Do I Have the Right?

by Chiudo Ehirim (21/06/2012)

Everybody (man or animal) is born alone even twins, Siamese or not are delivered one before the other and at any given time, occupies alone a unique region in space. No two individuals (animal or man) occupy the same space, coordinate, bearing and so on, at the same time. No one was born that way and can ever achieve that. Therefore, should each individual exist alone and self-centeredly for that is the way he was born?

Man is divinely endowed with rights summarily the rights to peaceful (both of the mind and body) existence and survival. In difference with animals, mans rights embody his freedom to examine and choose from a variety of options and utilize any that he feels guarantees his peaceful existence and survival. Animals do not have these rights of freedom but by instinct act or fail to act in the least troublous way.

Mans rights are intricately woven in his very nature. They are innate and inherent. They cannot be separated from Man. The entity that exists on removal of these rights cannot be said to be man. Yes, man with these rights stripped off him is lower than the animals and even of plant; because plants as they grow have a variety of directions in space to move.

On this premise: that he has rights to peaceful existence and survival, here finally man must have to interact with plants, animals, fellow men, animate and inanimate; the

physical and spiritual. This is so because mans existence would not be peaceful (of mind and body) if he lacks his necessities which more often than not are gotten when he interacts. For example, man cannot be said to be existing peacefully at mind and of body if he is hungry, sick or in want. So being moved by his natural innate right to survival, he must interact, whether with plants, animals for food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and so on or with the spiritual to answer his questions, to allay his fears to be able to exist in peace.

Defining mans right to survival, it must be included survival of the individual and his species. In this way then, man has a right as derived from his right to survival to marry and reproduce, provided he does so without infringing whether consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously on the rights of another. So man in real existence is not an island.

In the pursuit and expression of his rights and in his drive for survival, man must do so without causing discomfort to and destabilization of others because in so doing he would make others lose their divine rights to peaceful existence and survival which ultimately will lead to the erosion of his own rights. In other words, man must not in an attempt to express (in words or in deeds) his rights infringe on, attack or sweep aside the divine rights of any other individual; else he commits a felony. It is a serious crime because it disturbs dangerously the very pivot of natural rights as exemplified in mans rights upon which all organisms existence, past and present rests and balances. This therefore shows then that man has no right whatsoever to cause others (animal or man)

pain. If he does, then he is a criminal. Realistically because he has failed to live conformingly in the ideal world of inalienable rights then, he must pay by being given a taste of his medicine, his rights stripped off him.

RIGHT VERSUS RIGHT MAN, PLANT

One may now ask, Should mans rights be stripped off him for his felling of trees, bush burning and similar acts that destroy plants?

Evidently plants have rights to existence and survival. The competitive proliferation among plants in a given space a square inch, a square metre and so on can be interpreted to be this expression of rights. The competition among plants for sunlight, water, space is nothing but the expression of plant right to survival. With its body streamlined like that of a diver who shoots up from the bottom of the sea to the surface, a young plant after the wonders of its development into an embryo emerges onto the soil surface. Held strongly is its beautiful waist out-growth that would not be traded for anything in the next few days; for it will feed from this outgrowth (endosperm) until its little hands (leaves) will open wide to receive the precious gift (light) from the Sun that can enable it to survive. That it emerged with its delicate food pouch about it, that it came forth with the ability to spread its hands gratefully to the Sun, not show that it has an inherent, intrinsic right to exist, survive and thrive? It then follows that it is a serious crime (planteic crime, which is, crime against plants) to destroy plants. The gravity of this crime is seen in the fact that man in order to satisfy his selfish cravings, destroy plants that have done nothing to him. This crime perhaps can be compared to

the gravity of raping an innocent child. Plants like innocent children have not attacked the rights of the rapist (man) in any way. Have they (plants) made mans existence less peaceful? Have they (plants) made mans chances of survival bleak? So, man in destroying plants, rapes a population of its rights to existence and survival its dignity; a population far larger than his, an organic giant which even protects and sustains his (mans) rights. In so doing, does man have any reasons to demand that his rights be honoured?

However, man must live in house built often times with wood or other plant parts. Man must eat, and of plants he eats a very large quantity. Man must strive for healthiness and time and again he goes to plants for curative fluids and portions. All these man does to express his rights to peaceful existence and survival. Inasmuch as he does not destroy the existence and or chances of survival of plants but makes use of them up to the limits imposed by plant rights, man is innocent of all charges that could be held up against him in this regard. He should be discharged and acquitted if held in the custody of natures agents. He should fly like a bird, free yes free to express his rights to freedom. But if man is found guilty of the charges held against him by natures prosecutors, then he must pay, eye for eye. Natures Judge must hit the gavel and pass on the verdict: Let mans rights be stripped off him, until he learns to respect the rights of others and has shown the evidence thereof. Even man knows that man himself is innocent!

RIGHTS OF MAN, RIGHTS OF ANIMAL

Another question is raised in another circle: Do humans have right to maltreat, injure or kill animals? To answer this question, we would have to compare and contrast man and animal and then examine albeit superficially the differences and similarities as well as inherent inferential conclusions.

There is no gainsaying the fact that animals have rights to peaceful existence and survival, as man. Animals existed before man, so humans must not take away the right to existence from them whether by wholesale destruction of animal habitats or individual species extermination. What about animals that are a threat to man? It is fact that most times, animals become threats to man only when man has wittingly or unwittingly, consciously or unconsciously infringed on the rights of animals. For example, when man invades the habitat of animals in order to build houses, roads, where do the animals go, what should the animals do? Their proximity to man inadvertently results in a clash of interests. In such instances, man must realize that he has no right to exterminate the animals. As noted earlier, animals instinctively act or fail to act, to express their rights. Man should know better than retaliating; for all living things have a right to survival and do defend this right in the manner thought best.

In some cases however, animals may become a threat to man due to no fault of mans. For example, a dog may get infected and pose a threat to the neighbourhood. What should then be done? Though animals have rights to peaceful existence and survival as do humans, humans are not equal to animals nor are animals equal to man. The fact

that animals act instinctively but humans by choice, bears that out. From science also, we see that humans are higher animals, as such, animal right to quiet should be subject to mans. Hence when animals in an attempt to express their instincts cause discomfort to man, then there should be a reasonable subjugation of them. In that case then, the dog in the illustration above should be killed.

By the same line of thought that humans are higher than animals, animals can be judiciously killed for food and proven medicine. Thankfully, man can now synthesize products got from animals for use as medicine. So killing animals for medicinal purposes should definitely reduce and become increasingly rarer. Some animal flesh has also been shown to cause man certain health problems and the public is regularly informed about this. This in a way could be good news; for it saves the animal population. Poaching and acts like it that ultimately lead to extinction of animals (as observed in numerous cases) is definitely wrong. Man has no right to deprive animals of the right to survival and peaceful existence. But if does, his own rights to survival and peaceful existence is hereby naturally and logically challenged.

Subjugation of animals is to the end that animals do not interfere with mans own peaceful existence and survival. Thus if treatment of an animal or animals goes beyond this reason (of humane subjugation), then it is without right. This subjugation applies to different animals in different ways. For instance, if a home cat can be tamed by scolding and thus be made to exist without causing trouble and disturbing mans peace and quiet, is it right to break its leg, pull its teeth, and so on? For such animals as biting and

blood-sucking insects as well as disease-carrying insects, their subjugation might be through destruction of or making inhospitable some of their quarters, killing of some and thus diminishing their proximity to humans which effectively lessens their discomfort to humans but certainly not extermination. Insofar as animals do not cause man discomfort, humans have no right to trouble them, worse still exterminate them!

Noteworthy is another fact that plants and animals help man to even find expression of his rights through them. This can be seen in the aesthetic value of animals and plants. Does it not fulfill mans right to peaceful existence (of mind) when he observes the brilliant green of trees in the rays of the Sun? Does man not feel excited through and through when he sees the various sizes, colors and shapes of leaves, flowers, fruits? Does it not thrill man when he smells the pleasant fragrances of flowers? Does not man feel pleasant sensations course through him when he sees the varied colours, patterns, shapes and sizes of the marine animals, and their terrestrial and arboreal counterparts? Do all of these not make it possible for man to live at peace (of mind and even of body), thus expressing his rights? Does it not certainly prove then that in his wanton destruction of plants and animals, man is loudly saying that his rights to peaceful existence as fulfilled by his plant and animal neighbours are unnecessary and should be removed from him? Consequently is it not only fair and just then that man should logically be stripped of his rights for he has pushed down the pivot upon which his own rights balances?

Based on the above therefore, the brazen destruction by man of the earth including its atmosphere, soil, trees, water, and so on which secure the ecosystem that sustains all living things depend for survival is without right. After all if you share something with others is it not reasonable to discuss with them how the property should be used? And if it is not possible to meet with them for one reason or the other, does it not show maturity to take their interests into consideration? Does it not show therefore that by his destroying the earth and its occupants the way he is doing without consideration that man is saying, in fact crying out loud that he is immature and can handle his responsibility only as well as a baby can run a home, and hence that this responsibility should be given to others to care for, seeing that he is unfit for it? As said, the ecosystem sustains man and enables him to express his survival right thus, man in destroying the ecosystem destroys his right and that of posterity to survival. He destroys the foundation of rights upon which he stands, exists and thrives as man.

This piece of course is not exhaustive of all human-animal, human-plant, humanaquatic, human-atmospheric relationships. We must however now turn our attention to human and their relations with one another. After all, it is only when a species appreciates and respects the rights of each individual amongst it, that it can extend such to other families, classes, phyla and kingdoms charity begins at home, as the saying goes.