Place open for new posts — threads with fresh content will be moved to either Real-life Discussion or ESOC Talk sub-forums, where you can create new topics.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

19 Nov 2016, 11:44

It's google translated, so full of errors, but the gist should be clear. @musketjr
any thoughts?

Mr. Kymlicka, you're political philosopher.Six books and numerous articles you wrote about the rights of minorities and migrants. And then you suddenly started talking about - animals?
My wife and I have long been involved in the animal rights movement. For over thirty years, we are vegan. But I always thought that all the arguments for the defense of the animal were raised long ago, in the seventies, by the Australian bioethicist Peter Singer and the American philosopher Tom Regan.Until we realized eight years ago, that some important questions are left open in the early literature.

Which?
"The focus of Singer and Regan is almost exclusively given to the evil that we do to animals, and why we need to stop that. But they never really go into the question of how we then indeed should relate to animals. The 'Day after' story. Suppose a day comes when we stop torturing animals and killing, then what? "

Will such a day come, do you think?
"We believe that you, in any case already need to think about. Not least because you immediately encounter some complex issues.The animal rights movement claimed Singer and Regan looks at the rights of all animals, a kind of universal human rights for animals.

"You can not hurt animals, do not kill them, do not enslave them. But in practice, there are huge differences between groups of animals. Take dogs and wolves. Which are closely related, yet our relationship with dogs totally different than with wolves. Wolves you would let live in the wild. But dogs would get civil rights. "

Civil rights, there you have it. It's just getting used to the mindset which Kymlicka and his regular co-author and wife Sue Donaldson five years ago unfolded in their book Zoopolis. The pair paints a wonderful utopia, which we consider animals in the wild as residents of another, but sovereign country, and we made the tame, domesticated animals to full citizen.In between are the "liminal animals," the borderline cases, such as migratory birds, squirrels or deer. But call it 'residents', find Kymlicka and Robertson, compare a little with tourists who are visiting our country.

It provided the spouses reactions in all keys. Ridicule, laughter, but also academic fame and cult status in the natural motion. Hostility, but also political significance for the Party for the Animals from the tiny Netherlands, where it has embraced Kymlicka's ideas.


Civil rights for domestic animals, you say?
'Yes Yes. We have taken these animals from the wild centuries ago, sometimes bred them for thousands of years for us and kept them next to us to live and work. Our society is their society. Their world is truly our world. We need to think about what that means.

"As a political philosopher, I think of membership rights. In human societies the question of which community you are a member decides what rights you have, and whether you have access to things like health care, public goods or the labor market. And in political philosophy is 'citizenship' category that allows you to indicate that this individual is a member of society. As domesticated animals, so. "

But to compare the dog, the cat and the goat with your neighbor?
'The concept has worked well in humans. So I propose: let's see if it works as well for animals.

Upon hearing citizenship, I think of rights, but also obligations. Those animals should soon pay taxes or something?
"On civic duties people do actually pay tax immediately or join the army at war. But I want to see them broader: what makes a good society possible? Before that citizens should learn to control their impulses, are social and not aggressive towards each other.

"I think that domesticated animals do all that. I'm sitting here overlooking a park: all people and dogs interact. There is evidence that pet neighborhoods safer, make people more comfortable. Animals will not pay taxes, but they contribute in a different way. I think they can be good citizens. "

Until they eat their fellow citizens. I think of the cats.
"The case of the cats is indeed difficult. One complication is that the predators. They want to hunt. And citizens have the responsibility not to kill each other in our story.So one challenge is there. we should limit freedom of cats to curb their impulses? There is much discussion in the animal rights movement about this. We have simply no perfect answer. "

And cattle? Run the farm animals freely in Zoopolis?
"The category of domesticated animals definitely includes cattle. So yes. Cattle, pigs, sheep: all citizens in our line of thought. "

But there are a lot.
"You have to realize: that's because we force these animals to reproduce rapidly. In our view, this is a violation of their rights. You can not force citizens to procreate. If we desist, we would after a transitional period of one year or twenty, thirty have much less. "

I try now to imagine a world with around cows, pigs, chickens and sheep in the street. Do not you think that many people would have problems with that?
Prerequisite for animal rights, according to Kymlicka is veganism. "If we were to change our diet radically, we should also be more open to face the idea that we can live with animals in other ways."Currently, an estimated one in 25 Dutch vegetarian.Of them live less than one in ten vegan (completely animal product free).
"An interesting question is indeed what to do with their mobility and access to public space.But I think you do, just like people, would see a mix of schemes. In some cases, you might get a situation where a neighborhood has a few cows, pigs, sheep and chickens around. In other cases it is a family with some animals in the backyard. Or think of schools, colleges, nursing homes or prisons: they can all have an animal guest.

"And why not? It always amazes me that people do accept that you can have mutually satisfying relationships with dogs and cats, but they make have the same trouble for pigs or cows. They are individuals. If you spend time with them, they have their charms and personalities. "

I also think of the Oostvaardersplassen. The country was turned upside down when footage came from emaciated heck cattle and drowning deer.
"The case of nature as the Oostvaardersplassen is complicated. The difficulty is that it is an attempt to rewilding until reintroduction of wild nature including animals for many generations have spent in our society. In our view, this livestock is turned off now. Exiled and forced to live in isolation. I do not think we are entitled to do so.

"On the other hand, we have the responsibility to find out what animals want to spend our relationships - and whether they would like to."

What do you mean?
"Take horses. If you give horses the choice to stay with us or go wild to a kind of wandering horse herds, my guess would be that horses would choose to leave us. That would be the same for livestock, and certainly not for dogs. We are in favor of nature, where domesticated animals in a safe, gradual way to explore the potential for wild life. With more and more time on themselves and less time among the people. "

But then they go there and might die, as in the Oostvaarders-plas. That's not the deal.
"Let me put it this way: the safest life is not always the best life. The safest life for an animal would be locking it in a zoo. But that is not an acceptable life, just like you can not keep a man safely locked in a prison cell. A good life has risks. This applies to us, but also for animals. And when you see such an image of a starving animal ... Well, that then makes it clear what the risk. But what we do not have a clear picture of the blessings who also belong to that life. Maybe freedom is to live a life with their peers as they wish the risks acceptable to them. "

Should you want to feed starving animals? Or protect against wolves?
"In our view, we turn over a road that inevitably leads to captivity. We would change nature into a zoo. If you would do that more and more animals would need us to protect them, which in turn is not sustainable, so the call to action is bigger again. And the only way to protect them from predators is to put some kind of barrier between the predator and the prey. That quickly becomes a zoo. And our suspicion is that wild animals prefer the risks of the food cycle and predation over the safety of the zoo. "

You paint a kind of paradise, with all that harmony with the animals. How should we treat your ideas if action or inspiration?
"Our story has indeed some similarities with certain spiritual ideas. But I think we set a political fundamental philosophical question: what makes it legitimate to exercise power over animals?

"My answer would be: a legitimate government must serve the interests of the governed. Otherwise it is a tyranny. I see our thoughts so as logical consequence of the basic liberal philosophy of legitimate governance. "

But its all a little crazy, isnt it?.
"If you look from a certain angle, it's crazy and radical and utopian and revolutionary. On the other hand, what amazes me is how to apply mental gymnastics philosophers to have basic ideas about legitimate governance or justice do not apply to animals. I always marvel about it.The resistance of my colleagues to take their ideas one step through. "

Do you have the feeling that we are heading in the right direction?
"Sometimes I'm optimistic about it, sometimes pessimistic. When I look around me I see people everywhere with ties to pets that they find important and satisfying. They see animals as part of the family, recognize that individuals with a personality. I think those people can experience more open to the possibility that, for example pigs beings with personality, feelings and so on. "

" If you look at how we think about children, ethnic minorities and disabled people ... The last few centuries, we have a kind concern developed about the inner experience of those people. We push them aside as not inferior or harmful, we are as a society become more sensitive to that too could suffer another subgroups. That ability to be aware of the suffering of others is not limited to the type of border. When we talk once we are almost obliged to be aware of the suffering of animals. "
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7489

19 Nov 2016, 11:56

Decent try to get him posting again

With society growing more social it seems likely that other animals will gain civil rights at some point. I think for that to happen we need to find a way to produce quality meat without killing, which seems realistic.

On a slightly related note I continue to be triggered by the fact that when we say animals we think of non-human animals. We need a different word for that.
It's kinda like saying "stars" and not counting the sun.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

19 Nov 2016, 12:02

Goodspeed wrote:Decent try to get him posting again

With society growing more social it seems likely that other animals will gain civil rights at some point. I think for that to happen we need to find a way to produce quality meat without killing, which seems realistic.

On a slightly related note I continue to be triggered by the fact that when we say animals we think of non-human animals. We need a different word for that.
It's like saying "stars" and not counting the sun.


Sure, we can say beasts when talking about non-humans, and animals when including humans. So let's call it animal rights, although that would include wild animals, something the man in this artical isn't advocating.

But looking at the nature of rights, and the corresponding duties that come with rights, surely it's silly to give beasts the same rights as humans. Should we allow a pig to run for government? I mean we already have Trump, so why not my cat, I''m quite sure my cat is smarter.

To talk of civil rights and citizenschip is ofcourse nonsense. He has a point when he says that domesticated animals are part of our world, but they are not part of our political society, and civil rights and citizenship are specifically political rights. A refugee coming to the Netherlands would have no civil rights here, he would however still have his basic human rights. We could extend animals these same rights, however, this would not give them a right to roam free. Surely if we have no problem with locking up illegal humans because they have no civil rights, then why would we not lock up animals that do not have civil rights?

But here the cat comes in, and the problem of the predator. Basic human rights are extended to all humans, and it brings along that every human has a duty to respect another human's life, or face the consequences. If we extend this line of thought and make it animal rights, we should punish a cat for killing a mouse. Because he just violated the rights of that mouse. This is quickly becoming absurd. And he knows it, so he just kinda deflects the question. He makes it seem as if we just do not have a perfect answer to it right now, but we will never have an answer for it. Simply because we can never make a cat understand his obligation towards a mouse and go against it's instinct. Besides we would have to force that cat to go vegan, because why not? With this line of thought we are forcing humans to go vegan as well, and the point of this idea is to treat humans the same as animals, but then the opposite should hold true as well.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7489

19 Nov 2016, 12:04

Why wouldn't we let a pig run for office if it was smart enough to do so?
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

19 Nov 2016, 12:11

Goodspeed wrote:Why wouldn't we let a pig run for office if it was smart enough to do so?


That's not the question. We let humans run for office regardless of how smart they are.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7489

19 Nov 2016, 12:17

That's why I said smart enough "to do so". It takes a certain level of intelligence to be able to run for office. For one, you need to understand the concept. Pigs don't or haven't been able to communicate that they do. My point was that any entity that understands the concept of running for office and is able to go through the necessary arrangements should be allowed to run. This includes beasts, AI, aliens, whatever.
User avatar
New Zealand JakeyBoyTH
Howdah
Posts: 1744
ESO: Ex-Contributor
Location: New Zealand

19 Nov 2016, 12:22

Civil rights for non-sentient organisms is a joke. A society is based on communication, how can you tell what they will say?

A Pig and other organisms cannot biologically be as intelligent as humans. Our brains are a result of our specific bipedal evolution from apes.

I also suspect that if we treat animals the same as other humans (i.e civil rights) they will radically decrease in population. Most breeding of these animals is due to our consumption of them.

Instead I think they will form their own groups when free, such as when they were not domesticated. You see this with free-range chickens. They do their own thing, and in general try their best to avoid humans. That instinct is innate, there is nothing we can do about it.

What we need is a healthier way to sustainably raise chicken/cattle/pigs. The current practices, especially in the US are crude. If we allow them happy lives then that matters more.
Advanced Wonders suck

- Aizamk

Ugh Advanced Wonders suck

- Aizamk
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

19 Nov 2016, 12:32

Goodspeed wrote:That's why I said smart enough "to do so". It takes a certain level of intelligence to be able to run for office. For one, you need to understand the concept. Pigs don't or haven't been able to communicate that they do. My point was that any entity that understands the concept of running for office and is able to go through the necessary arrangements should be allowed to run. This includes beasts, AI, aliens, whatever.


Yes, I definitely agree. But it still raises some questions, are mentally handicapped people allowed to run for office? Currently they are not specifically banned. We do ban children at this moment, but why would an 18 year old (or in most cases I think you need to be 21 or even 23 to eligable for political candidacy) be more suited than a 17 year old. Surely they too can understand the concept of running for office.

And since, as you indicate, we aren't at a point yet that we can really communicate with beats, it seems a bit premature to talk of civil rights, dont you agree?
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

19 Nov 2016, 12:37

JakeyBoyTH wrote:Civil rights for non-sentient organisms is a joke. A society is based on communication, how can you tell what they will say?

A Pig and other organisms cannot biologically be as intelligent as humans. Our brains are a result of our specific bipedal evolution from apes.

I also suspect that if we treat animals the same as other humans (i.e civil rights) they will radically decrease in population. Most breeding of these animals is due to our consumption of them.

Instead I think they will form their own groups when free, such as when they were not domesticated. You see this with free-range chickens. They do their own thing, and in general try their best to avoid humans. That instinct is innate, there is nothing we can do about it.

What we need is a healthier way to sustainably raise chicken/cattle/pigs. The current practices, especially in the US are crude. If we allow them happy lives then that matters more.


These organisms are sentient though, non-sentient organisms would be plants, right? (though there is debate about that as well). However, I do agree, society is based on communication (or atleast on the probability of it being possible), and on those grounds alone, it's sufficient to deny beasts civil rights. It's not for nothing that one of the most basic requirements for citizenship is most often a language requirement. However, we can still talk of animal rights, in the same sense that we have universal human rights, which are not political. This could be extended to animals on the basis that they suffer. However, it still brings problems with them, which I mentioned in a previous post.

And btw, I never understood why it's less bad to kill an animal that has had a good life, than an animal that has had a bad life.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7489

19 Nov 2016, 12:41

I don't personally mind letting handicapped people or kids run for office.

Yeah, it's premature to talk about giving them the same civil rights we have. What we could be talking about giving them the right to live in their natural habitat without human interference. For many endangered species, rules to that effect are already in place.
For animals like pigs, cows etc it's premature not because we can't communicate with them but because we haven't found a suitable alternative way to produce meat yet.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

19 Nov 2016, 12:47

Goodspeed wrote:I don't personally mind letting handicapped people or kids run for office.

Yeah, it's premature to talk about giving them the same civil rights we have. What we could be talking about giving them the right to live in their natural habitat without human interference. For many endangered species, rules to that effect are already in place.
For animals like pigs, cows etc it's premature not because we can't communicate with them but because we haven't found a suitable alternative way to produce meat yet.


They would argue that we do not need meat. We could perhaps not change it overnight, but barring economical consequenses, it could be done in a few years. The right to live in their natural habitat without human interference is an interesting concept, but I think it would work only for wild animals. What about the animals which habitat is the same, or atleast partially overlaps with human habitat? If rats should have the right to be left alone, not to be interfered with by humans, than surely humans should have the same rights concerning rats. But how will you explain this to a rat? Or to a human for that matter XD. It might seem silly, but this is a big concern for farmers. They can't kill wolves for example, but wolves are killing their business. They can't kill elephants, but yet elephants are trampling their lands. And elephants are considered one of the most intelligent animals on this planet, yet they cannot understand human society. For obvious reasons, they are not human.
User avatar
New Zealand JakeyBoyTH
Howdah
Posts: 1744
ESO: Ex-Contributor
Location: New Zealand

19 Nov 2016, 12:49

umeu wrote:
JakeyBoyTH wrote:Civil rights for non-sentient organisms is a joke. A society is based on communication, how can you tell what they will say?

A Pig and other organisms cannot biologically be as intelligent as humans. Our brains are a result of our specific bipedal evolution from apes.

I also suspect that if we treat animals the same as other humans (i.e civil rights) they will radically decrease in population. Most breeding of these animals is due to our consumption of them.

Instead I think they will form their own groups when free, such as when they were not domesticated. You see this with free-range chickens. They do their own thing, and in general try their best to avoid humans. That instinct is innate, there is nothing we can do about it.

What we need is a healthier way to sustainably raise chicken/cattle/pigs. The current practices, especially in the US are crude. If we allow them happy lives then that matters more.


These organisms are sentient though, non-sentient organisms would be plants, right? (though there is debate about that as well). However, I do agree, society is based on communication (or atleast on the probability of it being possible), and on those grounds alone, it's sufficient to deny beasts civil rights. It's not for nothing that one of the most basic requirements for citizenship is most often a language requirement. However, we can still talk of animal rights, in the same sense that we have universal human rights, which are not political. This could be extended to animals on the basis that they suffer. However, it still brings problems with them, which I mentioned in a previous post.

And btw, I never understood why it's less bad to kill an animal that has had a good life, than an animal that has had a bad life.


It depends on the death of the animal. Seemingly like humans. If an animal is injured, you put it out of its misery. If you mean straight up just growing animals to eat, then its much better that they live good lives. Animals do feel pain and we have to look after them in their short lives. It's just not ethically sane to keep animals in a bad way, just because you are going to eat them. Thats like saying we should let Donald Trump do what he wants, I mean he's going to get out in 4 years anyway.

My definition of sentient is organism that can think for themselves and understand. Pigs I can attest do not do that at all. They are so dumb. In their own little way though, they do learn.
Advanced Wonders suck

- Aizamk

Ugh Advanced Wonders suck

- Aizamk
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

19 Nov 2016, 12:56

JakeyBoyTH wrote:
umeu wrote:
JakeyBoyTH wrote:Civil rights for non-sentient organisms is a joke. A society is based on communication, how can you tell what they will say?

A Pig and other organisms cannot biologically be as intelligent as humans. Our brains are a result of our specific bipedal evolution from apes.

I also suspect that if we treat animals the same as other humans (i.e civil rights) they will radically decrease in population. Most breeding of these animals is due to our consumption of them.

Instead I think they will form their own groups when free, such as when they were not domesticated. You see this with free-range chickens. They do their own thing, and in general try their best to avoid humans. That instinct is innate, there is nothing we can do about it.

What we need is a healthier way to sustainably raise chicken/cattle/pigs. The current practices, especially in the US are crude. If we allow them happy lives then that matters more.


These organisms are sentient though, non-sentient organisms would be plants, right? (though there is debate about that as well). However, I do agree, society is based on communication (or atleast on the probability of it being possible), and on those grounds alone, it's sufficient to deny beasts civil rights. It's not for nothing that one of the most basic requirements for citizenship is most often a language requirement. However, we can still talk of animal rights, in the same sense that we have universal human rights, which are not political. This could be extended to animals on the basis that they suffer. However, it still brings problems with them, which I mentioned in a previous post.

And btw, I never understood why it's less bad to kill an animal that has had a good life, than an animal that has had a bad life.


It depends on the death of the animal. Seemingly like humans. If an animal is injured, you put it out of its misery. If you mean straight up just growing animals to eat, then its much better that they live good lives. Animals do feel pain and we have to look after them in their short lives. It's just not ethically sane to keep animals in a bad way, just because you are going to eat them. Thats like saying we should let Donald Trump do what he wants, I mean he's going to get out in 4 years anyway.

My definition of sentient is organism that can think for themselves and understand. Pigs I can attest do not do that at all. They are so dumb. In their own little way though, they do learn.


Hmm, I think scientific studies actually show that pigs are really intelligent. I personally see no reason to harm animals when it can be avoided, and as a movie quote goes, if you are going to kill someone, there is no reason not to be a gentleman about it (or something similar). However I would argue that's much more for the protection of humans, than for the animals. I've made this argument before, if having the ability to suffer grants the right not to suffer by the hands of others, then why does the ability to live not grant the right not to have this life ended by the hands of others?

In the end, the reason why we do not inflict suffering on humans we do not know is also quite selfish (not strictly so, but its an aspect that should not be ignored), it opens precedent for them to hurt us as well. And by inflicting suffering on other humans, and I do think, also on animals, it affects us psychologically in important ways. For once maybe @Metis can give an interesting insight here, considering he was a soldier.
United States of America Metis
Howdah
Posts: 1661

19 Nov 2016, 12:58

The human species evolved being omnivores and doing anything else is literally going against nature. Vegans get all "high and mighty" about their feeding style but most actually kill as many or more living things than a more carnivorous human does. In fact, proximately, they kill more. I can kill one deer and eat on it for a month. A vegan, on the other hand, will kill and consume thousands of immature plants in that same time.

You can't survive without killing. All species, even autotrophs, kill. If your body didn't kill then something would quickly kill it. You can take as an an example someone with an untreated HIV infection, which degrades the immune system to a point that normally benign organisms become pathogens. What does any food do when you allow it to sit out too long -- that's right, it rots. Like it or not, everything that lives is potential food.

That said, it damages the psyche to be cruel. It also has been shown that people who are cruel to animals as children usually grow into adults who are cruel to other humans. Just because you eat meat doesn't mean that you can't do it humanely.

The farm animal lives a pretty good life compared to its ancestral wild form. It is fed on a regular basis, it has clean water to drink, it is safe from having to constantly be on its guard from predators and it is free of disease and parasites due to the farmer's medical treatments. Farm animals live a much safer and healthier life than their wild brethren and then they are killed quickly and painlessly rather than being eaten alive.

This is nature.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwdCI9VfgtA[/video]
User avatar
Netherland Antilles Laurence Drake
Jaeger
Posts: 2687

19 Nov 2016, 13:04

We have weaker obligations to other species because they are not members of our nation, state or community.
Top quality poster.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7489

19 Nov 2016, 13:18

umeu wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:I don't personally mind letting handicapped people or kids run for office.

Yeah, it's premature to talk about giving them the same civil rights we have. What we could be talking about giving them the right to live in their natural habitat without human interference. For many endangered species, rules to that effect are already in place.
For animals like pigs, cows etc it's premature not because we can't communicate with them but because we haven't found a suitable alternative way to produce meat yet.
They would argue that we do not need meat. We could perhaps not change it overnight, but barring economical consequenses, it could be done in a few years. The right to live in their natural habitat without human interference is an interesting concept, but I think it would work only for wild animals. What about the animals which habitat is the same, or atleast partially overlaps with human habitat? If rats should have the right to be left alone, not to be interfered with by humans, than surely humans should have the same rights concerning rats. But how will you explain this to a rat? Or to a human for that matter XD. It might seem silly, but this is a big concern for farmers. They can't kill wolves for example, but wolves are killing their business. They can't kill elephants, but yet elephants are trampling their lands. And elephants are considered one of the most intelligent animals on this planet, yet they cannot understand human society. For obvious reasons, they are not human.
We may not need meat but enough of us want it to make any kind of talks about civil rights for these animals fruitless.

Yes it would only work for wild animals. As for pests, I think futuristic human society will find ways to keep them out without killing them.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

19 Nov 2016, 13:32

Well, let's separate and is from an ought, or better said, a can be from an ought to be. We might not able to implement said changes overnight, I doubt even these animal right advocates believe that, but the question we are talking about is, should we implement these changes? And what justification do we have for implementing them, or not doing so.
United States of America Metis
Howdah
Posts: 1661

19 Nov 2016, 13:39

JakeyBoyTH wrote:My definition of sentient is organism that can think for themselves and understand. Pigs I can attest do not do that at all. They are so dumb. In their own little way though, they do learn.


I may sound like semantics but I think that people tend to misuse the word "sentient." Technically, to be sentient is to be able to feel pleasure and pain. When the word began to be used to refer to consciousness was when it was thought that only humans could feel pleasure and pain. This was the thinking of Descartes and others -- that animals were merely automata, that might appear to be in pain but they really weren't. Of course, modern science has shown that the man/nature dichotomy is pure rubbish.

The ability to sense changes in the environment and respond to them is a fundamental property of life. We call this property irritability. All cells sense and respond to changes in their environments via receptors embedded in their cell membranes. It takes a developed neural network to feel pain as we know it but the seed being crushed in the mill to make flour for the Vegan's lunch still realizes, at a cellular level, that it is being destroyed.

When I teach bioethics, I use the term "sentient" for animals with a neural network developed enough that they respond to pain in a way similar to what we do and "sapient" to refer to those animals with some sort of consciousness.

But where does sentience and sapience begin? That is very hard to say as even molluscs like scallops feel a sort of pain and even can be said to be "afraid" in their own way when fleeing a predator. However the scallop probably doesn't think of things and remember that it was "afraid," it is just genetically programmed to react in a certain way to dangerous stimuli because those of its ilk that didn't evolve said response didn't live long enough to produce offspring.

What animals besides humans are sapient? Well, from my experience several groups of mammals can definitely be said to possess this property. I've seen juvenile chimpanzees playing games with kids at the zoo to an extent that an outside observer would have thought they were of the same level of intelligence. My pet cat too definitely remembers things from day to day. If I put her out too early she will remember it, pout all night, and then let me know she is still mad by taking a swipe at me when I feed her in the morning. A friend of mine in paramedic school had a dog that would make up and play games. Once we were fishing and nobody would play with the dog so it walked along the beach, gathered up a half-dozen rocks, carried them to the end of the dock and then dropped them into the water. Then it jumped in, retrieved the rocks and then carried them back to the beach.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7489

19 Nov 2016, 13:43

Should we implement these changes?
That would depend on the perspective. Morality/ethics? The future of humanity? Future of the planet? Biodiversity?
User avatar
Romania Dolan
Jaeger
Posts: 3815
Location: aka Neuron

19 Nov 2016, 13:53

On the contrary, I think human rights should be revoked.

And anyone who wants to enjoy this status should pass some tests, including an intelligence test. Human rights shouldn't be simply given to any redneck who doesn't give a shit about respecting yours. It should be a status that you should fight for obtaining in every generation. I think we went too far with human rights, some people are hiding behind this concept to protect all sorts of paraphilias as well as to blackmail richer societies in order to gain citizenship and live on the welfare of another country.

Automatic human rights promote moral complacency and an escalation of entitlements (people who based on their current status of "protected human" demand more and more rights in different areas, to satisfy their own personal irritations and sense of entitlement).

On the subject at hand, I think there can be no question of animal rights, because, with the exception of domesticated animals, they're not even part of our societies. And even if they were, they don't have the capacity to reciprocate, so they couldn't exercise those rights. They would also not be aware that they have such rights. So it would all be yet another display of human self-centeredness and caprice. How could the rights of a species originate with another species? And also, how could their enforcement depend on another species' whim? That's a clear sign of species conceitedness, it's like you as a human see yourself as the source of all rights that need to be bestowed on this planet. Whether or not those other species want them or are even aware of them. Not to mention that they cannot respect your "human rights", if the occasion arises. So it would be clearly just an exercise in human pretentiousness.

And all this can be cured by revoking human rights and requiring humans to pass some tests before gaining the status of protected individual. Not every mouthbreather deserves human rights, otherwise we are headed towards idiocracy, where the big number of idiots decide who should rule and what policies should institutions have.
"That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace."

"Aren't we all just internet explorers?"
No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624

19 Nov 2016, 13:53

there isn't a need for complex debate about liberties or rights. the point which is often made is that most legal systems already purport to protect animals from unnecessary harm. this means they recognise they can feel and reflect most people's intuition that animals shouldn't be harmed frivolously. ill give you the English example

From http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... on-of-harm


(1) A person commits an offence if
(a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c) the animal is a protected animal, and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

protected animal refers to commonly domesticated animals. the main qualification, in fact the one which gives enough leeway such that the protection is rendered meaningless, is that of 'unnecessary suffering'. clearly it means 'necessary suffering' is ok, and what counts in practice as necessary is anything humans enjoy or place importance in. go and watch videos of conditions or slaughter, and consider this law against infliction of unnecessary suffering. the only suffering actually prohibited is that which doesn't serve a recognised cultural or economic purpose.

let me put it this way, then. there is no need for complicated theory because the notion against harming for frivolous reasons already exists and is already in place, it only needs to be enforced. if 'unnecessary suffering' were taken seriously, the meat industry would become illegal tomorrow.

I was thinking about what video to include. gary francione is a better and more engaging orator but his videos are a bit long. this one is explained quite well and isn't that long. she's a lawyer

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr26scqsIwk[/video]

also, notice the irony of the walking Wikipedia article equating the killing of plants with the killing of animals
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

19 Nov 2016, 14:16

musketjr wrote:there isn't a need for complex debate about liberties or rights. the point which is often made is that most legal systems already purport to protect animals from unnecessary harm. this means they recognise they can feel and reflect most people's intuition that animals shouldn't be harmed frivolously. ill give you the English example

From http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200 ... on-of-harm


(1) A person commits an offence if
(a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c) the animal is a protected animal, and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

protected animal refers to commonly domesticated animals. the main qualification, in fact the one which gives enough leeway such that the protection is rendered meaningless, is that of 'unnecessary suffering'. clearly it means 'necessary suffering' is ok, and what counts in practice as necessary is anything humans enjoy or place importance in. go and watch videos of conditions or slaughter, and consider this law against infliction of unnecessary suffering. the only suffering actually prohibited is that which doesn't serve a recognised cultural or economic purpose.

let me put it this way, then. there is no need for complicated theory because the notion against harming for frivolous reasons already exists and is already in place, it only needs to be enforced. if 'unnecessary suffering' were taken seriously, the meat industry would become illegal tomorrow.

I was thinking about what video to include. gary francione is a better and more engaging orator but his videos are a bit long. this one is explained quite well and isn't that long. she's a lawyer

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr26scqsIwk[/video]

also, notice the irony of the walking Wikipedia article equating the killing of plants with the killing of animals


I agree with you on this musket, but the topic was about an article in which someone advicates civil rights for animals. I think most of us would agree here that the frivolous harming of animals is unacceptable.

However, the unnecessary suffering relating to the animal industry has its nuances. Surely, there are ways to cultivate animals that do not include the suffering inflicted on them currently, but we would not be able to produce on our current scale. Now you might say thats fine, others might not agree. And that raises the question which GS posed, which perspective do we take. You take an ethical one, but someone else might take an economical one. From the first perspective, the current suffering of animals is unnecessary, from the perspective of someone running a company, its unavoidable in order to make the profits they do.

I actually find it silly to talk about treating beasts humanely. They are not humans. Other animals don't do this either, and we don't expect them to. Another thing we should stop doing is that whenever some monstruous thing has been done by humans, we call it unhuman, or beastly, while its very unlikely any beast would ever do something like a holocaust or throw an atombomb. Even if they had the technology, I would doubt it.

Also for a lawyer, I find that she has, or shows, only a very shallow and narrow concept of rights. She completely ignores the fact that rights always come with atleast one duty, and often other ones as well. She ignores the entire reason why we have rights.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 9999

19 Nov 2016, 14:24

Dolan wrote:And anyone who wants to enjoy this status should pass some tests, including an intelligence test. Human rights shouldn't be simply given to any redneck who doesn't give a shit about respecting yours. It should be a status that you should fight for obtaining in every generation. I think we went too far with human rights, some people are hiding behind this concept to protect all sorts of paraphilias as well as to blackmail richer societies in order to gain citizenship and live on the welfare of another country.


The way I see it, rights only work on the basic principle of reciprocity. The moment you disrespect the rights of someone else, you forfeit your own claim to that same right. Sadly, priviliges and unequal societies mean that some members will not feel the consequences of their actions.

Automatic human rights promote moral complacency and an escalation of entitlements (people who based on their current status of "protected human" demand more and more rights in different areas, to satisfy their own personal irritations and sense of entitlement).


I agree with you on this, it does make for entitled individuals in many cases. But I think the answer to this is not revoking the rights, but rather, educating people on the nature of rights. It should be clear that rights only work if they apply equally to every other citizen in the same situation. Which immediately makes it clear why discrimination is a threat to democracy. Democracy is founded upon this principle of rights and duties, and discrimination undermines this very foundation.

On the subject at hand, I think there can be no question of animal rights, because, with the exception of domesticated animals, they're not even part of our societies. And even if they were, they don't have the capacity to reciprocate, so they couldn't exercise those rights. They would also not be aware that they have such rights. So it would all be yet another display of human self-centeredness and caprice. How could the rights of a species originate with another species? And also, how could their enforcement depend on another species' whim? That's a clear sign of species conceitedness, it's like you as a human see yourself as the source of all rights that need to be bestowed on this planet. Whether or not those other species want them or are even aware of them. Not to mention that they cannot respect your "human rights", if the occasion arises. So it would be clearly just an exercise in human pretentiousness.


Very well said. Except for one thing, it's quite clear that no animal likes to suffer, in fact, humans are probably the only animal that knows the concept of suffering for pleasure or another reason, often religious. This aspect still leaves some room for debate.

And all this can be cured by revoking human rights and requiring humans to pass some tests before gaining the status of protected individual. Not every mouthbreather deserves human rights, otherwise we are headed towards idiocracy, where the big number of idiots decide who should rule and what policies should institutions have.


Here I disagree. I will come back as to why later. But first I'd need to know if you mean we should revoke basic/universal human rights as well as civil rights, or only the latter (or only the former).
No Flag musketjr
Lancer
Posts: 624

19 Nov 2016, 15:02

yea you are missing the point. you can discuss rights in a technical and academic way. you can be assured that she understands rights, and I've read that kind of analysis.

my point is that it's nonsense. and it's discussion of legal fiction.

however it should be packaged, as rights, or liberties, or simply statute saying "you cant do this", they are referring to the same thing. leave the technical nonsense for a place where it is necessary, namely in a university or a court. what we are actually discussing is the notion that 'we should not abuse animals for frivolous reasons'. everyone agrees with this. you agree with this.

if this is carried to its logical conclusion, by being treated meaningfully, animal exploitation industry becomes illegal tomorrow. nothing else needs to be said about this.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7489

19 Nov 2016, 15:05

musketjr wrote:what we are actually discussing is the notion that 'we should not abuse animals for frivolous reasons'. everyone agrees with this.
It's hard to disagree when you put it like that but no, they don't. What are these "frivolous" reasons anyway? Most people would argue that exploitation of animals often happens for legitimate reasons.

Forum Info

Return to “Archive”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest