Reference no: EM131602997

The prospect of according the protection of civil rights to animals (the right remain free from cruelty, torture, random killing, etc.) the way we guarantee children such protections, for instance. We already accord this protection to most domestic animals, for instance (via animal cruelty laws that protect dogs, cats, horses, etc., from random killing or maltreatment) and we have international legislation protecting endangered species and 'higher' species (like apes elephants. whales, dolphins, etc.). However, what is our reasoning and justification for doing this, and is our reasoning/justification the reason why our attitudes and policies seem so inconsistent and contradictory in so many ways? Why, for instance, is it wrong to kill a dog for food but not a pig? Or why is it wrong to hunt/kill a pony just for fun, but not a deer?

Are these contradictions because our purpose for protecting animals is only because we want to avoid seeing cruelty toward those creatures that we have sentimental feelings for, but think that it is perfectly OK to act cruelly toward other animals? In other words, is our purpose for protecting animals to serve our own utilitarian interests instead of protecting some kind of basic civil rights that we think they may have?

Should animals be accorded real civil rights? Is this feasible? Where do we draw the line between those animals worthy of protection and those not as worthy? --Is there any reason, for instance, why we should protect dogs but not raccoons, or mice, or turtles? Let me know what you think about all this!