Animals given Human Rights

[MarcusOfLycia]

I'm not a marine biologist (or a biologist at all, really), so I don't know very much information on the topic, but scientists, according to this article, suggest that some oceanic creatures should be given 'personhood rights' because they are practically people. I can't agree based on everything I've learned. Anyone have more concrete information on it?

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local ... for-whales

[Dallas]

I'm not a marine biologist (or a biologist at all, really), so I don't know very much information on the topic, but scientists, according to this article, suggest that some oceanic creatures should be given 'personhood rights' because they are practically people. I can't agree based on everything I've learned. Anyone have more concrete information on it?

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local ... for-whales

I believe to a "certain" degree they should have some rights. But animals are animals. The only time they deserve rights is if they are going extinct, or they help the environment (bees)

[MarcusOfLycia]

I guess my biggest questions about the article aren't the 'rights' portion (I imagine the activists supporting animals in courts when they hurt each other and other nightmares resulting from equal rights with humans, like voting/taxation).

I'm most curious about the idea that they are somehow just as cognitively aware as humans, or very close. I've never heard that before, yet the article says 'scientists' agree that it is the case.

[Ivellious]

I'm not sure what the big deal is here. I've pointed this out in another post, humans for all of history have vastly underestimated the capacity of animals. Whales, dolphins, apes, and elephants, in particular, are obviously fully capable of thinking, emotion, having distinct personalities, high-level communication within their species, and even compassion and altruistic qualities. It is ignorant in this day and age to say that non-humans are "just animals."

Also, to say that we should only care about the animals that help the environment is a great way of looking at it. Except by saying that, you inherently must conclude that every organism on this planet is vital to the ecosystem. Removing a species because of human involvement in every case has a chain reaction that irrevocably damages the ecosystem they lived in. Just saying.

To get to the actual point of the article...I don't think anyone is legitimately trying to give whales the right to vote or sue or anything. We actually discussed this at length in my oceanography class last semester (lucky break I guess). The two issues brought up legally pertaining to whales are these: Whether relatively advanced and cognitive animals should be kept in captivity, and whether human-made problems for whales in the wild should be allowed.

The second question is deeply troubling to me. Whales communicate using sonic frequencies over extremely long distances by giving off those sounds in a certain layer of the ocean. For highly technical reasons that I won't discuss, that layer of the ocean allows sound waves to travel longer distances than usual, so a whale at that depth can hear messages and so on from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. Humans have also taken a liking to using this ocean layer to probe the waters for potential military threats and for testing new sonic-emission technology. Problem is, we now realize that such experiments literally cause whales in that area to have severe adverse reactions, often ending in a stroke or popped blood vessels in the brain. It is extremely painful and usually kills the whale. Imagine someone taking a loudspeaker from a rock concert, concentrating the sound waves into a stream the size of your ear, and someone playing an amplified chord into your ear.

That obviously raises some ethical issues. Some think that by giving certain animals personhood it could give them higher degrees of protection from our meddling in the future. Sorry that was so long, I just felt like I could give something to the conversation and got rambling...

[wrain62]

I'm not sure what the big deal is here. I've pointed this out in another post, humans for all of history have vastly underestimated the capacity of animals. Whales, dolphins, apes, and elephants, in particular, are obviously fully capable of thinking, emotion, having distinct personalities, high-level communication within their species, and even compassion and altruistic qualities. It is ignorant in this day and age to say that non-humans are "just animals."

Also, to say that we should only care about the animals that help the environment is a great way of looking at it. Except by saying that, you inherently must conclude that every organism on this planet is vital to the ecosystem. Removing a species because of human involvement in every case has a chain reaction that irrevocably damages the ecosystem they lived in. Just saying.

To get to the actual point of the article...I don't think anyone is legitimately trying to give whales the right to vote or sue or anything. We actually discussed this at length in my oceanography class last semester (lucky break I guess). The two issues brought up legally pertaining to whales are these: Whether relatively advanced and cognitive animals should be kept in captivity, and whether human-made problems for whales in the wild should be allowed.

The second question is deeply troubling to me. Whales communicate using sonic frequencies over extremely long distances by giving off those sounds in a certain layer of the ocean. For highly technical reasons that I won't discuss, that layer of the ocean allows sound waves to travel longer distances than usual, so a whale at that depth can hear messages and so on from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. Humans have also taken a liking to using this ocean layer to probe the waters for potential military threats and for testing new sonic-emission technology. Problem is, we now realize that such experiments literally cause whales in that area to have severe adverse reactions, often ending in a stroke or popped blood vessels in the brain. It is extremely painful and usually kills the whale. Imagine someone taking a loudspeaker from a rock concert, concentrating the sound waves into a stream the size of your ear, and someone playing an amplified chord into your ear.

That obviously raises some ethical issues. Some think that by giving certain animals personhood it could give them higher degrees of protection from our meddling in the future. Sorry that was so long, I just felt like I could give something to the conversation and got rambling...

Not to mention they fertilize plankton which helps the environment with CO2 levels.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Would you say that all of those animals are fully self-aware and sentient then?

[Ivellious]

I certainly believe that some could be. I'd say elephants are the closest animals to us as far as how they show human-like emotions. Apes and elephants both have similar societal structures and family units.

Sentience is hard to explain. First of all, you have to define it. Second, you have to think of a way of seeing it in another species. For instance, we don't understand the language of animals. Animals don't know ours, either. We can't tell whether or not an elephant is fully self aware, though honestly, does the elephant know that we are? I certainly don't think that other animals have the same cognitive or analytic capabilities that humans do. But to say that an elephant is "just an animal" when it regularly visits its mother and father's grave site and physically shows signs of mourning and sadness...well, I take offense to the idea that humans are the only beings in this universe capable of human-like emotion and awareness of something beyond themselves.

For the record, I think personhood is a bit far for a legal protection for whales. There are other ways of incorporating the same protections and services without opening up that can of worms.

[Stu]

I'm not sure what the big deal is here. I've pointed this out in another post, humans for all of history have vastly underestimated the capacity of animals. Whales, dolphins, apes, and elephants, in particular, are obviously fully capable of thinking, emotion, having distinct personalities, high-level communication within their species, and even compassion and altruistic qualities.

In what way have humans underestimated animals?

It is ignorant in this day and age to say that non-humans are "just animals."

In what way is it ignorant to say that animals are "just animals".

If they are more than animals, what do you propose we do. And if they are more than just animals, then they deserve certain rights just like us; and with rights come responsibility.

- What happens if an ape or elephant kills another ape or elephant must they be tried for murder?
- What if they kill a human? Death penalty or jail?
- What of cows, they exhibit most of the qualities you describe, do we shut down all meat processing plants and farms?
Can we still hold cows for the sole purpose of milking; is that not abuse and slave labour?
Will the meat industry then not represent mass murder on a scale as never imagined before?
- What of horses, I'm sure they fit within your definition, how can we continue to ride them and keep them in barns for the sole purpose of riding and racing them?
- Can we really sterilize our pets? Is that not cruelty and abuse?
- What of euthanising animals?

[Ivellious]

Ok, my whole post got deleted, so to sum it up briefly:

I don't advocate for giving animals new rights. I do advocate for us upholding OUR responsibility to do no unnecessary harm to other animals, especially when it is only to fulfill our own greedy nature. Even the Bible gives animals a God-given right to live and prosper alongside us. They are a creation of God and deserve nothing less than our respect and protection from human dangers.

I don't believe that killing for meat violates that, so long as it is done humanely and only for animals that are prosperous and not in danger of population losses from our eating them. I do take issue with killing whales for oils, though, because that is unnecessary, greedy, and does great damage to the whale populations.

Also, it is important to note that Animals such as cows are not natural creatures. They have been carefully bred by humans over thousands of years to be perfect for our milk and meat production. Letting them into the wild would literally be a death sentence...there is zero chance milk and meat cattle would survive without us. Our relationship ought to be symbiotic, in a way...we should give them the best life possible, and when they are killed, it should only be to serve our needs. For the most part, this is how our relationship with cattle has transpired throughout history. Dogs and cats as pets are also not "natural." while cats and some dogs could survive on their own, they are typically treated very well in the western world and live their best lives alongside humans, while giving humans companionship. I see no problem there.

[Stu]

Ok, my whole post got deleted, so to sum it up briefly:

I don't advocate for giving animals new rights. I do advocate for us upholding OUR responsibility to do no unnecessary harm to other animals, especially when it is only to fulfill our own greedy nature. Even the Bible gives animals a God-given right to live and prosper alongside us. They are a creation of God and deserve nothing less than our respect and protection from human dangers.

I don't believe that killing for meat violates that, so long as it is done humanely and only for animals that are prosperous and not in danger of population losses from our eating them. I do take issue with killing whales for oils, though, because that is unnecessary, greedy, and does great damage to the whale populations.

I agree. The whales comment is an interesting one, and not sure I agree with you, but perhaps that's something for another discussion.

By the way, I have two kitties and I love 'em Treat them like two wittle people

Also, it is important to note that Animals such as cows are not natural creatures. They have been carefully bred by humans over thousands of years to be perfect for our milk and meat production. Letting them into the wild would literally be a death sentence...there is zero chance milk and meat cattle would survive without us. Our relationship ought to be symbiotic, in a way...we should give them the best life possible, and when they are killed, it should only be to serve our needs. For the most part, this is how our relationship with cattle has transpired throughout history. Dogs and cats as pets are also not "natural." while cats and some dogs could survive on their own, they are typically treated very well in the western world and live their best lives alongside humans, while giving humans companionship. I see no problem there.

Well you're contradicting yourself here a little. On the one hand animals "aren't just animals", but on the other it's ok to breed and slaughter these creatures that "aren't just animals" if it "serves our needs".

I am in no way condoning gratuitous cruelty to animals. It's just wrong. But you seem stuck somewhere in limbo; compassion to a point, or don't shut down McDonald's just yet..

And what of medicine? Animal testing. Should we set all the animals free, it's not gratuitous, but it certainly is cruel.
Should millions of humans die from disease, or should animal testing proceed?

[sandy_mcd]

... then they deserve certain rights just like us; and with rights come responsibility.

http://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Prosecut ... 057114893X


http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/4 ... ntrial.php



Protestants hanging a cat, 1554. Courtesy Mary Evans Picture Library.

[Stu]

... then they deserve certain rights just like us; and with rights come responsibility.

http://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Prosecut ... 057114893X


http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/4 ... ntrial.php

Yip that is what's known as a fail

[Canuckster1127]

On what basis do animal's rights arise? Are they independent of humans or given by humans?

[RickD]

On what basis do animal's rights arise? Are they independent of humans or given by humans?

I'm guessing animal rights would be endowed by their creator; the mighty Aslan:

[Byblos]

I'm not a marine biologist (or a biologist at all, really), so I don't know very much information on the topic, but scientists, according to this article, suggest that some oceanic creatures should be given 'personhood rights' because they are practically people. I can't agree based on everything I've learned. Anyone have more concrete information on it?

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local ... for-whales

Have these oceanic creatures been consulted on the matter? What did they have to say? We should not be in the business of assuming what other species want in terms of civil rights. If anything, let them acquire these rights the old-fashioned way, civil disobedience.