One answer is -- because we can. Human beings have evolved to a level where they have, so to speak, stepped out of the natural world they began in, and now possess such peculiar tools as technology and theories of ethics.
The argument that no one should be a beneficiary of ethical or political consideration without also granting it to others is basically an argument to power, which is not applied to all humans.
Carrol Cox:
> As I've indicated, I find "animal rights" people almost personally
> offensive. But I think I can answer your question in terms of *human*
> rights. Habits of brutality do not tend to enhance habits of solidarity
> with other humans. This is not a utilitarian argument, unless you want
> to equate the formal philosophy with any tendency whatever to approve
> of useful things -- which would make everyone who ever lived a
> utilitarian.
>
> As far as the philosophical basis for "animal rights," I couldn't
> care less. It hardly seems a philosophical issue a grown person
> should be wasting her time on. Alex Cockburn's NLR article
> a few years ago on the subject was pretty sensible.
I'd like to see the article. As I've said, I've never seen an argument generally against ethical and political consideration for animals that wasn't based on convention or the utility of the relatively powerful. I should add personal animosity, as well, seeing that it's beginning to crop up, as it usually does in such discussions. I agree that it's a difficult subject, because one may have to start talking about very fundamental issues, such as who or what is due ethical consideration, and why. Some of the answers seem to be very inconvenient, rational as they are.
The problem of "rights" is not that animals (or people) can't have rights, but that people mean different things by the term, sometimes the same speaker in the same sentence. It's clear, for instance, that the freedoms and protections which the nascent bourgeoisie agreed to grant one another -- life, liberty, and property -- are applied only rather uneasily or metaphorically to non-humans, just as to certain classes of humans. Yet because we are soaked in liberalism from birth, those of us who come to believe that a non-human sentient being has some kind of intrinsic claim on our ethical and political consideration often start talking about "rights" -- it's the only way we know of succinctly expressing the concept.
Curiously, this discussion has arisen just when Food Not Bombs (with some Anarchist Oatmeal Cookies if I can produce them in time) will be supporting an ADL* benefit or celebration here in NYC on Saturday. They're all vegans -- made me take the eggs out of my cookie recipe. --
* Animal Defense League. I believe these are the people who have been picketing Macy's and who disrupted a fashion show featuring fur recently. --
Gordon gcf at panix.com http://www.etaoin.com/A