: Humans and animals with symmetrical rights? Goodbye The National Constituent Assembly intended to incorporate in the new Constitution a cluster of "new rights" related to animals, the environment and to the female sexual pleasure. Do animals have rights?, "The tree, the river, the hills also have them? , "The enjoyment and sexual satisfaction of women should be considered a right enshrined in the Constitution?
rights are the right to act and to act toward a particular course and to demand a type of behavior to another individual. They are called humans because they refer only the man himself and which are inalienable in time. The rights do not belong to man by a state mandate but by being human.
Some Assembly members intend to declare extreme view animal rights, the river, the mountains to avoid the man may destroy or exterminate completely. The animals should not be granted rights and obligations because they have no ability to follow ethical standards and who can not go, can not be considered a subject of law. A dog can never reach an intellectual level to meet ethical standards and enforce their rights.
This view sucking extreme equal rights of all animals must not forget that universal ethical standards are symmetrical, ie the right of a man be respected if it respects the same rights of others (life, liberty, property). Do you think a tiger or a bull to see a human being I respect their right to life? Does that mean Tiger has a duty to respect a right to another living being?
ANIMAL FREEDOM
The organization notes that the meaning of rights to animals is to put a brake on human behavior for us to kill them. There are legal limits to prevent abuse and initiate legal proceedings against any individual who fails to comply.
must clearly understand that animals can not sustain any ethical behavior and which are objects and not subjects of law. If we analyze the case of rights to rivers, mountains, lakes, oceans fall into the absurd as they are not living and therefore can never be a subject of law. What a hill can be attributed fulfill an obligation, then? A subject of law if you have or at least the potential to do so.
A market solution to this issue would confer ownership rights to animals to prevent their extinction. Thus animals were no longer all or none but some few who would preserve his good care. "The tragedy of the commons" is a phenomenon that has swept the great animal predation. The establishment of clear incentives will allow the conservation of flora and fauna on the planet. This scenario is a great solution, but the bureaucrats and socialists do not apply because they do not understand or are inconsistent with their outdated ideology.
Another solution would be to create a shield law animal and environmental penalties and fines for those who violate the environment because they are causing a negative externality to other individuals in society and violates the right to life of the rest. Thus, any natural or legal person would apply the law if it would result in major environmental damage or killing animals indiscriminately for play or pleasure.
The latest nonsense is declared as a right to sexual enjoyment and pleasure of women, namely that all women have the full right to be pleased sexually. So should allow the government to interfere in the personal lives of a couple? "The State shall attend a sexually unsatisfied woman? Would you send a few burly men to please? Do you create a ministry of sexual pleasure?
Assembly members should spend time productively with other ideas that lead individuals to an open society to achieve economic prosperity and not to a closed and statist.
0 comments:
Post a Comment