-awareness, abstract thought and conceptualising that they communicate amongst each other, which is not present in other species.
And on this basis I think you can argue that as there is a difference between humans & animals, you can argue for different rules system where animals and humans are compared.
It remains a fact that "speciesloyalty" is a factor of course; but it is also a fact that rules of behaviour towards humans can be discussed with the eventual recipients of rights (sometimes only in simple terms, such as with young children and mentally impaired people) and thus the responsibilities that go along with them can also be imparted. This is impossible with animals. The furthest we get is "training". Or in other words: human rights and the rules of behaviour amongst humans are something we agree upon. The rights of other specieses and the rules of behaviour towards other specieses have to be decided upon without any input from them. And after that their enforcement and control is uniquely in the hands of mankind. That is what gives us our unique position.  |