Granting animals human rights is ludicrous.
Chimpanzees should get chimpanzee rights, dolphins dolphin rights, and so on.
A succinct summary for each of these sets of rights:
Leave them the hell alone, in as large and pristine an environment as possible.
It seems like you might have the wrong link in the post. The one I see right now goes to Mother Jones on synthetic animal products, not Science on animal rights.
EDIT: for those interested, this might be the right link.
Thanks for the shout-out. Hereâs the correct link
Fixed! Thank you!
âHuman rightsâ may not be the right term or right class, but I love the idea of separating out a class of animals that are not typically food, beast of burden, commodities, etc. in our culture. It not only helps protect those special animals, but it could help make it easier to make clearer stronger laws against the kinds of treatment of animals that we pretty much all agree are things that should be avoided/outlawed,etc. If we had another class of animals that was stuff that we donât typically eat, donât wear, donât hunt, donât use for work, etc. , animals we see as companions and as animals that weâre more sympathetic to than others, we could give a lot more teeth to our animal protection regulations a lot more smoothly and no one would have to worry about them being interpreted too loosely and interfering with stuff many folks are okay with.
Perhaps âsentient beingâ rights would be a more appropriate term. Technically chimps are genus âpanâ not âhomoâ (though I agree that the differences may be relatively minor). Labeling âpanâ rights as âhumanâ is both scientifically incorrect as well as something thatâs not likely to fly with anything other than the fringes of human culture. Then you get to dolphins and other cetaceans, and labeling them âhumanâ just becomes ludicrous (though I donât think anyone would deny their intelligence or social nature).
Itâs pretty easy to get hung up on the word âhumanâ there, but species isnât the real source of those rights.
If we were to encounter sentient aliens or other animals that we could relate to in the same way we relate to one another, we would be more likely to extent human rights to those than we would to, say, a human organ being grown in a vat for transplant purposes. The former is a living thing that we can identify with intellectually and emotionally, the latter a living thing that shares our DNA.
Itâs undeniably anthropocentric, but most people dole out empathy to other creatures on a sliding scale roughly based on how much those creatures remind us of ourselves, i.e.
Close family member > friend > stranger > lowland gorilla > dog > rat > insect > plant > benign bacteria > harmful virus
I think a sliding scale of rights based on similar criteria may have a better shot at success than just designating certain favored species âlegal persons.â
Iâm not yet convinced that existing laws/practices regarding humane treatment of animals, and protected species, are insufficient.
The same species may exist in the wild and in captivity and fully domesticated. The same species may be a pet, a working animal, a wool (or milk, or other product) animal, a lab animal, and a food/skin/fur animal. How we interact with them does depend in part on where we put them along those axes.
I do believe that as cognative level rises, the definition of humane treatment alters somewhat; apes probably shouldnât be used as experimental subjects unless there is a very specific reason that other animals wonât meet the need. (Iâm not sure thereâs a special rule needed for that, though; theyâre expensive and troublesome enough that folks DONâT use them unless a real need exists.)
But none of that is ârightsâ. Itâs an obligation that we accept as humans, and unlike ârightsâ it is going to be situational.
Basically, this is the difference between the PETA types and the normal SPCA types â PETA sees it as black and white; SPCA sees shades of grey all of which have appropriate limits for that particular shade.
I see two problems with this-
Firstly, the court case is using the legal structure of Personhood, which is understandable, given the system that theyâre working within, but it also turns the situation into a ridiculous âall or nothingâ affair, with ridiculously wide ramifications. You remember all the the problems that granting personhood to corporations caused- thatâs the size of a shift in legal status weâre talking about here.
Secondly, this entire process goes to the roots of what is wrong with much of the talk about human rights. It imagines that rights are created and conferred by a benign legal body. I think thatâs a dangerous view. If rights are conferred by law, then they can also be removed exactly the same way.
Instead, if you look at history, all human rights have not been conferred, they have been claimed by the people whose rights they are, and only after a struggle are they recognised and codified by law.
Declare war on cows. From now on all hamburgers are to be made via tactical bombing.
So, how would we tell if a dolphin is expressing an opinion or hate?
Will bears be given the right to arm?
Will âapingâ someoneâs behaviour become a new discrimination?
Will we have to ensure access to public buildings for the water-bound?
Would gorillas be able to own zoos?
I agree. It will just dilute human rights for humans down to some common level for all animals. Hunting African natives for bush meat will become just as legitimate as hunting forest monkeys for bush meat is today. Although I have to say bush meat is rather tastey. Donât knock it. But if Iâm in some village and buy some bush meat for supper twenty years from now what guarantee will I have of its species of origin? Primates are dying out while humans, especially in the African continent are still exploding exponentially. Itâs easy to see where this is all leading. I WANT MY BUSH MEAT TO BE REAL BUSH MEAT. This madness has to stop.
Lots of problems, like other folks have said, and if the criteria includes intelligence, then squid and octopus must surely be on the list. Ban calamari!
Yes.
Eat 'em critters, but
Respect critters!
Thatâs all.
How about we have a law that says if it can feel pain (eg. central nervous system) then it should have rights to protect it.
Beyond that, pretty much all animals think and have emotions, and that fact bolsters the need for legal protection.
Not that long ago in history we were having the same conversation about slaves and minority rights, this is just the next step, and one that I hope gains momentum.
In fact, there are areas, like in the DRC, where humansâ rights arenât enforced at the level of protection we already have for animals.
Wouldnât you have to put half of the chimps in jail after week one? What with all the rape and murder that they do on a regular basis.
Anyone whoâs ever dealt with monkeys can tell you theyâre pretty much just like us. Macaques have troops of up to a couple hundred individuals with matrilineal inheritance of status. Chimps go to war in a way strongly reminiscent of a lot of human hunter-gatherers. Macaques are little bastards, for sure, and if I had to deal with packs of them running amok trying to break in to my house, as I have in several houses of several people much more dedicated to ahimsa than myself, I would be very strongly tempted to shoot a few, but that doesnât make them less like us. Iâm not saying that they should have full legal rights as humans, but I have some serious reservations about people doing research that involves keeping them isolated in little cages and doing all kinds of surgical procedures on them.
