The animal is protected for itself by our law, in its interest and not in the general interest. The condition of publicity, which rendered ill-treatment reprehensible, was abolished in 1959 and now the ill-treatment is repressed, whether publicly committed or not, by any person, including the owner of the property. animal. It is not the public morality, or the patrimony of the owner of the animal, which is protected but the interest of the animal itself. This protection of the animal in its interest leads one to think that it is correlatively entitled to rights. Some authors 토토사이트 , fiercely opposed to any recognition of rights to the animal, consider that even if the animal is protected for itself, 6. This argument is hardly convincing because it is clear that the notion of duty is akin to a moral obligation that a person imposes on himself
The recognition in principle of the rights of the animal
To speak of “rights of the animal” supposes to question the nature of the relations of the man and the animal and to recognize the animal as a moral subject. This implies to lead an ethical reflection on the opportunity or an opportunity for the man to exploit the animal. He notes that animal ethics has been forged mainly around two schools of thought: that of utilitarians토토사이트 and that of abolitionists. The utilitarians, whose most famous representative is certainly Peter Singer (2002, 2012), are Reformers. They propose a moderate challenge of the operating system of the animal, based on the idea of well-being, according to which it is necessary to treat the animals by avoiding to make them suffer unnecessarily. The challenge is, therefore, to distinguish between useful suffering and unnecessary suffering, considering as acceptable the suffering ordered by the most inevitable necessity