>Curiously enough one of the leading proponents of "animal liberation",
>the Australian philosopher Peter Singer (who is now at Princeton) has
>no great use for rights language either. In a classical utilitarian
>manner he is rather dismissive of rights language which after all
>Jeremy Bentham had referred to as "metaphysics on stilts."
Peter Singer, to me, exemplifies what is wrong with "animal rights" discourse. "Torturing a human being is almost always wrong, but it is not absolutely wrong" (Peter Singer, quoted in Josephine Donovan, "Animal Rights and Feminist Theory," _Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society_, Winter 1990, p. 357). Peter Singer also says: "Why do we lock up chimpanzees in appalling primate research centres and use them in experiments that range from the uncomfortable to the agonising and lethal, yet would never think of doing the same to a retarded human being at a much lower mental level? The only possible answer is that the chimpanzee, no matter how bright, is not human, while the retarded human, no matter how dull, is." Apparently, Singer thinks that it is arbitrary and unjustifiable to make a distinction between bright chimpanzees and mentally retarded humans and to privilege the latter over the former. Singer's thinking betrays the problem of simple-minded theory of "social construction." Singer suggests that the category of "humanity" is "socialy constructed" and _therefore_ it is insignificant, merely a matter of prejudice. I disagree. _All_ categories are historically constructed, but it doesn't mean that all categories are equally bunk. Essentialist humanism may be subject to critique, but not in Peter Singer's terms.
>Of course our legal system endows all sorts of people and things
>that are incapable of exercizing responsibilities with rights of various
>sorts. Corporations have all sorts of rights and the Supreme Court
>has long held that corporations have rights under the Constitution.
>Children are generally recognized as not being fully competent but
>have rights. People who are severely brain damaged or severely
>retarded or are insane will not be regarded as being responsible
>for their actions but will nevertheless have rights.
I've already explained the problem of extending the ideology of *possessive individualism* beyond humans and onto animals and other non-human natural entities (see my reply to Ken Hanly in "The Heiress and the Anarchists" thread). Now, I wonder what "animal rightists" think of their fellow vegetarian animal lovers who want to convert their canine friends to the religion of their choice:
***** Many of you are wondering if a vegetarian or vegan diet might be appropriate for your animal friends. Fortunately, your dogs can be vegetarians! Vegetarian Dogs provides answers and gives directions to easily purchase (see resources) or prepare a healthy meal. The book will teach you about canine nutrition, ethics, exercise, and healthcare. Equally important, the relationship between dogs and people is nourished and enriched through the beautiful images and related stories....
<http://www.vegetariandogs.com/ > *****
>In the Middle Ages prosecutions of animals in the courts were
>not unknown.
I am aware of it, but I'm not in favor of return to medievalism either.
Yoshie