Comment: I've replied in the thread you've mentioned...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I gave you an upvote (see in situ)

I've replied in the thread you've mentioned...

I think your example provides a good opportunity to make my point. You say:

Under the idea of Natural Law, we all have the right to life. So how should a bear be dealt with, who kills a man and eats him?

Should it be summarily executed? Or should it receive a trial? What if, at the trial, the man was found to be trespassing in the bear's territory? Then should it be released?

The bear, after all, knows nothing of our concept of "Natural Law," only its own.

In saying this you have presumed that the bear has no natural rights - that natural rights are special to humans. I disagree. Animals also have natural rights. They naturally seek to protect their property and territory. Animals from small to large will fight to the hilt to protect their freedom. Upon capture, they will never act the same. They know they have lost something. They have not defined it through complex language, but they still know they have lost something - that they have been violated in a fundamental way just as a man would feel that was once free but is later subjected to servitude.

Nonetheless, given your example, people would say, "The fool should have known better to mess with the bear - to encroach upon the bear's property." This is not hypothetical. Remember the "Grizzly Man". What was your reaction when you first heard about it?

Natural rights exist. Animals have them. People have them. People may or may not respect the natural rights of others but they - naturally - exist. For instance, most people do not likely respect the natural rights of bugs, but many more people respect the natural rights of rattle snakes.