Darwinianevolution said:
The thing here is that the concept of "animal rights" is a completely human construct. Animals by themselves don't understand what the concept of rights and duties are. Animals will eat and attack and compete with each other, it's not something evil, it's just something that is. Social animals may show some elements of a society (coordinated hunting, defense of the progeny, some basic hierarchy...), but it's not born from of a higher understanding of how society and harmonial coexistence works and how doesn't, and definitively not from some higher value or conception of morality. Humans do. So yes, by defending what's described as "animal rights", we are basically implanting our own set of morals and values into beings that are not human, nor can they relate to us in the same way as we can relate to them. If doing that is wrong and born out of ego, then the concept of "animal rights" being abandoned should be the better thing, shouldn't it? |
Well yes i mostly agree with you,"animal rights" are used as a way to push our own morals on to animals but that is hugely implemented by activists and people that do not look further into this i assume but we can look how animals behave in nature and compare that to their behaviour when being in captivity to make a concept of what the best environment or situation for an animal should be like and study's have shown a more positive animal behaviour when it is implemented.
Good things can be born out of ego and it is hard for us to not use ego,most are incapable to do that and ego also blinds us for truth.
Bolded: Depends on individuality and perception,it means a lot of different things.







