Hi Dead Rain. I appreciate that you didn't intend to be rude, and I don't want you to feel that I was criticizing you to harshly. No hard feelings!
This is really taking it to the next level, but I think that there is a fundamental diffence between a "freedom to" and a freedom from." Rights imply a "freedom to" - whereas "freedom from" is a lesser thing. I would argue for animal rights, that they should have "freedom to" certain things. Adequate and suffcient food, water, companionship, freedom of movement, and freedom to engage in natural behaviors. A freedom from argument states that an animal should be free from certain thing, pain, fear suffering, cruelty." I don't think that freedom from is a noble enough goal. To say that it is sufficent to argue that animals should be free from cruelty isn't a high enough standard. The should have rights, or a freedom to certain things. Once again, I'm not arguing that animals should have human rights (vote, own property etc.) Only animal rights, the right to eat, drink, move, socialize, and engage in natural behaviors. Natural behaviors might be rooting in the dirt for pigs, taking a dust bath for chincillas etc.)
I believe that animals do have a "right" to these things. No just that they should be free from suffering and pain.
I think Lewis made these themes very apparent in his books. He repeately refers to the right of Narnian animals to live free lives. He goes to great lengths to portray some animals as silly or stupid (the bulgy bear who sucks his paws) and yet still entitled to respect and RIGHTS (the bulgy bear was entiled to the ancient right to be marshal of the lists -prince caspian).
I would argue that there is an extremely strong theme throughout the books that (1)animals have rights, (2)those rights apply no matter how stupid or silly or small the animal may be, and (3)those in a position of authority are held to a much higher standard in preserving the rights of the "lesser" creatures.
I'm interested to know what you think!