Part III - Resolution. I argue that it is irrelevant whether animals have rights; even if not, we should conduct ourselves toward them as if they did. On this planet, the form of life most fit for survival in a Darwinian sense is Homo sapiens. We are more fit because we are better able than any other living thing to fully utilize our biologic advantages in tandem with the variables in our environment. But from the same Darwinian sense, we are not intrinsically better than other animals. What makes us better is our ability, too often unexercised, to behave in a way that is contrary to our animal nature. Physiologically, we are predators, but we can choose to be whatever we want - non-predators, for instance. If we are superior in any natural way, this is why.
Undoubtedly,...
It would certainly put things into perspective were we to receive a visit from some species not of this world, but some other. Surely the most fit for survival on their own world, they would doubtless be more fit than we are for survival on this one as well. How would they conduct themselves toward humanity? Perhaps the same way we have been conducting ourselves toward "lower" forms of animal life on Earth?
Such a demotion in the
food chain would put the issue of animal rights in quite a different light. Perhaps we should consider this world full of life deserving of our protection, not our exploitation.
