Equality.The equality of all Earth beings is also a by-product of environmentalism. This idea is devoted to the necessity of “perfect world” keeping, just like it was created, as the only solution to keep ecosystem alive. In this regard, we may mention PhilipShabecoff’s words, who once wrote: ”An unspoiled land of great beauty and wonder began to change when Europeans came here five hundred years ago. …Its resources were squandered…large areas were sullied, disfigured, and degraded, and…our negligent use of the Promethean forces of science and technology has brought us to the verge of disaster” (Shabecoff 97). In this way, the idea of perfect world and humans’ equality to animals forces us to refuse all blessings of civilization. One serious miss here is the restriction of humans’ mental abilities, while animals are allowed to use all their advantages endowed with the nature, such as speed or strength. In addition, the ability of civil values refusal is incredibly doubtful. In this order, words of Robert James Bidinotto are important to be mentioned: “If untouched nature is the ideal, then in logic our lives, interests, well-being, and pleasures must be sacrificed to the “greater” interests of our surroundings. And if they aren’t-if our selfish, life-serving acts impinge on the “ideal” in any way, as they must-then we will come to feel guilty about being alive”(Bidinotto).
Natural rights.Talking about this part, advocates of animals’ rights say that the great apes in some way share part of our genetic material, consequently they ought to be endowed with the same rights as people are. In this respect, we have to outline that there is a talk about concrete legal prescriptions that are inherently secured with the mechanism of state’s constraint. The argument towards necessity of natural rights of animals recognition hardly can be adequately opposed to views of those, who are against appropriate concept. As for the most significant cons, the reference to “moral agent” is worth to be called the most persuasive and undoubted. The point is that humans’ are only creations, who are able to differ wrong from right. In other words, they are only species whose deeds are determined by consciousness choice. In this aspect, we also may remind the gift of a free will, that no one expect humans is endowed with. In this way, rights’ cannot be applied to animals’ as they always go side-by-side with legal responsibilities. In this aspect, Ilana Mercer writes:”Because animals kill with no forethought or conscience, we don’t hold them responsible for their actions in the legal sense, as we would a human being. We agree they were only acting on their animal instincts – they don’t function on a higher plane” (Mercer).
To sum up, it worth being recognized that the opposition to animals rights’ movement has all reasonable grounds to exists. Probably, someone may treat it like the manifestation of human’s selfishness. However, its arguments are strong enough to be convincing. Let’s repeat one more time that those who claims for irrationality of animals’ rights should not be perceived as some kind of enemies to animals. The main idea here that people are reasonably considered higher species than others. Except all privileges, this status imposes some kind of additional responsibility. As Wesley J. Smith states man’s nature is the source of the responsibility he bears for his actions. In its turn, the nature of animals makes them worthy of human compassion, kindness and care, but never of any human rights. Probably, this point hardly can be argued from the sides of both camps.
Bidinotto, R.J. (2010). “Environmentalism or Individualism?”. Web 26 Nov. 2011. http://www.econot.com/page4.html
Browne, P. (2011). “Animal rights and wrongs”.Nature: International weekly journal of science, 470.
Cox, S. (2004). “How animal rights took on the world”. BBC News. Web. 26 Nov. 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4020235.stm
Gore, A. (1993). “Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit”. New York: Plume edition/Penguin Books.
Kevin, A. (2010).”You beast! (animals’ rights & wrongs)”. SALVO magazine.Web. 26 Nov. 2011 http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo13/13allen.php
Mercer, I. (2003). “No rights for animals!”.Web. 26 Nov. 2011. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35022
Ohlman, D. (2010). “Animals and the Peacable Kingdom”. Web 26 Nov. 2011. http://restoringeden.org/resources/Ohlman/AnimalsPeacableKingdom/view
Osborne, L. (2009). “Chemical Weapons in the Animal Kingdom”.Web. 26 Nov. 2011 http://lynda-osborne.suite101.com/chemical-weapons-in-the-animal-kingdom-a161189
Shabecoff, P. (1993). “ A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement”.New York: Hill and Wang.