Animal Rights

What are rights? In a libertarian society should the same rights assumed in all humans be species specific or do we afford some or all to other animals and plants as well? To what degree and what criteria should this be based?

Hi ThePsychoticnut and welcome to the forum,

This discussion topic started in the comments section of my video Morality, From a Societal Perspective.

josealonsoleon: I enjoyed your presentation but was left hanging waiting throughout the point at which you would address the relationship in society humans entertain with other species and how we have come to consider other sentient beings, animals that is, as property and denied them the rights that other moral agents have by law. This in my opinion is a important step in aspiring to become one day the alien nation that would peacefully visit other planets. Until we stop killing animals we will never be that

Nielsio: We can't beneficially trade with beings who aren't moral agents. So society isn't hurt if those beings are used to fulfill our needs (for example, use them in production or for food).
Now you could say that *needlessly* hurting animals sets a bad standard in society, and I am strongly against that kind of treatment of animals.

josealonsoleon: I have to disagree completely. In your example you included in the trade process LOVE and I would add other sentiments such as compassion and respect, and many more that can be traded with animals. You should take a moment and listen to some of the conferences from Gary Francione and Peter Singer. You would then understand more clearly the point I am trying to make.

ThePsychoticnut: I completely disagree with your assessment. First of all as animals don't have a will (atleast not a developed one) they cannot be considered moral. Since they cannot be considered moral neither can they be held responsible under any system of law. If they were surely most every animal (especially preditors) would be found guilty of infringing on the rights of others. Also although you can give love, respect, etc to animals they cannot provide these in return in any real sense for the most part.

In my video I make the case for why moral agents and their property should not be hurt/damaged/stolen and why agents that try to do those things should not be tolerated.

So this topic isn't a criticism of my theory, but it tries to expand it's scope. The problem however is that in no way can you use the build-up of my theory to include agents without moral agency;

1. Amoral agents do not produce thing like we do (they lack the mental capabilities). So we cannot trade with their products.
2. You can trade some forms of companionship with a small set of animals, but we tend to not eat those anyway. The person actually caring for an animal, who also chooses how to use it (for production or food), clearly doesn't think it's love that he is trading with it.
3. So what is the argument that we should not homestead animals who we can't trade goods with and that we don't share companionship with? (which is basically all animals except pets).
4. To me this line of reasoning seems more an appeal that we shouldn't hurt pets that belong to others; but that is already covered under property rules of owners.

I don't claim to be an expert in the field in any stretch of imagination and will most likely not be able to provide clear and fact based data supporting some of my ideas, but I will nonetheless challenge the ones (ideas that is) that I find shocking to my own personal way of thinking. Who knows, perhaps this will rally others towards that or I may come to change how I think. Is that not the purpose of forums? Ok so first, Nilsio your first remark about amoral agents, please travel back in time and remember if you read history books how humans thought about indians and local barbarian beings as animals and amoral agents with whom "WE" could not trade. When did that change and why? Perhaps the title of my reply is a hint...:-) If you can answer those two questions you may be on your way to seeing animal rights from another point of view.

On your second point, I challenge you to have that discussion with animal lovers and they will tear you to pieces....hahaha There are countless of scientifically based studies demonstrating that animals feel and generate love and compassion, even predators are capable of that specially among themselves but also at times with other species. One would think that a more evolved animal such as the homo sapien could demonstrate some of that too...:-)

To your third argument I reply with a simple NO, we shouldn't. And to support my argument I would base it one incredible benefit to society that is slowly catching on in the philosophical forums but that scientists have realized now for a while. There will be no society at all one day if we don't fix the climate problems we have. And not eating animals (which is a good moral thing) can save the planet. There are dozens of papers out there supporting that and countless personalities supporting the idea even in Copenhagen currently in the talks about climate change. I have a paper in my possession written by my daughter in 2005 that may soon be published, if you want to read it send me your email using the one I gave you to register in this forum.

And finally to your last point, if with my previous comments you still believe that this is only about not hurting pets that belong to others...hahaha Then we won't be chatting long will we? No I don't believe that its only about pets. I think that our species has taken dominion of the animal kingdom wrongfully. Recently a friend of mine commented on my challenges of animal rights in our discussions and provided me with the following example. Give a child an apple and a rabbit, and his first reflex will be to play with the rabbit. After a while hunger will bring him to eat the apple, never the rabbit.

As Rothbard put it, "the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we “feel” that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man’s capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor."

To critique your points for a moment:

1. Historically speaking the "barbarians", black slaves in America, Indians, etc. were thought to be subhuman and therefore not worthy of "rights". Also those ancient people, for the most part did not have a coherent "rights" ethic. To them the common man had no rights but was more privileged than those you mention above for the same reason as above. Only the ruling class had rights. The reason being because, again for the most part, for centuries "rights" were associated with "power". Rights went to he who could secure them by force.

2. I would start with again we must define our terms here. I don't define love as an emotion. Yes it has been shown, I believe, that animals can exhibit emotion. It has also been shown that plants can emote as well though less noticeably. Again my question is do we extend rights also to plants? People have been known to become just as attached to plants as animals and then what would we eat? It would be the end of humanity. I would also like to add that animals cannot be trusted to act with civility within a societal structure as evidenced by the recent attack on the woman by the monkey. Although some animals such as dogs and cats have been shown to be trustworthy companions over the years, there are few other exceptions. Additionally dogs and cats are only shown to act civilly when their instincts are properly subdued through training.

3. To this point you mention global warming but have you read the reports as to why it is said that a vegetarian diet is good for the environment? It is because the more people each a vegetarian diet the less animals are eaten. The fewer animals eaten mean fewer animals raised for food. The fewer animals raised for food the less animals there are over all. The fewer animals there are over all the less methane given off by gaseous bodily excretions. So the reason is discovered that the reason a vegetarian diet is good for combating global warming is because it creates a world with less animals. Perhaps then by this same reasoning we should go on a massive killing spree. Killing all animals (possibly even including humans though that would infringe on their rights ) we find. This way we would decrease the total number of creatures and thus the amount of emissions.

4. Lastly you said, "Give a child an apple and a rabbit, and his first reflex will be to play with the rabbit. After a while hunger will bring him to eat the apple, never the rabbit." This may be true but in response I would say the reason for this is because more of convenience not because of nature. Given the same scenario only substituting the rabbit for a hot dog, most children will play with the apple and eat the hot dog. You may say that perhaps the children do not understand that a hot dog once was an animal (or multiple animals depending on how that particular hot dog was processed). To which I would reply that many children if hungry or curious would also eat bugs with which there is no one who could think anything other than it is a live creature.

"Rights went to he who could secure them by force." What a pitty that nothing has changed since the dawn of time! Isn't this enough to raise an eyebrow and ask yourself, have we gone wrong somewhere? Should we have listened to the great thinkers just because they can express themselves better then the average Jo? When Rothbard says that, "man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man" don't you think this can, could or perhaps even should be applied to other species? Or do we simply stick to the first sentence quoted in the beginning of the above text? Because frankly that's what this species the humans is and has been doing all along, using force to secure rights over those of weaker species.

2. My intervention in favor of animal species targeted sentient beings not plants. I have no idea of what you are saying and have not given it much thought and if I did perhaps suicide would be the only alternative... I never said that we should form a societal community with animals, pets are not what I was talking about. I don't think this is about how much civility pets can demonstrate or not, as the same could be said about humans, if you go to China and take out a kleenex and blow your nose you will demonstrate a very disgusting attitude and they would say that your civilities are not at par with their society, now if you put that same kleenex back in your pocket or purse they will almost vomit in disgust. No that's not at all what I was addressing, I meant our society needs to think back it's relationship with nature and give more serious thinking to what it has been doing with animals or I prefer to use the term other species. This way we can stay tuned for the unlikely but plausible event but one never knows that aliens may come knocking on our door one day....:-) The issue here IMO is not whether we approve of animal civilities or inability to comply with our own, the issue is rather they have their own civilities that work amongst their species and they have been harvested and put in cages and in enclosed environment to produce food for humans and that is not only immoral but its contributing to killing our own species.

This takes us to point three, to answer your question YES I am quite aware of the phenomenon, it takes eighty litres of water to grow one lettuce and 9235 liters to grow one pound of beef, not one cow, just one pound of its flesh. And 2500 litres for one egg, not the chicken just the bloody egg!!! There is no need to go on a killing spree just stop raising all the cattle and chicken and the earth climate problems will start seeing new hope.

The last point was simply to illustrate that man did not start off as an omnivorous, we are more like our cousins the great apes that feed off plants and live a healthy and joyfull life.We developed into meat eaters when our mind developed and we discovered how to overcome others through use of force. We are not designed by nature as predators, but have found a way to come back to the beginning of this discussion, the use of force is still what drives the world.

JoseAlonsoLeon, you wrote: "I think it's a lie that laws are derived by ethics." So now I'm alittle confused about your position. Please answer a couple of questions for me so that we can all be on the same page and could move on in this subject.

First of all I want to make clear that when I said that laws are derived from ethics I did not mean that that is currently how they are arrived at in our modern statist society. Rather I meant that is where they SHOULD originate.

So my questions to you are:

If not from ethics how are laws derived?

What is your view on ethics?

What are rights?

How are rights derived? What I mean is by what principles and axioms do we arrive at what rights are inherent in others and ourselves?

What do you mean by the word sentient? (does it include single celled organisms? parasites? algae? is it defined as all those currently classified by modern biology as animal? please explain.)

By what criteria do we draw the line between those who deserve rights and those that don't?

Do rights fluctuate by species or should all rights be granted across the board to all animal species?

By extension of these rights should animals be put on trial for acting in a manner that is recognized as part of their nature but is a clear infringement on another's rights?

Is this subject one of ethics or law? What I mean is do you believe the rights of animals should be enforced by law or that it is merely a question of ethics?

If an animal's rights are infringed upon, how are we to know if that animal wishes to forgive the trespass or if he wishes to press charges?

In court how would the rights of animals be upheld? What I mean is purely logistically if an animal is transgressed against, how could it be expected to bring this transgression to court to be heard?

When you answer these question for me perhaps we can move on with the discussion. Thanks

in general this is a very difficult question.

i think you'll find if you really investigate the issue, that it is impossible to draw a qualitative line between humans and other species. pick any attribute and you will find many animal species who exhibit the same attribute, just in a different degree.

in practice, it seems that most people's moral sentiments are based on a feeling of compassion toward others that are like themselves. these feelings then gradually diminish as the "other" under consideration is less like oneself.

hence, we have the greatest concern and compassion for family members, then members of our communities, social groups, religious groups, etc. then members of other races and nations. then species who exhibit "humanlike" expressions, actions and emotions or that we relate to consistently in humanlike ways (like apes, dogs, cats, horses). then animals who seem slightly less humanlike (cattle, mice, birds). then less and less to the point that we don't rarely concern ourselves at all with their suffering or well-being (plants, bugs).

then it further seems to me that any time we develop a moral framework, we try to test it against our moral feelings to see if we feel okay with the implications of that framework. but then, different people's moral feelings start stronger or weaker and they also diminish faster or slower going outward in "likeness".

When I wrote that I thought it was a lie I was not implying you were lying, I meant that in the general sense as we often use that structure like in: Democracy is a lie, or the Judicial system is a lie, for there is no justice only law. And our conversation will most likely end here because as I had mentioned to Nielsio I did not want to create this topic for I was not able to commit to my ability to sustain it for lack of time to start with and as I mentioned in the very beginning, I am not claiming to be an expert in this matter. I only have opinions and ideas that I put on the table to people like you and others that perhaps have higher aspirations about solving the worlds problems. And when I see some rigid thinking and I believe I did in certain comments then I throw my two cents in. They like it fine, they don't I'm so sorry. It sticks then perhaps I contributed somehow. And in looking at your questions I still see that you are thinking about the way humans go about their business and again I insist on that point, this to me is not about integration of animals into our societal community which was heading of the topic in which I first commented.

The thoughts I shared with you here and in the YouTube video are perhaps very basic and may not have solutions. But hey if no one speaks up for animals, they sure can't do it for themselves. My real motivation for doing it was to perhaps have Nielsio and others pause for a moment and give some thought to how we humans have been treating animals and I especially liked the fact that he had thrown in the idea of aliens visiting us and he made the assumption that they would be friendly because evolved and highly intelligent. It made me think about how animals see us when we arrive in their habitat, take possession of members of their society, put them in cages etc etc. Was Nielsio much too fast in assuming that thos aliens would not do the same to us?

I also mentioned how the definition about moral agents was IMO too narrow, not including beings, animals or humans incapable of fighting for their rights and you have not mentioned that. So its those little details that kind of bug me and there you are, I expressed my frustrations towards those missing arguments and I appreciate how civilized this whole discussion has been to date.

JoseAlonsoLeon wrote:Ok so first, Nilsio your first remark about amoral agents, please travel back in time and remember if you read history books how humans thought about indians and local barbarian beings as animals and amoral agents with whom "WE" could not trade.

My theory points out that Indians are moral agents. My theory also advises to integrate them into our society. This doesn't refute my point nr 1 which is that we can't do the same with amoral agents.

There are countless of scientifically based studies demonstrating that animals feel and generate love and compassion, even predators are capable of that specially among themselves but also at times with other species.

I stated that we can trade some forms of companionship with a small set of animals. So I don't see what your point is in repeating it. I said that the animals we do share companionship with are already protected under the rules of ownership. So if your point is that we trade companionship with animals, then you don't have a point that we should extend rights to animals we don't trade companionship with. Those animals are all animals used today for production or food.

One would think that a more evolved animal such as the homo sapien could demonstrate some of that too...

So you want me to have compassion for the animal. Well, what about compassion for humans who are integrated in our society? For example poor farmers who are using animals in production. What about their customers, who would starve to death if it weren't for the productive use of animals?

To your third argument I reply with a simple NO, we shouldn't. And to support my argument I would base it one incredible benefit to society that is slowly catching on in the philosophical forums but that scientists have realized now for a while. There will be no society at all one day if we don't fix the climate problems we have. And not eating animals (which is a good moral thing) can save the planet. There are dozens of papers out there supporting that and countless personalities supporting the idea even in Copenhagen currently in the talks about climate change. I have a paper in my possession written by my daughter in 2005 that may soon be published, if you want to read it send me your email using the one I gave you to register in this forum.

So we shouldn't use animals as resources (food and production) because of climate problems? Not eating animals saves the planet? So eating animals 'kills' the planet? Well, I don't accept that theory. But this doesn't counter my moral theory. IF indeed your theory is correct then it would fall under the application of my theory, namely that people are worse off and die as a direct result of using animals in production.

It would be the application of this:
"Morality is that set of principles of action that state that you cannot hurt other agents, or their property, who participate in society; for doing so must be detrimental to society."

So this objection, even if true, would not give amoral agents rights. If you concede this, then I suggest that a new topic be started by those interested to continue that discussion in the science part of the forum.

I am not suggesting that we shouldn't use animals as resources because of climate problems, we should not do it simply because it is immoral and the benefit of it is that it will contribute to improving our climate difficulties. But don't take my word for it, there are countless documentaries out there demonstrating this.

My inputs in no way were meant to challenge your theory, the intent was simply to open a small parenthesis in which some of the ideas addressed in your presentation could be expanded. It was clear enough that you suggested this topic as an expansion to your discussion, I don't see what I have said that might make you think otherwise.
"So you want me to have compassion for the animal. Well, what about compassion for humans who are integrated in our society? For example poor farmers who are using animals in production. What about their customers, who would starve to death if it weren't for the productive use of animals?"
I don't think that anybody needs to starve to death if society migrated slowly back to better eating habits. The reaction you gave here reminds me of comments humans have always demonstrated as a reflex in their natural tendency to resist to changes, not minute small imperceptible changes but drastic changes. Its a normal reaction in every aspect of human behavior. But no one needs so starve, a responsible society needs to implement changes that are necessary to its survivable and needs to do it in a civilize way. And in closing there is not need for you toahev comapssion for animals and ignore compassion for "poor farmers", is there? WE can do both and more, tah's what wonderfull about humans, they can be such multitasking animals...

I agree with the application suggesting that "Morality is that set of principles of action that state that you cannot hurt other agents, or their property, who participate in society; for doing so must be detrimental to society.", with the understanding that we are talking of a planetary society and that the animal kingdom as a whole is a large and important contributor to the planets societal structure and that whatever humans do in a large scale ignoring nature's delicate balance will come back to bite humans. So in the end if the result is not giving animals rights so be it but at least they get respect, compassion and freedom, and to me the result is the same.

JoseAlonsoLeon wrote:I am not suggesting that we shouldn't use animals as resources because of climate problems, we should not do it simply because it is immoral [..]

You say that but at the same time you don't offer a reason why it would be immoral. In the rest of your post you simply keep raising the point that ultimately human beings would be hurt. But this does not give amoral agents societal rights. Your objection is environmental, not moral. And if your objection is environmental, then it belongs elsewhere.

Nielsio, I honestly think that in today's day and age one need lawyers to tell them what is legal and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, that is according to the text of the law. But we are all capable of knowing instinctively (sometimes we need to plunge deep into our past buried sentiments, but we are able to do it) what is moral or immoral, meaning right or wrong and that can vary I suppose to certain degrees from one individual to another. I did send you and Thepshycoticnut a couple of videos from YouTube in which you had information on why this is immoral they were videos showing an interview of Gary Francione an international famous lawyer and militant on animal rights and in another with Dr Steve Best professor oh philosophy and also activist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOetUYEFoxc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO8NXatlQhc

If we go back to the beginning of my intervention in your video entitled "Morality from a Societal Perspective" you may recall that my comments suggested that we need to consider our relationship with other species as I indicated that we have established dominion over the animal kingdom and I challenged the morality of such actions and even used the argument presented by yourself with the Aliens visiting example you used in which you assumed that such an intelligent species would certainly be friendly. I tried to make the analogy by saying that if we transposed that to how animals may perceive us as highly intelligent species they were in for a hell of a ride when they ended up in cages and in our plates.
If a discussion on morality uses environmental examples as benefits to behaving morally does that topic belong in morality discussions or environmental discussions? It's your forum, your house you are free to locate them where you want. To me it doesn't matter!

pilby, I don't think it is a difficult question. Perhaps the moral question of how other species should properly treated is a difficult question. Legally and thus the question of rights is not. In a libertarian society for there to be a law there must be a prosecutorial client. How is an animal to bring a claim to court? As Rothbard points out animals cannot have rights until they can petition for them. Like I said perhaps we can discuss the moral implications but the legal ones seem self evident to me.

There you go see, ThePsychoticnut I knew it was a matter of using the proper words. Thanks for finding them.... We have final and total agreement on your last statement. I have been saying that all along but using less succinct and unambiguous terms. Pardon my French...:-) Absolutly, animals can't have rights in a legal system for the reasons you indicate. And for those specific reasons Humans need to engage in some form of representation of their rights on their behalf just as they would do for other humans that would be incapacitated to represent themselves. And the reason to do that would be, should be and must be driven by our moral values. Oh and might I add that imo this would and should apply in any type of society whether it be Libertarian or otherwise!

JoseAlonsoLeon wrote:I did send you and Thepshycoticnut a couple of videos from YouTube in which you had information on why this is immoral they were videos showing an interview of Gary Francione an international famous lawyer and militant on animal rights and in another with Dr Steve Best professor oh philosophy and also activist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOetUYEFoxc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO8NXatlQhc

I may watch these later, but I'm rather busy at the moment. But if they have reasons why amoral agents should receive societal rights (or anything that would undermine my moral theory), then shouldn't you be able to mention those here?

If we go back to the beginning of my intervention in your video entitled "Morality from a Societal Perspective" you may recall that my comments suggested that we need to consider our relationship with other species as I indicated that we have established dominion over the animal kingdom and I challenged the morality of such actions and even used the argument presented by yourself with the Aliens visiting example you used in which you assumed that such an intelligent species would certainly be friendly. I tried to make the analogy by saying that if we transposed that to how animals may perceive us as highly intelligent species they were in for a hell of a ride when they ended up in cages and in our plates.

My theory is not based on the fact that we are smarter than animals. My moral theory is that there are beings with which we can integrate into a society and beneficially engage into trade. Amoral agents cannot integrate into society. If they could, they would not be amoral. These animals do not have the reasoning capacity for this.

Alien species can be moral agents just like we are. And because we can integrate into their society, they should embrace that and treat us like agents of their own society. And the same thing the other way around.

If a discussion on morality uses environmental examples as benefits to behaving morally does that topic belong in morality discussions or environmental discussions? It's your forum, your house you are free to locate them where you want. To me it doesn't matter!

If that point would undermine the proposition that we shouldn't hurt societal participants, then it belongs here. For example if theft from a moral agent would indeed not hurt the rest of society, then that would undermine my whole theory. But whether it's true that moral agents are directly hurt through the use animals or whether it's not true, it doesn't undermine my moral theory. So it's a technical question, not a philosophical one.

I don't believe Animals have rights, mainly for the reasons Rothbard and co. have put. I don't think it is wise or "good" to needlessly torture and kill animals, but that is, I admit, a personal preference. I think such behavior should be frowned upon because it is more of a reflection of a deeply troubled and psychologically ill individual more than out of any "rights" for animals.

My philosophy on killing animals:

One should strive to eat and utilize all one can, if one is to kill something. Waste is a thief.

Killing animals in self-defense is ok, obv.

On principle, don't kill primates....they's too much like folks.

Don't kill or eat crows. Not good karma, bad juju.

Humans should try to be good stewards of the earth, if only because with great power comes great responsibility. Failure to acknowlege this will certainly lead to one's own demise, imo. Spider-man lessons ftw.

People who kill animals solely for vanity purposes tend to be either ignorant on the issue altogether or borderline psychologically ill (as mentioned above) imo.

If you kill an animal, at least have the decency to cut out its heart to set its spirit free.

That is all for now.

Sorry JoseAlonsoLeon but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you again. Although I am glad to see that we are finnally starting to understand eachother.

JoseAlonsoLeon wrote: for those specific reasons Humans need to engage in some form of representation of their rights on their behalf just as they would do for other humans that would be incapacitated to represent themselves.

The difference is that a human who is incapacitated had a choice in representation. Prior to becoming incapacitated one can choose their representative. If, in the case of children and the handicapped, they could not have choosen a rep. then a direct blood relative or gardian choosen by a direct blood relative would be the responsible party. So in a sense, in those cases, it is the rights of the gaurdian/ stuard that are being upheld in a court situation and not those of the directly offended party per se.

If we apply the same criteria to animals then the animal "owner" becomes its stuard and can thus sue in court on it's behalf. On the otherhand if the "stuard" is the offender such as a butcher who owns a cow then kills it for meat, who is to take this claim to court?

You may make the argument that the same could be said about children. The difference however is that a child is a future moral creature whose rights are under the stuardship of the parent/ guardian. His rights can be directly protected in court by him/herself or another relative.

All society needs to do ThePsychoticnut is recognize the fact that this species can be granted stuardship in some form or another via lets say associations, or other types of representations and just as the current society has granted the status of moral person to a corporation that never sits in court but rather has its representative do it for IT! The child example can also be expanded into an appointed stuart that is not blood related same for the handicapped person. Their are plenty of mechanisms out there and if we need to create more so be it. This never stopped society from inventing processes, after all we are the thinking animals...:-) But first it needs to be recognized that animals also must be granted if not rights protection and we are not going to arrive at an agreement here I'm afraid.

Now see in a statist situation your vision may work. The government would just dictate to everyone else what the law is and everyone must follow or be imprissioned. In a libertarian society though I don't see how it could work. Even if you could convince the majority of the morality of your position there will still be some who disagree. For any institution such as this to exist you would have to have unanimous or atleast near unanimous consent. Here is why I believe that. Let's go back to the scenario with the butcher. In a stateless society people would literally have free run to do whatever they wanted with the only constraints being not violating other's rights. In order to prosecute the butcher for murder (I would assume that is what you would consider him) you would first have to appoint a rep for the animal. How could you objectively though? and Who would benefit from the adjudication of this "crime"? There must be a beneficiary in a case such as this since the animal is no long able to recieve compensation (if there is any case where that could happen). Would the rep also be the beneficiary? In that case it becomes even more important who the rep would be. There could forseeably be a whole industry of crooks out for the money representing these animals if it wasn't properly and objectively defined.

Second you would have to find someone willing to hear the case. That would mean that it would have to become a commonly accepted practice before most jurists would agree to hear such a case. Again we are back to an unanimous or near unanimous agreement. Suppose however without such agreement you were still somehow able to find a judge to hear the case. A butcher would obviously not think he did anything wrong and thus boycott the proceedings. If he did show up he probably would not abide by a ruling against him. If the result of a negative ruling was death the butcher would more likely not show up. If the death penalty were off the table (and no I don't wish to discuss the death penalty at this time) he is more likely to show but not abide by the ruling. So what then is the option? to make the man an outlaw.

This brings us to the third point since the butcher would naturally not abide by the ruling and thus be made an outlaw a couple of scenarios could play out. Again we come back the the commonality of belief. If you don't have near unanimous or atleast a large majority who believe as you, what would likely happen is that people would (a) ignore the rulling and continue doing business with the butcher, (b) cease dealing with the jurist who ruled against him, and (c) cease to deal with the "representative" of the animal who brought the case.

The law would then soon go the way of the dodo since it's not based on the "rights" of humans within society.