Animal Rights

[please]

I'm not demanding rights for any creature... When an entity asks for rights, I'll consider granting them.

It's about time to note that chimps/creatures never asked for rights. They can't, and don't, know what a "right" is. But they can ask for banana, I think.

If little green men swoop down from the sky - for whatever reason - by definition the request has been made and granted.

What definition is that? Because it makes totally no sense to me

even if they see us as food, they're entitled to rights.

Haven't I asked "why"? I think I did. In my last post above.

In order to be human, you have to be capable of acting human - and that includes our concept of social contracts., as mentioned above.

Are you saying, or better are you trying to say, that anything that acts like a human, is a human?

[AstralSpirit]

Please

In my opinion, these primates have proven they are much closer to us than is commonly thought even amongst biologists and geneticists...

Sentient? yeah.. intelligent, yes.

But grant them "human" status? No way. In order to be human, you have to be capable of acting human - and that includes our concept of social contracts., as mentioned above.

Bacteria communicate too, does this mean that it is a crime to take antibiotics.

[Pinemarten]

Found the claim, now to find the good professor:

http://oaks.nvg.org/pigs.html#pig-intelligence

[LurchGS]

It's about time to note that chimps/creatures never asked for rights. They can't, and don't, know what a "right" is. But they can ask for banana, I think

I'm sorry - I really don't understand the point here.

.What definition is that? Because it makes totally no sense to me

By definition, any complex species that has the intelligence to cross the void between the stars is at least human. I don't have to like them. I don't have to befriend them. But they do have certain basic rights - the same ones I'd acknowledge for any other human.

Haven't I asked "why"? I think I did. In my last post above.

Every person has basic rights - John Gacey had rights. Jeffrey Dahmer had rights. Saddam Hussein had rights. No matter my opinion of them as individuals (or groups), they have rights. It's inherent in being a person.

Are you saying, or better are you trying to say, that anything that acts like a human, is a human?

Close, I suppose. It might be better to say that "Any self-directed entity that demands we acknowledge its rights is a person" 'Human', might say, in the legal sense, if not scientific.

[soylentgreen]

By definition, any complex species that has the intelligence to cross the void between the stars is at least human. I don't have to like them. I don't have to befriend them. But they do have certain basic rights - the same ones I'd acknowledge for any other human.

...and then, in a scene of beautiful poetic justice, a ship full of your "other humans" lands just outside Grover's Mill and sees you coming towards them. One thinks to the other "Hey look at that jabbering chimp, he's waving around some red and white cloth and acts like that dirty piece of paper with scribbles all over it means something....how cute...I'm hungry let's have him for lunch provided we're not 'unecessarily cruel'...I mean after all, if that thing had any rights he would have thought them to us by now, right? Ahhh chimp burgers!"

You people...**sigh** Chimp burgers?! It's hilarious to see how entitled a little clothing and some tools has made some of you animals feel.

[Ronald Brak]

I'm not too knowlegable about legal matters, but do I think that sneaking into a zoo and killing a chimpanzee is worse than killing a zebra? Yes I do.

May I ask why?

Firstly, zebras are nasty, nasty animals.

Secondly, self protection.

Thridly, protection of others.

[mugaliens]

Bacteria communicate too, does this mean that it is a crime to take antibiotics.

You raise a good point - where should we draw the line?

In the purest sense, it's where our actions might run counter to any evolutionary process, including loosing one's child to an infection.

However, that's assuming that we're cheating by using tools which evolution itself has allowed us to develop, thus, again, in the purest sense, our using antibiotics is in line with evolution.

What's not in line with evolution is the senseless killing of animals when there are alternatives. By and large, animals don't kill other animals except for food, breeding rights, or territory (which usually relates to food and breeding rights). There are exceptions, but it's extremely slim.

Humans, on the other hand, kill all animals, including other humans, for some pretty ridiculous reasons. I would argue that with respect to the right to life, we're the most barbaric creatures on this planet.

[please]

Every person has basic rights. It's inherent in being a person.

This is only another political law, NOT physical. "Having" basic rights is not nearly as absolute as speed of light, it is the concept invented and supported by humans and is NOT, again, something I would call "inherent in being a person". I feel we have really strong disagreement here. You seem to be like one of those american constitution writers, who "hold those truths to be self-evident", and the answer you are giving me is NOT proper answer to my "why" question.

Any self-directed entity that demands we acknowledge its rights

Again, you have not explained to me how being intelligent automatically means demanding rights.

I really don't understand the point here

The point is, if chimp does not know what a "right" is, how can it demand one?

[please]

On the other hand. If we consider "anything that acts like a person, is a person" + "every person has* (basic) rights", where "*" means that we grant rights to persons without them having to ask for rights, and even in case they do not want rights, simply because we want them to have rights, only to enforce our laws upon them, then I guess I can see your point...

[Swift]

<snip>
Rights are only available for people who agree to recognize and abide by the rights of others. Kids don't have full rights because they aren't at that level of intellect yet. Criminals don't have full rights because they refuse to abide by others having rights - like to their own property and their lives.

Wow, I really like that explanation.

[mugaliens]

I'm not sure the issue here is rights such as the right to vote. I think the issue here is reasonable protection against being killed because they ran out of grant money, or being mistreated (pain, mysery) in the "interests of science."

[NEOWatcher]

I'm not sure the issue here is rights such as the right to vote. I think the issue here is reasonable protection against being killed because they ran out of grant money, or being mistreated (pain, mysery) in the "interests of science."

Yes; but what are the existing laws there, and what is it preventing? That has not been answered to my satisfaction.

I decided to do a search on "animal guardianship". I originally was thinking about when someone died and left a fortune for the pet. But, instead, I ran across this article.
I reads like a "if this happens, then the next thing is...". I'm not crazy about that way of thinking, but it does point out some interesting points that do need to be considered.

[The Supreme Canuck]

You people...**sigh** Chimp burgers?! It's hilarious to see how entitled a little clothing and some tools has made some of you animals feel.

It isn't the technological advancements that entitle us - it's the social and biological ones. We are intelligent enough to understand the concept of rights. We want rights. We are capable of building a society that can grant rights. Ergo, we grant ourselves rights.

Now, chimps can't do any of these (though, arguably, they don't need to do number three - we arleady have) and thus, the way I see it, we shouldn't grant them rights. They don't want them. They don't even know what they are. This is what separates people from beasts. As soon as a species can demonstrate they understand rights and asks for them, they should be granted rights. They become people at that point. No more chimp burgers. Until then, I'll fire up the grill.

Now, if this standard were universally applied, your alien invaders couldn't have human burgers - we understand rights and will definitely insist upon having them. Thus, we gain the status of "people" in the eyes of our E.T. visitors, and can go do friendly things like exchange mathematical formulae and eat chimp burgers together.

[farmerjumperdon]

Now, chimps can't do any of these (though, arguably, they don't need to do number three - we arleady have) and thus, the way I see it, we shouldn't grant them rights. They don't want them. They don't even know what they are. This is what separates people from beasts. As soon as a species can demonstrate they understand rights and asks for them, they should be granted rights. They become people at that point. No more chimp burgers. Until then, I'll fire up the grill.

Now, if this standard were universally applied, your alien invaders couldn't have human burgers - we understand rights and will definitely insist upon having them. Thus, we gain the status of "people" in the eyes of our E.T. visitors, and can go do friendly things like exchange mathematical formulae and eat chimp burgers together.

I thought what seperates us from the rest of the animals is that we are not afraid of vacuum cleaners.

But seriously, what if the standard of the alien invaders was what you mentioned in your statement, PLUS you get rights only if you can defend them against all comers. They turn out to have much better weapons, and we end up as lunch.

Rights are strictly an invention and outgrowth of culture. They have evolved, and even devolved, as situations and people change. They are hardly universally recognized, as is evidenced by human behavior. Most know what is supposed to be cherished, but only because it is taught as the way we should be. It is not the way we are - at least not in any way that approaches any kind of universally practiced behavior.

My experience is that humans practice situational ethics. We do what we feel we need to do, we act in our own interest, and when necessary we parrot the agreed upon rights that we know everyone wants to hear.

[The Supreme Canuck]

But seriously, what if the standard of the alien invaders was what you mentioned in your statement, PLUS you get rights only if you can defend them against all comers. They turn out to have much better weapons, and we end up as lunch.

Very true. Which is why my post was a conditional statement (IF this were universally applied...). It is possible that our alien "friends" wouldn't agree. But then I'd say they were wrong.

My experience is that humans practice situational ethics. We do what we feel we need to do, we act in our own interest, and when necessary we parrot the agreed upon rights that we know everyone wants to hear.

Which is why we need government. People suck - they're greedy, they're vain, and they're violent. So we have a bunch of smart people sit down in a room, think up a fair system, and enforce it. Judiciously.

That's why we need rights at all.

[NEOWatcher]

Which is why we need government. People suck - they're greedy, they're vain, and they're violent. So we have a bunch of smart people sit down in a room, think up a fair system, and enforce it. Judiciously.

Sounds good on paper.

[Ronald Brak]

I see now. The indiginous inhabitants of Tasmania never asked for rights. That's why you never run into one. Silly them.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Sounds good on paper.

Yep. Takes some tweaking sometimes, but it works out. Look at the US Constitution.

I see now. The indiginous inhabitants of Tasmania never asked for rights. That's why you never run into one. Silly them.

But they were capable of understanding and asking for rights. Chimps are not. There's the difference between immoral genocide, and moral lunch.

[Ronald Brak]

But they were capable of understanding and asking for rights.

Actually we don't know that.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Actually we don't know that.

Being human, they were. Explain the concept, they'd get it. They may not want rights, but that's different from being incapable of understanding them or asking for them. And the default in such situations should be to assume that anyone capable of these two things would want rights if they were explained, and so rights ought to be extended - if they ask for their rights to be revoked, I suppose that's okay too.

[farmerjumperdon]

Hmmmm. So if you are incapable of communicating your rights, you give them up? Or maybe more properly - you must be able to communicate intelligently with the inquiring creature in order to have them grant you rights?

I think about the higher mammals, say chimps and dolphins. Seems to me they are social to the point of acting responsibly when they want. They seem to exhibit desires. They know what the group's rules are and when they have broken them. Much of their behavior seems to display at least a rudimentary understanding of right and wrong.

Or are rights only valid within the social group of which you belong? So maybe I have no rights with an alien group, and dolphins have no rights by me, but each group has rights within it's oun kind.

So humans have a right to life and liberty with each other, but all bets are off when the dudes from Aldeberan stop by for lunch.

[A.DIM]

Yeah, I just know that somewhere there's a planet with intelligent snapper turtles plotting revenge for the carnage that took place around my pond over the last few weeks.

Using my SKS I revoked all possible "rights" from these turtles to continue living in my pond, eating my fish.

[Gillianren]

I seem to remember a recent study that put pigs on the list of most intelligent animals right after humans. I will see if I can find a link.

It's almost impossible to quantify. Animal behaviouralists don't like to specify if they can avoid it. This isn't 100% relevant, but check the following link:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_005.html.

It's about cats vs. dogs, but it starts to illuminate some of the problems.

[soylentgreen]

Now, if this standard were universally applied, your alien invaders couldn't have human burgers - we understand rights and will definitely insist upon having them. Thus, we gain the status of "people" in the eyes of our E.T. visitors, and can go do friendly things like exchange mathematical formulae and eat chimp burgers together.

Unless, of course, they don't understand any of the noise coming out of that gaping orifice on the uppermost part of your body. They might just be having burgers after all...Manwiches! Then share some banana recipes the with the hairy folks they came to talk to in the first place. They might even believe that the chimps evolved (and are possibly a threat) from us noisy naked groundhuggers.

Folks...didn't STAR TREK IV teach us all this already?

Sadly, as insisting upon rights hasn't always worked out well in human to human social circumstances(even speaking the same exact damn language), I'd be very wary of applying 'an understanding of inherent rights' to any kind of universal scope.

[Pinemarten]

It's almost impossible to quantify. Animal behaviouralists don't like to specify if they can avoid it. This isn't 100% relevant, but check the following link:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_005.html.

It's about cats vs. dogs, but it starts to illuminate some of the problems.

I did come across those facts. Most said that cross species evaluations are difficult, but I believe the good professor because of my bias.

I found the link.
http://oaks.nvg.org/pigs.html#pig-intelligence

[The Supreme Canuck]

Hmmmm. So if you are incapable of communicating your rights, you give them up? Or maybe more properly - you must be able to communicate intelligently with the inquiring creature in order to have them grant you rights?

No to the first, yes to the second. If the species you belong to is able to understand and request rights, you get them. Can gorillas do that? Can chimps? Nope. Maybe someday, but not today.

Or are rights only valid within the social group of which you belong? So maybe I have no rights with an alien group, and dolphins have no rights by me, but each group has rights within it's oun kind.

I'd say no. Rights should apply universally to species of a minimum level of intellect. Only Homo Sapiens makes the cut, currently.

Unless, of course, they don't understand any of the noise coming out of that gaping orifice on the uppermost part of your body. They might just be having burgers after all...Manwiches! Then share some banana recipes the with the hairy folks they came to talk to in the first place. They might even believe that the chimps evolved (and are possibly a threat) from us noisy naked groundhuggers.

True, there can be miscommunication. But that's irrelevant. It does not change the fact that I'm talking about a species deserving rights if it is intelligent enough to both understand rights and communicate a desire for them in some way. Just because we don't understand doesn't mean that we should not grant rights - it just means that we're wrong. Show me that chimps have been asking for rights for the past 300 years and that we're just too stupid to see it as such, and I will gladly grant the chimps rights.

Sadly, as insisting upon rights hasn't always worked out well in human to human social circumstances(even speaking the same exact damn language), I'd be very wary of applying 'an understanding of inherent rights' to any kind of universal scope.

And that's fine. My argument isn't some natural law thing. I'm saying that a species, when the concept of rights (which are indeed an artificial construct of humanity) is explained to it, understands and wants those rights, we give them rights. Until they do that, they're nothing more than smelly, furry, loud meat.

[LurchGS]

Until they do that, they're nothing more than smelly, furry, loud meat.

You left out "Cute, and Impossible to Potty Train"

I'd go into a long tirade about mistreatment (that is, slavery, confinement, etc) being a darn good incentive to prove a given species is a member of the right-bearing population, but David Brin already covered it. Come to think of it, that's pretty much it, in a nutshell. If chimps are really part of the 'people' population, they must have a darn fine reason for not letting us know about it.

I do have a mild quibble with the phrase "Granting RIghts". From my point of view, rights aren't granted - they are inherent in the being. What happens is that in some (many) cases, the rights are infringed. So, if some species A comes along - be it chimps marching past the Arc d' Triumph (sp?), or little blue men from out yonder - and makes a ruckus - they're not demanding we grant them rights - they're demaning that we *recognise* their rights.

I can't take your rights away, but I can prevent you from exercising them.

[Gillianren]

"Triomphe," Lurch--it's French.

Yeah, once you can ask for your rights, we have no excuse for failing to give them to you. However, there are certain rights--the right not to be used cruelly, for example--that you have even if you can't ask for them.

[farmerjumperdon]

How do we know they are not asking? They are certainly complaining of the pain. (I may be going out a bit on the limb here, but to me avoidance of what is known to be painful is close enough to complaining, and complaining is close enough to asking to stop).

Not playing devil's advocate, and I have no plans to stop eating them. I just think it is an interesting possibility to consider.

[Dr Nigel]

...Arc d' Triumph (sp?), ...

And fully, it's Arc de Triomphe.

It is, as Gillian points out, French, but she didn't spot the spurious contraction.

Wooo! Does that mean I get a gold star?