RSS
Home
Cass Sunstein animal rights views: Should activists stop him from joining Obama administration?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Are Cass Sunstein's animal rights views absurd?
Cass Sunstein's animal rights beliefs represent a stance not followed by most Americans.
In fact, Sunstein has stated that animals may have the right to sue in court. His position stops short of granting animals full citizenship and while he believes they still may be considered property, they should be granted the opportunity to sue with human representation in a court of law. In this far-fetched parallel reality, there would practically be an end to any animal use anywhere in the United States.
A chicken suing a farmer for better living conditions is just as preposterous as an attorney representing a deer that has been hit by a car. Those kind of questions addressing animal welfare are usually settled through regulation. Unfortunately for farmers, hunters, fisherman and anyone else who makes their living with animals, the regulatory direction Professor Sunstein will take us in is guaranteed to be onerous.
It is an exercise in mental gymnastics to debate the merit of an animal having the right to be represented in a court of law. If this became the law of the land, it opens a Pandora's box for attorneys to enter into litigation on the behalf of animals. It also begs the question; if an animal can sue a human for damages, can an animal sue a human entity such as a wildlife management agency for introducing a predator into an Eco-system formerly devoid of predators? Would an attorney be able to represent a herd of elk in the case of wolf re-introduction? This is just one example of why this is not currently allowed.
It is curious that people with these beliefs stop at granting animals rights equal to humans but never enter into the debate as to which animals have more rights than others. While the elk in this example would not be directly suing the wolves, the rights of the wolves would have to be balanced against the rights of the elk. This can only come from the basic premise that animals and humans are somehow separate and independent of each other and do not co-exist. This is not the case. Humans and animals will continue to be in direct competition for habitat and food as long as we both live on this planet. While the animals may or may not benefit from increased litigation the attorneys certainly would.
Professor Cass Sunstein's animal rights views are not in line with most Americans. He is a professor of law at Harvard and wishes to regulate hunting out of existence. If he gains this position that may become an incremental reality under this administration. Legislation and regulation from an attorney (albeit an admittedly smart one) to solve the ills of society is to be expected. I guess it is true that when you are a hammer the whole world looks like a nail.
Related Articles:
Comments
