"I have rights!" I demand to see my lawyer! " Man is an animal (Homo sapiens sapiens egocentricus ). Its relationship to members of its species are complex, but still work, what people may say, a pet fashion: love, sexuality, fear, hatred, violence, sadness, jealousy and possessiveness, it's all animal. Yet, while it tends last few millennia, to be codified, intellectualized, that is to say slowly headed by the notion of morality, which stems, perhaps, the right, if not religion. With regard to other animal species ... and although the question remains open: should we or not included in this law, an expression of moral knowing why, you first have to get the animal from a "thing" to animated object , to that person, individual? See what I read this morning on the subject here .
You have the right to remain silent. All you will bark will be used against you!
It I think a matter of great honor, but again badly put. Again, "man is the measure of all things." The only optical animals, the only alternative that he proposes to move from the state of affairs common to that person recognizes the feelings and resentments, is to calibrate with respect to man, legally at that! This is not the first time. In the Middle Ages, being dragged to court pigs when they were guilty of eating on the ground that another owner. Or so we thought the dog had bitten, when one does not burn for witchcraft neighbor's goat. Prior to the outfall, there a goat. That justice should recognize the role of animals in the games due to effects that lead the world in my opinion reasonable. After all, the dog that bit is actually the one who hurt the worst. But is it one that has caused? For the dog that bites or has rabies, and must therefore be regarded as a sick or was attacked. When we say "attacked" is located ideally in terms of interpretation of the dog. What he sees as an assault, whereas the point of view of human bite, we simply want to scratch her behind the ear.
Will he have the right to social security? It is the problem: the man who wants to measure everything and that brings the world to this interpretation of anthropocentrism - "cosmic egoism" as I often say to yourself - do not want to to understand how animals think. Because supposedly, the animal does not think (thank you ...). Aristotle and Descartes But the animal thinks, with its own logic, instincts, reflexes, which are not quite ours but are not so distant as it admits that we, through our own animal nature. At its height, the dog, but also Dragonfly or beaver backhoe has its own cognitive functioning, responsive and sensitive. So instead of reducing everything to oneself and to evaluate the animal as a function of the human right, we should take full account of ethology, that is to say, the understanding of lifestyle and mental functioning of animals. Of each animal. We then include, for example, we do not have a dog. It fits into its modes of operation and representation of the world: the master is actually the leader of the pack, feeder, protector and / or protected, etc.. When a rat you peed on it, it does not insult you - because according to ethics, law and human rights, urinate on others is synonymous with insulting and reprehensible lack of hygiene of some point in the face - the rat urine which includes, for fun and smells so significantly, the individual to his "clan" his "family". Justice should take this into account, right?
The right to strike? What about "cattle" from the farm? I just read a very interesting theories about the origins of farming - appeared in the Neolithic. For example, the hunter following the herds of wild goats (the first animal domesticated in the Near East after the dog) accustomed to their life cycles, their lifestyle, and then he ends up "merge" its own way of life with theirs and that the two species associate together, man becoming the one who keeps goats and can play on their own needs, before using and take milk, meat, wool and others. Somehow, ethology have preceded domestication. We did not include the animal mode of human life, we learned of the animal and we adapted. On the other hand, the most frightening beasts, those that do not hunt for food but we try to defend themselves, have become objects of representation magical, religious image, and finally incarnation of the divine power of life and death (Taurus, in particular, but also birds of prey, scorpions, vultures, etc.). The animal, vis-à-vis the man, friend, partner (whether you eat or not) or the enemy, one that represents all the dangers of life, even more "mystical". Today, when we drove the consciousness of the divine power, to strengthen this anthropocentrism, then a beast, she closes that's it, that one does not understand himself as an animal , which is believed to have been so important in the light of nature that when something strikes us and destroying us (sickness, cataclysm, etc.) we say "why?" implied "but why we could not do anything against that?" As it seems that man is above nature and can monitor all ... Today, it is difficult to say that the animal can be just another animal species, as to be in relationship with him is to understand the codes and natural functions, which can not be the operate as a common "resource" without de facto destroys the sense of morality. It is believed to rise from the status of the animal when it builds a morality, but when subjected to the animal dislikes undergo self, destroys the idea of morality because they fell below him ... Capito?
And the Geneva Conventions?
Wonder if the animal rights is like asking if the frog can turn into a cow. It's silly, deeply. One must ask if we can in our relationship with animals, consider what he expresses himself. And we adapt ourselves, from this, instead of doing everything as if each animal could adapt to us. But even if we revise our concepts and philosophies of cosmic selfish to remember that basically, we are all beasts.
Your papers and those of the vehicle, sir. [click on the predator highways;)]
0 comments:
Post a Comment