I have been reading articles like it for quite some time. Just stating that welfare the wellbeing and overall care of all animals is very important. Rights have a totally different meaning than welfare. And if we are going to say only higher animals with brains and central nervous systems, why are lobsters included? They have a rudimentary system closer to arachnids and not a true brain. They were given the recognition because a group of people feel angry when they are thrown into a pot live of boiling water. Were it not for that, people probably wouldn't care as much. In addition, where is the line drawn? If we go based on feelings, that would eliminate most animals on the planet. Most only show excitement and fear, nothing more. If we go by reaction to external stimuli you have to include most living things on the planet. If every living thing on the planet is now given rights, then they fall under much more stict laws. As I said, you could easily end up in jail for eating a ribeye. I know it seems rediculous and implausible now, but it is still possible.Did you bother to read the other articles I posted. I don’t take a position as to whether or not I agree, I am just saying that this is an evolving concept. In France laws have changed, for example. If we think of rights as only free speech and such that is a very limited view.
Sentience as well. Some will debate plants are, and that information is also easy to find. However, plants do not have a brain and central nervous system, which is typically argued is required for sentience to be possible. And again, very basically responding to stimuli, and FEELING and intent are not exactly the same concepts.
The idea of philosophical discussions is that they are supposed to be mind opening and lead us to new thoughts and ideas that are debated together with respect. I don’t find this forum to be very open or conducive to that and over the past few days have decided it is not for me.