Roger Scruton's addendum to his article on animal rights (THES, August 30) does nothing to further his case, first because it is based on unargued assumptions and second because it misses the central point.
The assumptions are that animals have no sovereignty over their individual lives and do not settle their disputes by negotiation. These assumptions are questionable and certainly debatable. He also assumes these are the criteria for assigning rights. Why?
However, the central point is surely that a question such as animal rights is not open to a discussion of this nature. Ultimately there are no rights or wrongs but merely beliefs. There is no way of proving that animals suffer. We can only extrapolate from our own experience and people will do that to a greater or lesser degree depending on how much they believe we share of their psychology. It is, of course, a similar principle that governs our dealings with other people, something that should give Professor Scruton pause for thought.
Michael Malone Mildred Avenue Watford.