In one of Skyla's posts she mentions that animals should have the natural right to be free and this got me thinking about the possible implications of that statement. Of course, we have to first decide who what natural freedom means before we can say who deserves it and who does not. To me, having a natural right to freedom means being able to spend life as one sees fit, so long as this does not infringe upon another person's freedom or well being. This is the sense of freedom when applied to humans. But what about nonhumans?
Nonhumans do not lead live that are as complex as that of a human and therefore their natural right to freedom would entail something a bit different. I think that a nonhuman's freedom basically consists of their ability to be left in their natural state with little to no human interruption. I do not think that this includes interactions with animals, as these encounters can often be enriching experiences. I'm not suggesting that free nonhumans and free humans go to their separate corners and avoid getting near each other in the fear that someone's freedom will be compromised. We should find a way to mutually interact with one another while keeping freedom as intact as possible on both sides of the aisle.
It's probably obvious that we can't grant animals complete freedom in the world, partially because we have already built civilizations in their habitats. We can't undo what we've done, but we should proceed while considering that animals have a natural right to be free just as humans do.
My question is: What is the best way to maintain essential freedom of all beings while making technological advances and keeping in mind the increasing world population? What are the implications of all beings being attributed a natural right to freedom?
Nonhumans do not lead live that are as complex as that of a human and therefore their natural right to freedom would entail something a bit different. I think that a nonhuman's freedom basically consists of their ability to be left in their natural state with little to no human interruption. I do not think that this includes interactions with animals, as these encounters can often be enriching experiences. I'm not suggesting that free nonhumans and free humans go to their separate corners and avoid getting near each other in the fear that someone's freedom will be compromised. We should find a way to mutually interact with one another while keeping freedom as intact as possible on both sides of the aisle.
It's probably obvious that we can't grant animals complete freedom in the world, partially because we have already built civilizations in their habitats. We can't undo what we've done, but we should proceed while considering that animals have a natural right to be free just as humans do.
My question is: What is the best way to maintain essential freedom of all beings while making technological advances and keeping in mind the increasing world population? What are the implications of all beings being attributed a natural right to freedom?
No comments:
Post a Comment