Mises.org has two great articles on animal rights. In the first article, Murray Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School of Economics, defines and defends the position that animals have no natural rights. In the second article, B.K. Markus[1] of Mises.org posts an excerpt from Garrison Keillor's radio program, The Writer's Almanac, where Peter Singer takes the position that animals deserve equal rights. Singer, of course, is famous for campaigning to get the United Nations to adopt a Declaration on Great Apes.[2]
While Rothbard defends the natural rights approach - the logical approach - when defining animal rights, there is also a biblical approach to all this as well. I leave you to find that - though I will let you in on the final chase scene; the biblical and Rothbardian approaches arrive at the same conclusion.
Read both Mises.org posts and decide for yourself.
Notes:
[1] In case you don't follow the links, B.K. Markus is a strong supporter of the Rothbard position.
[2] According to Wikipedia, Singer "states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents." Now, if I used that quote to question Singer, I would be committing the ad hominem logical fallacy. And, I wouldn't want to do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment