> I think the real crux of the matter would be the difference between rights versus stuff that costs people money.
A human child costs a lot more than a dog or cat does, and yet society grants the child vastly greater rights than the dog or cat. The difference is due to cognitive capacity - a smart five year old can give a lecture about how you are allegedly violating their rights (e.g. “making me go to bed on time violates my right to have fun”)-no dog or cat in the world can do that
I don't understand what that comparison is intended to prove.
Sure, a 5-year-old is more eloquent than a dog, but throughout history there have been lots of 5-year-olds that were still enslaved, along with adults that were even more eloquent and intelligent.
My point is that talk is cheap. It's one thing to agree that a sheepdog has freedom of speech, but there will be a lot more resistance if we start talking about reparations for years of sheep-herding labor.
We are having this conversation assuming a society which rejects slavery in principle. Given that rejection, I don't see how past history of enslaving people is relevant to questions of the future–unless one supposes that rejection is going to be reversed at some point, which seems unlikely.
