Companies make their fortunes peddling pricey packaged chow for cats who'd be just as happy to gnaw on well-aged roadkill. And even the toughest hunters gets ticked-off when they see the neighbors kicking a dog. Some people certainly believe so. As the radical standard-bearer of the animal rights movement, PETA argues that animals in general are every bit as capable of feeling pain as humans, and as worthy of protection as the planet's most successful breed of primate. This position has brought the more hardcore animal rights advocates into conflict with AIDS activists who'd like a cure for the deadly disease now thank you.
Some libertarians share at least part of that view.
But that leaves a large majority disagreeing, and a little research finds many more libertarian arguments against animal rights than in their favor. That's not terribly surprising, since a concern over the nature of rights lies at the core of most libertarians' philosophical views, and definitions of rights are generally difficult to apply to species that come up short in terms of ability to participate in the debate over the issue. Ethical considerations enter the picture only, Schulman says, if humans are recognized as distinctly superior to other animals. Animal rights activists claim that dogs, cats and a host of other species are as capable of feeling pain as humans. But animals live, eat and get eaten in a world in which the discussion of morality is impossible.