I was listening to a leading animal rights scholar speaking on National Public Radio (NPR) the other day. In elucidating his position in favor of animal rights, he made sure to point out that animals are sentient beings that deserve rights because they have interests. He then went on to contrast this special condition of animals, which of course includes human beings, with plants that are an example of beings, perhaps he said entities, that are not sentient and that do not have interests (!).
Why do animal rights scholars so casually and confidently make this assumption? Are they aware of the science around the topic? Do they even have an interest in it? It seems not. They just blithely make the same mistake that people who ascribe rights only to human beings do. Can't they take just that one extra step? What can we think of our academic system when it is populated with such parochial and illogical thinkers?
Why do animal rights scholars so casually and confidently make this assumption? Are they aware of the science around the topic? Do they even have an interest in it? It seems not. They just blithely make the same mistake that people who ascribe rights only to human beings do. Can't they take just that one extra step? What can we think of our academic system when it is populated with such parochial and illogical thinkers?
No comments:
Post a Comment