Something has the rights asserts that something has ability to force. Domination in whatever degree. Without this, fulfilling the rights will be useless.
That's why when we asked whether animals have rights? This confirms that the animal has the ability to impose what makes right.
Coercion involving consequences. And we're going to get opposition from the animal, if we do not do the right for animals, is the arrival of natural law that comes to us in the form of extinction. And if this continues, this will bring the ecosystem imbalance.
This understanding has been quite clear to us that animals has the rights to be considered, because he is also responsible for human survival.
It is the fact that the persecution against the elements of the ecosystem will affect the lives of others.
That is the consequence, but that's all we can do, except that one day the animals can talk to us forward thinking and shows how the animals also have a stake in our survival.
But while animals can not communicate well to voice their rights, their rights is an implied rights that can be captured (understood) by any intelligent creature.
A simple example is a baby has rights, if not met, and die, it is possible to make us sad. Babies can not speak for the rights, but by implication, its rights can be found on other more intelligent creatures.
I will try to simplify my explanation.
Action & Reaction
We are always associated with a cause and effect.
Causation can be a reaction to the action.
Objects are considered to have no awareness, like a wall. When we hit the wall, and wall will give the opposite reaction. It shows a reaction. Objects can also indicate the action which is a function of an object. At the level of inanimate objects, this is an action and reaction (within the law of physics).
In animals, it also can occur, that is when we generally interfere, then the animal will react to defend themselves by attacking or away from us.
Similarly, in humans. Humans have the ability to demonstrate action and reaction.
All react as mentioned by the 3rd law of motion from Newton. It can be happened to inanimate objects, animals and humans.
Differentiation on Action & Reaction
At the level of
Inanimate objects, this is an action and reaction.
In animals, is also a reaction to the action but with additional functions such as reaction instinct is the source of action that we couldn't find on inanimate objects.
And in humans there is also a function of action and reaction as in inanimate objects and animals. The difference is that humans have the ability to plan actions and reactions, so that actions and reactions can be directed to sustain or alter specific conditions.
On the human level, action and reaction get a very strange term when applied to animals or even objects. In humans, the action and reaction can be referred to as the "duty and the rights".
Understanding from Different Directions
We may not apply the terms of the rights and obligations to inanimate objects but must use the terms action and reaction.
But we may also use it as far as we understand its limits. This is generally used in poetry.
From Philosophy to Science
But I want to reiterate here that with the deepening understanding of the action and reaction, there is one thing that is consistent, namely that the reaction and action of various levels, asserted consequences.
And this understanding should conclude that when someone asks, is there any rights for animals? We can get into the basic understanding that the rights and obligations may be understood as: the action and reaction (just like when we try to understand the material in terms of the particle)
If we asked, for what reason our everyday behaviors may be approached in terms of particles, or discussed in terms of action and reaction, or of other fundamental aspect, which is difficult and it feels strange to be understood by us (when compared with the use of language in our lives)?
It's to find the consistency of a behavior that is less obvious to understand. Because may be we couldn't see a clear distinction on the events from the level of everyday life. That is why we are dealing with fundamental level of understanding.
But understanding at fundamental level (such as: law at the particle level, action and reaction law of physics) can not be applied easily (irrelevantly), such as "hit the wall, the wall will give a reaction, and the wall has the rights to defend itself", but it must be interpreted as "the wall has the opposite reaction (defend), which is indicate there is reaction and action. Rights on the wall according to 3rd law of motion from Newton can be interpreted as a reaction. Just like actions and reactions from animal and human.
And once we find out where lies the consistency, here we can learn, how far this basic understanding can be pulled back to the level of human life, to explain how humans should behave (the appropriate fields for this is "Philosophy of science").
Once we determine (find out where lies the consistency) that the consistency of the rights and obligations in a fundamental level can be considered as a reaction and the action, further, here we can learn how we can pulled back this understanding to the level of human life (everyday life). It's philosophy of science)
It can be concluded that:
- P -> Q (If there are rights and obligations, then, there are actions and reactions)
All the rights and obligations are always dealing with relevant actions and reactions.
Q -> R (If there are actions and reactions, then, there are consequences)
P -> R (It can be concluded that the rights and obligations are always dealing with the consequences)
From Science to Philosophy
Back to the question.
So when we asked about: whether animals have the rights in any possible level?
- It can be formulated as: "Do animals have consequences in our relationship?
Similarly, if we asked, whether the wall (or any inanimate objects) has the rights to us?
- It can be formulated as: "What are the consequences of wall ties with us?
These questions can be answered by understanding that: animals, wall, and any object within reach as far as interaction with us, have certain consequences relevantly.
We have a right and obligation to the animals and anything, to make correct placements for something, specifically for us, generally for something else.
Our rights and our obligations to animals and inanimate objects is to maintain the balance for the ecosystem.
There is no absurd understanding here, because "the wall has a right to defend itself, but not, as envisioned in humans".
It's not about conflicting one understanding to different situation irrelevantly. It's not about giving the rights to animals or giving the rights to the wall or similar things the same as giving the rights to human. It's not about giving the rights to anything equally.
But this is only way to ensure:
Whether there is or there is no consistency on our understanding
How far for an understanding can be widen to let us see an understanding from any different angles.
Further this can be used to determine where to put ourselves or any other things fairly, correctly.
The points are:
Understanding the rights and obligations like this, will make us realize that
- Everything have their own rights and obligations with different levels, in the sense of having the action and reaction, having the consequences.
Once again, whether animal (or anything) have rights? Then we can answer that animal (or anything) has rights.
- In the fundamental understanding: the animal (or anything) has relevant consequences to our relationship (one of which is understood as an imbalance in the ecosystem can harm humans).
from deepening understanding, it asserts that, "there is no way for us to understand the rights and obligations except by relate it to understanding about consequences", or it's meaningless. As i already mentioned at previous edited post.
So hopefully, this kind of understanding will direct us to widen our capabilities to see possibilities for broader control of action and reaction relevantly.
Consequences oblige us to provide the right (proper interactions) for something else.
Eventually, I hope this explanation can smooth the transition from the explanation in the fundamental level to the level of everyday life, so this helps us to understand "the make sense of it", without losing consistency.