Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG

On the question of what qualifies anyone for having rights, and on the insistence of hunter Fabian Borg that rights hinge on responsibilities and the ability to defend one’s interests, I had explained that Mr Borg’s reasoning would deny rights to the most vulnerable humans.

Mr Borg, then, failing to understand the implications of his own views (I’m being generous here, assuming he really did not understand, instead of the alternative, which would be that he understood but simply does not care as long as it serves his exploitation agenda), replies that it is me who is comparing human offspring and other humans to “animals”.

Of course, this is stating the obvious. However, I only compared like with like, which is not to say that humans are non-humans (which would be nonsense), but only to say that humans are animals and like many humans have two eyes, many non-humans also have two eyes; many humans have two legs, and so do many non-humans; some humans lack responsibilities and the means of protecting their own interests, and so do some non-humans (I did not say, for instance, that some humans, like some non-humans, have wings with which to fly - a claim that would be blatantly false). But all these attributes (or lack of them) are irrelevant to the question of whether individuals have rights, and if rights hinged on these (or other irrelevant) attributes, this would disqualify several humans from having rights.

The only difference (which Mr Borg seems to conveniently ignore) is that I only mention actual and true similarities for the express purpose of defending the rights of individuals who cannot claim them themselves (and this includes vulnerable humans), while Mr Borg insists that such a pointing out of similarities are inadequate (while failing to mention one reason why this would be so), only because it serves his own agenda of persisting in exploiting (and killing) non-human animals.

I’m sure that no mentally disabled person would take offense at my claim that despite limited or no responsibilities, he or she still has rights that cannot be violated except in exceptional cases like self-defence. On the other hand, I’m sure that they (or their carers) would be gravely offended by a claim (like Mr Borg’s) that for one to have any rights, one should have responsibilities and the means to defend one’s own interests.

Of course, it is very convenient for non-human animal exploiters to ignore the similarities of some or all non-humans to some or all humans.

Mr Borg, in a comment in the online version of The Times writes:

“Kenneth, it is you that is comparing Human offspring and other Humans to Animals”.

Presumably, Mr Borg uses a capital “H” in “human” and a capital “A” in “animals” to stress that somehow, in his anti-scientific view, humans are not animals. This mistake is understandable from people who still believe in a flat earth, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that “man” is the centre of the universe and all that really matters, but all rational and intelligent people should by now have understood that humans are an animal species.

If Mr Borg finds this offensive, it is only ignorance that makes him find it so. I would only hope that Mr Borg lacks humility and not intelligence, and that he comes to realize, sooner rather than later, that he, like all humans, is an animal. A little humility might make him see a clearer and truer picture of the universe.

Mr Borg goes on to say that:

“It is animal nature to feed and take care of all offspring and humans are part of it”.

Now this, of course, seems to contradict the view that humans are not (or somehow distinct from) “animals”, which kind of shows that Mr Borg is either simply confused or unwilling to concede the point when it ill serves his agenda.

But then, Mr Borg says:

“On the other hand it is only humans who take care of their handicapped offspring and the mentally retarded humans since you had the interest of mentioning them. As you may know any handicapped animals (sic) or mentally retarded animals (sic) born in the wild are never to be seen which show that animals (sic) are not capable to be responsable (sic) and defend their handicapped offspring/relatives and these are either abandoned or fall as prey almost immediately. This further proves the lack of responsability (sic) in animals. Responsability (sic) is a human thing”.

Of course, the claim that only humans take care of their handicapped offspring is simply untrue. There have been several evidenced reports of non-human animals taking care of other handicapped non-humans. Of course, in a culture where violence in film is relished (as blockbuster movies will attest to), you won’t find much on this in wildlife documentaries. Blood and gore sells more than altruism. One would have to read some literature on zoology for documented instances of such altruism among non-human animals.

Mr Borg’s claim that any handicapped non-human animals born in the wild are never to be seen, is simply untrue. Of course, I would instantly concede the point that many or most handicapped non-humans fall prey to predators, but this, as Mr Borg himself partially understands, is not because non-human animals necessarily do not care about their handicapped offspring, but simply because many non-human animals are not physically capable of defending their weaker offspring (or other animals) from stronger predators.

So, Mr Borg’s claim that:

“This (that many handicapped non-human animals fall prey to predators) further proves the lack of responsability (sic) in animals (sic)” and that “Responsability (sic) is a human thing”, does not logically follow.

As I explained, the fact that many handicapped non-human animals become easy prey for predators does not necessarily derive from any irresponsibility on behalf of other animals of the same species, but actually is the result of that species being physically weaker than the predator species, which would make any attempted defence of its handicapped members futile. Without the invention of weapons, if humans were to live in a jungle replete with lions and tigers, most probably, disabled humans would find themselves in a similar predicament. I hope that, in that case, Mr Borg would not conclude that humans in that case would not care about their less fortunate offspring or companions, and that such offspring or companions would not have rights.

In any case, this is all besides the point. I have already shown that being responsible is not necessary for having rights, otherwise this would disqualify several humans from having rights.

Of course, one could hold a hierarchical view of nature, where “lesser” beings may be sacrificed for “higher” ones. But again, the “justification” of such a view would equally (to be consistent) justify a hierarchical view of humanity, where “lesser” humans may be sacrificed for “higher” ones. And again, if consistently applied, this would put several vulnerable humans in danger of being used (or even killed) for the benefit of stronger or “more intelligent” humans.

It is also interesting to note that it is exactly such hierarchical views that make many people see killing humans (or other animals) for God as morally justified (if not sometimes morally required). Since a hierarchical view of nature would seem to justify the use (and even killing) of “lesser” beings for the benefit of “higher” ones, and God (for believers) being as high as anyone can get on the scale, religious fundamentalists actually use this rationale to justify killing innocents if this serves the purpose of “glorifying” God or “furthering his interests”.

If all people disavowed all hierarchical views of nature and saw each individual being as a possessor of inviolable rights (except in cases like self-defence), that would be the end of the phenomenon of fundamentalist suicide bombers. But I only mention this to show where such hierarchical views of nature could in theory (and sometimes in practice) lead to.

Like I said in “Dogs, birds, humans and their rights“, far from being null and void (like Mr Borg claims), 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, where sentience is sufficient for one to have moral rights, and where all individuals are treated as ends in themselves and not as means to others’ ends.

Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.