It is antiquated legal theory, associated with Hohfeld, that every obligation must correspond to a rightholder. Modern theory does not require such duality. Why cannot we simply recognize that humans have a legal obligation to treat animals well, without having to wade into the tricky question of whether the animals are capable of having a corresponding legal right? Certainly we are not expecting the animal to exercise its "right"--society can just as well censure the human who has been cruel to an animal for violating a binding obligation, without the fiction that the animal is thereby exercising a right, or having one exercised on its behalf.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Palestinian reports: One seriously injured by rubber bullet during clashes near Ramallah (Haaretz)
from the article: Animals should have independent legal rights, says Israeli judge