Recognize the rights of the animal would admit that the animal can end up in competition with the man in the legal sphere. However, it seems that the idea of putting the animal at the same level of protection as the man must be rejected altogether. Not only would it be dangerous for the man, but it would also induce him to refuse all the utilities of the animal which would go against the previously recognized rights. A number of infringements of animal welfare should therefore 토토사이트 be granted and allow the principle of animal welfare to be removed where justified.
The criteria of utility and necessity of the infringements
Usefulness and necessity could be the two central criteria for assessing exemptions from animal welfare. Each of these criteria is also widely used in positive law, especially regarding the provisions on the protection of animals in experimental 16. The criterion of the utility of the infringement seems to us to be obvious. If no one withdraws any interest in infringing the protection of the animal, it cannot be considered that this infringement may be legitimate. 토토사이트 It is in relation to the man, and not to the animal, that the character of utility or uselessness will be appreciated, because it is to him that the use benefits. Yet this criterion alone cannot suffice. Indeed, this would lead to the exclusion of the protection of the animal whenever it is of human interest. Now, that would be to return to the Cartesian conception of the animal-tool that the evolution of society today attempts to reject. To achieve a real protection of the animal, a second cumulative criterion could be added to the first: that of necessity of the attacks
