XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
On 5/6/2018 7:51 AM, Brandon Clark wrote:
PETA get slapped around pretty hard.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/blog-posts/do-animals-or-humans-claiming-to-represent-them-have-constitutional-standing-to-file-federal-lawsuits-in-the-ninth-circuit-the-answer-is-yes
There is an interesting couple of paragraphs which addresses what is
known as the "argument from marginal cases".
"To some extent, as humans, we have a general understanding of the
similar interests of other humans. But the interests of animals? We are
really asking what another species desires. Do animals want to own
property, such as copyrights? Are animals willing to assume the duties associated with the rights PETA seems to be advancing on their behalf?
Animal-next-friend standing is materially different from a competent
person representing an incompetent person. We have millennia of
experience understanding the interests and desire of humankind. This is
not necessarily true for animals. Because the “real party in interest”
can actually never credibly articulate its interests or goals,
next-friend standing for animals is left at the mercy of the
institutional actor to advance its own interests, which it imputes to
the animal or object with no accountability."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)