So, if something's not smart enough to recognize a right, it's a-ok for a sadist to torture it to death, since it's a wild creature that lacks the capacity to understand rights and therefore shouldn't be protected by any.
Interesting position..
If by "a-ok" you mean that it is what I think a rational and mentally healthy person ought to do, I wouldn't agree with you. If you mean that people should not be stopped from doing so by force, I
would generally agree. I believe people have a right to do a lot of things that aren't necessarily the best or most rational course of action, as The artist and seeker_two said.
However, I wouldn't necessarily extend that line of reasoning to human children, who initially lack the ability to understand rights but who have the capacity or potential to understand them with a little development. But I do think that children have limited rights, at least as to their parents, until this capacity is developed.
I also believe that the right to harm to animals is limited by the property rights of others. I believe that animals, like all natural resources, can be made into property, and that a person doesn't have the right to harm someone else's property. I believe that a person has the right to harm or destroy his own property, but that is usually a very irrational thing to do that does not benefit one's continued life. I believe that a person who tortures animals just for the purpose of inflicting pain is someone who is probably mentally unhealthy and more likely to initiate force against humans, and probably ought to be regarded with suspicion by rational men (though it isn't by itself a great enough threat to warrant the use of force in self defense). However, I don't think there is anything mentally unhealthy per se about engaging in blood sports like cockfighting or dogfighting. And they certainly aren't anything that people should be prevented from doing by force, since they are completely voluntary activities for all people involved.
This is an issue that provokes strong emotions in people. Unfortunately, many people believe that it is fine to initiate force based on nothing more than emotion as long as you get a large enough group of people together who agree.
That is a claim but not necessarily a fact.
well yeah... I am making the claim that I believe it to be a fact.
How many animals do not believe they have a right to self-defense? And if you do not believe that they so believe, what is the source of your belief?
I don't think animals have any concept of a right to self defense. They have an instinct to preserve their own life, and they are born with some limited knowledge and skills to aid them in doing so. But even if they recognize some sort of prerogative to defend themselves, I don't think they truly recognize the concept of rights/liberty. The source of my belief? The fact that animals do not deal with each other and with humans on mutually voluntary terms, and no animal except for man has ever demonstrated an ability to do so, or to recognize the concept of doing so.
