I have always had the view that humans have responsibilities towards animals, rather than animals actually having rights.
But I have been wondering what would be the implications if I this was not correct and that animals did have rights.
Clearly the animal would have the right not to be badly treated by humans; but it would appear to me that the practical effect of this right would be roughly the same as the human merely having responsibility towards the animal.
The implication of "animal rights" which interests me is the extent that humans should intervene to stop animals treating other animals badly.
For it appears to me that if (a) an animal does have rights and (b) humans have the means so as to allow the animal to enforce these rights, then humans should (say) intervene to stop animals being cruel to each other.
So, if an animal does have rights, are they enforceable (via human intervention) against other animals as well as against humans?
If this is the case, do humans have a positive active duty to police the animal kingdom and prevent cruelty between animals?
How far, if at all, should humans go to stop cruelty between animals?
Any help clarifying my thoughts here would be most welcome.
As always, please tag your comment with a name even if you have no url; purely "anonymous" comments may not get moderated.