Edwin Locke Animal Rights Vs Human Rights

In “Animal Rights versus Human Rights” Edwin Locke agrees that only humans have rights and that animal rights activists are anti-humanitarian. In this essay following points will be summarized; Locke’s arguments on the source of having rights, on cause for animals can’t have rights, on animal rightists are being antihumanitarian and on the reason for animals not having the moral spheres. I believe that Locke’s arguments are not strong enough to some extent. In an example, Locke’s views on animal rightists are not valid as well as his statements regarding the protection of men by having rights. Locke argues that only creatures that think and make choices have rights. He states that there is a main right which is humans right to live free. For humans to survive and prosper, men must be protected from the force of others (1). Because this is the only thing to prevent

The main argument which I don`t agree upon is the source of having rights. According to Locke it is thinking and making choices (1) but we observe these kind of abilities on some animals like dolphins, crows. They can make choices by trial and error and evaluate the results. Moreover they can distinguish objects and observe environmental conditions thus they act accordingly to that. In my point of view having freewill is the source of rights. Because we only have the use and benefits of rights when we have freewill. Explaining this argument, there is no logic of giving rights to a creature or person which cannot grasp or having need to use those rights and giving rights to that living is pointless. Furthermore I disagree with Locke`s view that rights protect men from the force of others (1). Rights are ethical principles and moral values we have in our lives. But one cannot be blamed or sentenced violating one`s rights. This is where laws emerge. Nothing but rights which protected by laws gives validity for punishment against using force on