I think Rothbard is probably correct, animals probably do not have any Rights. But for just a few notes, no time now to respond at length.
I think the author is wrong on several counts.
I have not observed that this is a "growing fashion". I know of only a tiny number of people who assert that animals have the full rights of humans, and they are considered nut-cases, even among my most radical acquaintances. The author has firmly established, from the very first sentence, that he is about to flog a straw man, err, animal.
This is an excerpt from Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty", published in 1982. At the time it was written there was indeed a growing interest in the question of "Animal Rights". That it has not caught on more than it has since then does not mean that Rothbard was attmepting to set up a straw man when he wrote this portion of his book.
- In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man . . .
The writer departs here from the most fundamental statement of the origin of rights in our American heritage. The Founders did not declare that human rights are grounded in an examination of human nature. They stated that these rights were "endowed by the Creator".
I think Rothbard was influenced by the thinking and writings of Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) who sought to keep natural Rights based on a more objective set of criteria than simple pronouncement -- as is done in the Declaration of Independence (obviously, for Rights to be recognized by a political document their existence must have predated the document, meaning there must or should be other more fundamental grounds for their existence).
- No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.
The writer is completely and utterly mistaken in this assertion, showing an abject ignorance of the intelligence and resourcefulness of higher animals, particularly primates. His conclusion that "natural rights" are limited to humankind is thus based on fallacies.
I think he should have worded this a bit better and perhaps have made a distinction by degree in the "transforming of their environment in order to prosper" and "collaborating". Still, it does not seem to me to impact his conclusion.
Yours,
Issodhos
