On the question of slavery or rights? Part 1

Lately in studying the Declaration of independence to become an American citizen, I came again upon this thought of "unalienable rights". This is not a term I have often hear, and if you're like me, you likely have thought very little of it. What does unalienable rights even mean?! Well, the word "unalienable", or "inalienable" means "impossible to take away or give up." So the declaration of independence was based on the belief that as humans, presumably only we specifically have the right to "life, liberty [freedom] and the pursuit of happiness." While that's all good and fine, humans have had a long history of not respecting that in other species. Zoos, livestock and pets are prime examples of this. And I'm not sure how I feel about this myself. . .

We have tamed and made dogs, cats, horses, cows and more to be selectively bred for our whims, consequently weakening the animal's gene pool. As well we have caged and trained other more exotic animals in circuses, zoos and aquariums. . .being thus in captivity and dependent on us for their basic needs makes them in every respect our slaves. Do we think this is ok, just because we perceive ourselves to be superior, or because we are dominant or a different species (defined by not being able to breed with them)? Seriously?

 It is one thing to consider what you would do with the animal recently taken from the wild, but what about the second or more generation, that's been domesticated and pampered and is unlikely to survive back in their natural habitat? Anything we have domesticated from the wild has sadly become unfit to be safely returned back to their habitat. This inability to fend for themselves and the dependent mindset that goes with it can be seen not just in the animals we have domesticated, but also in the black slaves we originally took from Africa.

If we placed the ancestors of those slaves today back in the jungle, where their relatives still roam and their fathers were comfortable living not too long back, they would not likely survive. Like a dog looks to his owner for everything, we can still see the carry-over of that dependent slave mentality with the Southern blacks' dependence on the government. Without the government's help, I wonder what would happen to many who's greatest ambition seems to be sitting on the porch of their rental house . . .

So, the dilemma is with animals now, as it was with black slaves of the past: do you give them their freedom, and doom them to their death in the free wild, or keep them and make sure they don't have babies to further the cruel cycle, like we do when we "lovingly" neuter pets? Do we think controlling pets reproduction is right, and merciful, lest their offspring (like cats or dogs) have to live on the cruel streets? Often slaves were forbidden to marry, or sterilized just like our pets now. Do we think euthanizing the violent or defective pet is ok, as they will inevitably have a poor quality of life being dependent, but not desirable or likely desired? Is it in the best interest for them, and us both? Or is it morally wrong? This is similar to a slave being killed for punching a white man, or even a white mentally handicapped or person deemed as unfit to breed being sterilized. . .a thing done in this country not too far back. Is this good for the individual or the whole? Is it justified, or wrong? Our answer to these questions may be very telling. . .

These are the ethical questions our ancestors faced down through the ages concerning their slaves or servants. . .We often presume they were easy questions, and look down on good men like Thomas Jefferson for his choice to keep slaves, but I'm sure that it was not a light matter! To bring it closer to home, here is a pretty comparable situation today: if we took away welfare, medicaid, WIC, foodstamps, shelters, food pantries, planned parenthood, etc. and sent the poor Blacks of the inner city back to Africa, with only the clothes on their backs, how loving is that? Apparently good men like Thomas Jefferson felt it was better to retain and care for the slaves, then set them loose. How dare we judge him for slavery if we think it's fine to have slaves /pets. animals in captivity too?! "Oh, but humans are different then mere animals" you say. . ."humans have rights!" God gave them we are told.

In the declaration of independence it not only says that all humans have these rights, but that these rights like freedom, were endowed by our creator or were "God given". Historically speaking, this is hilarious!! God condoned not condemned slavery in the Bible, as well as racism, sexism and agism.  Even the Jews, God's chosen people had few rights or freedoms and I see little for freedom or rights for today's Christian either, as they are said to be a "servant of God"!! This is in the Old and New Testament. It only gets worse for other "nations" of people though. . .

The reason that the founding fathers of America could write in the declaration of independence about all "men" being created equal by God, and with the right of "liberty"/freedom, then promptly buy more black slaves from Africa, is because. . . they simply did not call Blacks "human". . . until recently. Is that a shock? The reason is complex, and actually deeper then just prejudice.

"Even if the science of human origins is still a work in progress, the accumulating information about how we got here and indeed what constitutes a member of the human race offers some useful perspectives on matters of scientific and ethical importance."
Source

What DNA and science now tells us of human origins is very complex, but I'll save that for my next post called: The story of creation. . .as seen by an Atheist/evolutionist. Part 2