>The expression is maybe unfortunate because of the ambiguities
>in the word _rights_. However, the notion that non-human yet
>sentient beings deserve ethical and political consideration
>has become rather widespread and has developed a modest body
>of theory, whereas the position that they do not, wherever I
>have encountered it, has always appealed either to utility or
>convention -- in other words, it lacks philosophy. I'd be
>glad to speak as tediously as necessary for the former, if
>someone really wants me to -- I see animal rights or animal
>liberation as a natural extension of anarchism.
I'm not opposed to humane treatment of animals. To have ethical and political consideration about a non-human being, however, doesn't require endowing the being in question with "rights." Far from it. I have not met anyone who argues for the need to give air, rivers, plants, insects, etc. "rights," but it doesn't mean that they are or should be outside of our ethical and political considerations.
The rhetoric of "rights" merely obscures political questions of ecology. Animals cannot exercise "rights," even if you endowed them with "rights" in your imagination. "Rights" come with responsibilities, and animals cannot be held responsible for their behaviors whereas humans are. If a mountain lion assaulted a human, should the lion be charged with assault in a court of law? I don't believe so. Given the state of criminal justice in America, perhaps if you could ask animals if they wanted "rights," they might say, "thanks, but no thanks," if they could speak our language. :)
Yoshie