If the above mentioned male lion should get caught trying to kill a female lions cubs I'm guessing he would find himself in some serious trouble. There would be no investigation nor reports to the lion police, she would simply chew his balls off and spit them in his face.
As Issodos guides us through this dilemma I begin to question whether man has any inherent rights above and beyond that of the animals. He has language so that he may claim these rights, he has opposable thumbs so that an otherwise soft and easily eaten species can make weapons from whatever is at hand. He has superior intelligence and created civilisation so that bands of humans could find reason to kill other bands of humans, or not, depending on the whims of the chosen leaders.
Self ownership is simply a claim, all the beasts of the forests would make the same claim if they had the language to do so. Domesticated beasts might say that you can keep me and feed me and eat me as long as you continue my bloodline but ownership is in your mind.
And thus I come, perhaps, to the profundity you seek. The Mind of Man. That great collective vessel, capable of learning, changing, creating and adapting. It may have been divine intervention, it may have been an evolutionary mistake. Animals are mostly hard wired, they are born knowing most everything they will need to get along in a natural world. When humans are born they are a blank slate and must feed continuously from the tree of knowledge. This sets us apart and it sets us above (for now) all the other beasts. It gives man and man alone the ability to look at a situation and determine whether it is right or wrong. Squishing a fly to protect food from contamination is right. Pulling the wings off a fly just to see it strugggle is wrong. This lowly example sets the stage for mans ethical treatment of other species.
