Dogs, birds, humans and their rights

Fabian Borg, from the hunter federation (FKNK)'s education committee (no less!) writes a letter in today's The Times which he entitles "Hunters, dogs, birds and rights".

Mr Borg writes:

"Kenneth Cassar of Animal Rights Malta (The Times, April 1), while conceding that a dummy is no exact replica of a live bird, proceeds to get lost once more over his own argument, not mine, about the 'rights' of dogs.

Anyone looking for the 'rights' of dogs will discover they have none. If they had, they would have not only responsibilities, but also the means of protecting their interests. Mr Cassar himself unwittingly confirms this by stating that 'rights are means of protecting interests'. Since dogs do not have the means to protect their own interests, people have to assume responsibility for their protection and welfare. It is, therefore, a question of animal welfare, and definitely not of non-existent animal 'rights'.

And so we go back to where this correspondence all started: Danica Rosso's letter. Assuming she is a law-abiding licence holder, it is the lady who has a right and a responsibility to hunt with her dogs. The ultimate satisfaction for her and her dogs is to engage in a real hunt, not half of one, or just as unsatisfactory, a dummy 'hunt'. At this point let me say I have no time to waste on an explanation, particularly for someone who expects dogs to have 'wings to hunt high-flying birds'.

Since Mr Cassar puts 'dogs and birds on an equal footing', it follows that birds have no rights either. Therefore his argument that a bird's right 'trumps' a dog's right to hunt is null and void".

First of all, let me explain once again (since some people apparently need to be spoon-fed to grasp a very simple statement), that when I said that rights are a means of protecting interests, I meant just that - that rights are means of protecting interests.

Mr Borg says that "dogs do not have the means to protect their own interests". That is precisely the reason why dogs depend on our recognition of, and respect for, their rights. For one to claim that those who do not have the means to protect their own interests do not have rights, leads to the conclusion that in moral questions, might means right, and that those who cannot protect themselves adequately, might as well rot, as will be explained further down.

Mr Borg says that dogs have no rights, the reason being that if they did, they would have responsibilities and the means of protecting their interests.

This argument is both fallacious and dangerous, and would deny any rights to the most vulnerable humans.

Two examples that immediately spring to mind are the rights of human infants and the rights of the severely mentally disabled. Since these have no responsibilities, Mr Borg's logic, if applied consistently, would deny these two categories of humans any rights.

The only speciesist excuse Mr Borg would have to come up with to grant these two categories of humans any rights would be simply to claim that they are humans. But this simply begs the question: why do humans have rights?

And to stress the point once again, to claim that they do so because they have responsibilities (or intelligence, or whatever) would deny rights to the most vulnerable humans. To deny rights to non-human animals and concede them to humans who are in a relevantly similar predicament is simply speciesist and prejudiced.

Mr Borg says that since non-human animals do not have the means to protect their own interests "it is, therefore, a question of animal welfare, and definitely not of non-existent animal rights".

Once again, since human infants and the severely mentally disabled do not have the means to protect their own interests, Mr Borg, to be consistent, would have to claim that in their case, to respect them is only a matter of charity, since, according to his logic, these would also have no rights.

Mr Borg says that licensed law abiding hunters have a right to hunt. If he is speaking of legal rights, then I will most certainly concede this. However, when opposing hunting, I am not speaking of legal rights, but of moral rights (which precede legal rights). Laws change. Moral rights don't - they are universal and are discovered, usually through philosophy and scientific understanding, and not created. Hence, changes in public opinion often precede change in laws - a case in point being the abolition of human slavery.

Since human infants and the severely mentally disabled both have rights despite having no responsibilities, there is no unprejudiced and just reason for someone to deny rights to non-human animals who also have an interest in living and not suffering, despite, also like human infants and severely mentally disabled humans, not being capable of protecting their own interests from other humans.

Far from being null and void, the animal rights view is the only view that gives adequate protection to all beings, particularly the most vulnerable, including of course the most vulnerable humans.

And by the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question as to how dogs hunt high-flying birds without the aid of guns or wings. I take a non-reply as meaning that since dogs are no exception to the laws of nature, they simply cannot hunt high-flying birds unaided by human hunters. But who knows? Mr Borg and his "education" committee might surprise me with an alternative intelligent reply, after all.

Addendum:

After reading my commentary on his letter, Mr Fabian Borg replies:

"Kenneth, I hope you don't mind calling you by your first name since we really should be friends as we both seek enjoyment in the natural and animal kingdom even though in different ways.

I think that the 'logic' you are insinuating is just ridiculous and deserves a second reading only to be sure of what is being written.

This is the worst things can get as you are bringing up arguments which compare humans (infants and people with special needs) to dogs. Animals protect their offspring even if this endangers their life. This behaviour is also present in us humans as this is a clear instinct we have inherited from our ancestors along with the hunting instinct which may be present in some and less in others. With regards to people with special needs I will not cross that line in respect of others".

Well, to start with, we don't just seek enjoyment in nature "even though in different ways". The fact is that Fabian actually seeks to kill the sentient animals I seek to protect. I don't see much common ground here.

It is only Fabian's speciesist mentality that finds offense in comparing non-humans to humans where the comparison does not imply "exact sameness".

The point is that the only logical justification (that Fabian unfortunately fails to grasp) for the recognition of the rights of all beings despite responsibilities, intelligence quotas, etc, is sentience.

Fabian seemingly finds offence with comparing humans to non-humans. What Fabian does not notice, however, is that his own logic would deny rights to human infants and the mentally disabled, since Fabian claims that it is responsibilities and the capacity to defend one's own interests which give rights to anyone. If Fabian would then say "but human infants and the mentally disabled are human", then this debunks his whole "argument" that non-human animals lack rights because they "do not have responsibilities" and are not capable of "defending their own interests". If, when faced with this challenge, the reply from Fabian is "but they are humans", then this seems to suggest that, according to Fabian, humans have rights just because they are humans. Of course, I won't repeat myself. I have already explained (above) how this argument is circular.

Fabian says that "with regards to people with special needs I will not cross that line in respect of others". I find no difficulty with crossing the line myself, since my argument actually strengthens the case for respecting human infants and the mentally disabled, and their rights. My argument goes to show that sentience suffices for respect and recognition of basic rights. The opposite argument would seem to deny these people rights.

Therefore, crossing the line, in my case, is done out of respect. As for comparing like with like, and saying that human infants and the severely mentally disabled should not be denied rights just because they cannot be expected to have responsibilities, and to be expected to be capable of defending their own interests, and claiming that non-human animals find themselves in a similar predicament - I fail to see how this could be construed as offensive in any way (except perhaps to a hardened speciesist). It's no different from taking offense with someone who says that dogs and humans both have eyes. Does this mean that humans are dogs? Of course not. And neither are dogs humans. But of course, because both have eyes, both can see. Offensive? Of course not!

Fabian only finds offense because he believes (without rational justification) that all non-human animals have no rights simply because they are not human. It is precisely that proposition that I am challenging. Recognizing non-humans as rights-holders, of course, does not debase any humans. It simply elevates non-humans to their appropriate and deserved position of rights-bearers. Recognizing non-humans as rights-holders is not about diminishing human rights, just as recognizing the rights of black people is not about diminishing white people's rights. On the contrary, recognition of the basic rights of all sentient animals strengthens the case for the recognition of the rights of all the most vulnerable humans. Far from being disrespectful, it puts respect towards the most needy on firm, rational and logical grounds - grounds that do not rely on charity, but are grounded in deserved rights.

And finally, an abridged version of the above article being published in The Times of April 7, Mr Borg comments:

"Kenneth, my comment to your response last Friday stands. The only person comparing Human infants and Mentally disabled to animals on this site is YOU !! I will leave you with that".

Well, then, I'll only conclude by repeating that both human infants and the severely mentally disabled have rights (which is as it should be) despite having no responsibilities and no means to defend their interests by themselves. It is Mr Borg who claimed that for one to have rights, one should have responsibilities and the means to defend one's own interests, and I'll quote: "Anyone looking for the 'rights' of dogs will discover they have none. If they had, they would have not only responsibilities, but also the means of protecting their interests". So I'll leave him with that.