A today is among the projects the extension of democracy and human rights the animal world? Of course we aim to extend democracy to the natual world in itself, as one unit (or rather we are more than in the past), see the measures to protect the ecosystem. But this is happening because it was necessary, because it is directly linked to our survival as a species. Few, however, very few have accepted the idea of \u200b\u200bincluding animals in the universal rights that usually are attributed to man. Not long after news of the extension by the English Parliament, of certain human rights to chimpanzees. This is a symptom: someone starts to question, perhaps initially for a principle of identification with the suffering and the existence of otherness animal.
The capture, killing, deportation, extermination, extinction, imprisonment, marketing of animals are in full-persecution of other races (in which the disputed term "race" is appropriate, but only in this ). The conditions are: species, able to communicate with intelligence, gathered in groups with food systems, with Gerace and real political organization (there are systems of power in schools for example) are persecuted. We have to do with the people, it is good that this begins to be discussed. The animal is unable to communicate with us, nor has the means to impose itself on us, otherwise their rights they would have pretended it is unthinkable that anyone who can articulate their existence is not looking for a way of escaping from a tyranny, and that in so far as is possible, is already the case. So, if man is considered so superior in his intelligence, civilization and technology, should have no problem to take responsibility to regulate its relations with the animal world as well as the natural kind.
Who has the good fortune to live with an animal, where is not in a state of moral sterility, can be achieved by allowing it to this empathy to understand how it can be neutral, for example kill and feed. Why, then, simply to believe that only your dog, cat or whatever to live their lives with such intensity as to make it (as is often heard to say) "almost human" if not "human" in a restrictive definition or at least inappropriate, if not totally out of place. Their existence in fact makes sense in itself, as beings with their own characteristics.
short, among the major issues that arise at this point in human progress, as well as human rights, as well as respect for nature and problems of living with this, should come to terms with the other beings in different and varied smart forms that populate the world. We have the resources to understand and solve the food problems, we the political intelligence to process the forms of human rights and coexistence. Why not do it, where are the reasons to the contrary? In favor of the extension of rights is a simple reason: whatever is to be able to perceive, in their receptive sense, any form of violence or has limited rights. So we must ask:
I can feel physical pain?
are able to perceive psychological suffering?
suffer from the limitations of freedom?
communicate?
They have links with one another?
And so on. The responses reflect a world, that animal, which has the right to dignity and life as that man, because it is rich, complex and intense as that which we live. In other words, they are also citizens of other life forms that populate a given geographical area.
0 comments:
Post a Comment