Great, so in this particular case you wouldn't grant special rights to the paedophile simply because he was human. The puppy on the other hand would enjoy well deserved protection. Up until here do we agree that species should not be the sole measurement of provision of rights since the puppy would enjoy more rights than the paedophile? Now my final question is, do you think that the selective animal discrimination ingrained in our Western cultures, where dogs and cats are treated with love and care and pigs, cows, sheep, chickens and so on are bred, subjugated and killed to serve our pleasure, is fair? I'm referring to animals in modern societies where we've gone past survival and we now know that it is scientifically possible to live without animal products.The pedophile has violated the social contract and basic moral norms, and any sane society would ostracize him/her. As for this puppy, it would deserve protections as a result of its being a sentient being.
Yes, we never disagreed there. However, I think the provision of those extra rights comes from membership in a civilization, country, and family, rather than membership in a species. Hence, animals we keep as pets, which belong to our communities, are entitled to those extra rights, whereas livestock animals that do not belong to our communities are only entitled to rights and protections granted by the basic utilitarian framework.Up until here do we agree that species should not be the sole measurement of provision of rights since the puppy would enjoy more rights than the paedophile?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. So what's the criteria for selectively using some animals for companionship and others for taste pleasure in an age when we can live without those?animals we keep as pets, which belong to our communities, are entitled to those extra rights, whereas livestock animals that do not belong to our communities are only entitled to rights and protections granted by the basic utilitarian framework.
Custom, I guess? That's not morally relevant within my framework as long as the proper rights and protections are given to the animals in each role (which, as you've indicated, we usually don't do, which is unethical).So what's the criteria for selectively using some animals for companionship and others for taste pleasure in an age when we can live without those?