For the past several quarters, I've looked forward to reading Joe Vance's column each week. While I (very) rarely agree with Joe's conclusions, I can at least appreciate his radical views. If nothing else, it's fun to see what crazy old Joe is writing about this week. That said, I have to take issue with parts of his most recent column.
Joe's first argument is that animals have no rights because they cannot conceive of them. This begs the question, what about humans that cannot conceive of rights? Do individuals such as young children and the mentally handicapped also have no rights? Following that logic, they should be considered mere property, just like animals.
Of course, this is moot if you consider Joe's reason for making the black and white distinction between creatures with rights and no rights. Joe is right when he says that the ability to reason and develop moral codes makes humanity unique. However, Joe makes the common mistake of confusing different with better. Humans evolved big brains because tool use and language were advantages to survival. Similarly, birds evolved feathers because it improved ability to survive. But flight doesn't make birds superior to any other organism; it's just a different strategy. Just because we evolved abstract thought doesn't make humans gods; it's just another unique (and highly successful) evolutionary trait.
Daniel Kovar is a senior wildlife biology major.
17 Archives
Letter to the Editor
