If someone does not recognize the right to others, we must not recognize their own rights, as if we do they will be given a disproportionate advantage to society and will be able to take advantage of, and harm others further. I am not specifically referring to "legal crimes" like jaywalking, but things like intent to murder, being part of an enemy nation that seeks to destroy or overtake the one you are in, and so on. These people cannot be given rights, since they seek to remove your own. Similar reason animals aren't included in "deserves rights".
So not recognizing human rights is ground to not have rights recognized, but as long as they don't recognize rights first we don't have to recognize their rights. Gotcha. I have never heard a coherent moral or ethical argument for denying human rights to even the worst criminals. It doesn't do anything to prevent harm to anyone, it doesn't help rehabilitate anyone, it doesn't make the crimes they've already committed disappear. It often leads to further criminality, it often hampers rehabilitation and helps increase rates of recidivism. Animals ARE included in "deserves rights." Abusing pets is illegal. Abusing wildlife is illegal. Hunting particular animals in particular situations is illegal. Animals have to be treated ethically while being experimented on. Etc.
Key difference here between "recognizing their rights" and "do not have rights". Rights, as I see them, are not some inherent property of human beings, but the most basic and fundamental assumption that exists for human society. Do not kill one another, work towards a common goal of mutual benefit, and so on. The only way a person has rights in the first place is to subject yourself to those treaties, to have rights, you must give those rights to others. Any person not participating in such a system, any person hurting others, not working to mutual benefit in society, and so on, does not have rights, as they are not part of society, the thing which grants them rights. You cannot ignore rights which do not exist. We deny human rights to all criminals, we kill them, lock them up, deny them the ability to have clothes, pick their food, and more. These are not the rights in the constitution, of course, but they are things that very much ought to be rights. And you just heard a coherent moral/ethical argument for denying human rights, although I do tend to consider my arguments to not be so much moral or ethical and more "logical" or based on what human rights "are" in society, rather than some odd ideal of "this is the perfect world". The denial to criminals right to freedom allows society to lock them up, brainwash them, treat them as lesser beings than others in society. Do all people not deserve equal treatment? Then why treat criminals as if they are not, because of a previous negative action? Denying rights is essential to allowing society to deal with those who do not respect rights. We do not respect the right to life, even, when the person in question is an enemy soldier. I will say it time and time again, I am not discussing legality. Things are often both legal and immoral, or moral and illegal. Most of these "rights" you refer to have more to do with the effects such actions have on people. Pets are owned by other humans, and it's best we do not create a society where our adopted-family-pets may be shot and eaten. Hunting animals to extension harms human society as well, and we plainly allow hunters to hunt where it doesn't hurt the environment. Animals ethical treatment while being experimented on is the only area I can really see that doesn't end up with negative consequences on society. However, even in that case, many will say that the mistreatment is justified when the experiments directly do end up creating benefit. Answer this question: a hundred thousand rats tortured, or a cure for cancer? Also there is the fact that a lot of our "moral" ideas are entirely based on empathy, the "oh no the poor thing' when personifying non-human entities. Feeling sorry for fancily edited videos that use carefully picked words to make us feel as bad as possible for some event. Propaganda, essentially, based on nothing but getting people riled up and not actually thinking about what is going on.So not recognizing human rights is ground to not have rights recognized, but as long as they don't recognize rights first we don't have to recognize their rights.
I have never heard a coherent moral or ethical argument for denying human rights to even the worst criminals.
It doesn't do anything to prevent harm to anyone, it doesn't help rehabilitate anyone
Animals ARE included in "deserves rights." Abusing pets is illegal. Abusing wildlife is illegal. Hunting particular animals in particular situations is illegal. Animals have to be treated ethically while being experimented on. Etc.
The German basic law has a principle I like - Your freedoms end where they start to impinge on others'. I think the thing to note here is that criminals are only restricted in the rights they need to be in order to protect others'. And the declaration of human rights is very much a "this is the perfect world"-thing. It has democracy as a right, for example, which some countries still do not have.
That's not human rights though. Crimes are dealt with via the judicial system, and you still get your punishment. They don't get a disproportionate advantage by being allowed to go to school, or anything. Again, human rights are the very lowest common denominator of things everyone should be accorded simply by virtue of being human.
I am not referring to legal crimes, but crimes which are "fundamental". In this aspect, a crime is an action which infringes on the basic human rights of another. Rights, as far as I see them, do not exist inherently, but are a near-universal treaty among human beings to treat each other with a basic level of respect. In order to have rights, you must respect them. Outside of this treaty, or the "look guys I have empathy" play we all put on when we emphasize how sorry we feel for people in pain, rights do not exist. Crimes are dealt with via the judicial system, and you still get your punishment. They don't get a disproportionate advantage by being allowed to go to school, or anything.