Do Some Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans?

[Skeptic569]

I don't think a lot of people realize how intelligent some animals are.

Example:

YouTube - Kanzi and Novel Sentences

More intelligent and sentient than lots of people with low IQs that are considered to have natural rights by people here, including me, actually.

So, in light of that, I don't see how you can not support them having the same rights without being a hypocrite?

Should be an interesting debate..

 

[Elwar]

Can they enforce laws?

 

[nayjevin]

YouTube - Venus Fly-trap Catches a frog - Unforgiven Wilderness

YouTube - Ants create a lifeboat in the Amazon jungle - BBC wildlife

YouTube - Dolphin play bubble rings

 

[fisharmor]

More intelligent and sentient than lots of people with low IQs that are considered to have natural rights by people here, including me, actually.

Shenanigans.

The ape clearly grabs the jelly jar before she says anything about pouring the Perrier into the jelly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans


I love these threads that go "should we" or "do they deserve". I am totally disinterested in what everyone thinks we should be doing. I am far more into what is, and what is not. If you make an intellectual argument that animals have natural rights, I'll consider it.

Thanks anyway for the semi-literal dog-and-pony show. But that's all it is.

 

[nayjevin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

Clever Hans (in German, der Kluge Hans) was a horse that was claimed to have been able to perform arithmetic and other intellectual tasks.

After formal investigation in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reaction of his human observers. Pfungst discovered this artifact in the research methodology, wherein the horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language of the human trainer, who had the faculties to solve each problem. The trainer was entirely unaware that he was providing such cues.[1]

In honour of Pfungst's study, the anomalous artifact has since been referred to as the Clever Hans effect and has continued to be important knowledge in the observer-expectancy effect and later studies in animal cognition.

from that link, interesting

 

[Pennsylvania]

Can they enforce laws?

Is this really the standard we want to set though? If so, say goodbye to the rights of children and the mentally handicapped.

 

[Skeptic569]

Shenanigans.

The ape clearly grabs the jelly jar before she says anything about pouring the Perrier into the jelly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans


I love these threads that go "should we" or "do they deserve". I am totally disinterested in what everyone thinks we should be doing. I am far more into what is, and what is not. If you make an intellectual argument that animals have natural rights, I'll consider it.

Thanks anyway for the semi-literal dog-and-pony show. But that's all it is.

Can't rewatch the video right now to address this point but I will do it later.

One interesting thing is that Chimps that have been taught sign language have actually taught their children sign language without any human intervention there.

 

[FreeTraveler]

There's room for all god's creatures in my world.









Right next to the mashed potatoes.

 

[MelissaWV]

This is a silly question on several fronts.

1. If animals have rights, they have them. It isn't a matter of "deserving" or not.
2. All sorts of people have rights, but others violate them, many times as punishment. You have a "right to vote," yet that can be taken away. You have a "right to bear arms," but there are situations where you probably shouldn't be able to (like when you are actually in prison for a viable offense).
3. Even if all animals have rights, that does not mean that we have to step on eggshells to defend and protect each and every one of them. We have rights to go on about our lives and not be a slave to conservation.
4. We must make value judgments about where our efforts will be focused, and those are invariably going to rely on the competence of the animal in question, often mingled with whether or not violating the creature's rights is in our self-interest.

Perhaps if cows could satisfactorily tapdance or balance the budget, we wouldn't eat so many hamburgers. Perhaps it doesn't make any difference. I seriously doubt there are sharks having this conference right now, about whether or not eating the next surfer they mistake for a seal is a violation of that surfer's rights. "Rights" exist, but so does competition and survival instinct.

 

[Elwar]

Is this really the standard we want to set though? If so, say goodbye to the rights of children and the mentally handicapped.

Well, think about it...what are rights?

If you were the only person in the world you could do whatever you want. With other people in the world you have to come up with some rules to get along or else kill everyone else and go back to being the only person, again able to do whatever you want.

Those basic sets of rules have to be enforceable. If we can't enforce our own rules then we would then be reliant upon a higher being. Then, we don't really have rights, we're just amusements for the higher being, we can't truly do what we want as a people because we are beholden to the one in charge of enforcement.

Since we as humans can enforce our own rules, we are in charge of our own rights. We get to determine our societal rules.

If apes were intelligent enough to be able to live amongst humans and join in the debate on how they wanted society to interact, they would have to be on the same level as us in ability to enforce society's rules. Otherwise, they are subject to the whim of humans and their idea of how society should act.

If apes wanted rights, they would need the ability to right the wrongs that they feel are being made against them. And then the ability to enforce such an equal state moving forward.

If a more powerful, intelligent alien were to come to Earth. We would be at their control and their whims. We would be beholden to them to give us any sort of rights. And those aren't really rights when you're beholden to others to provide them for you.

 

[Pennsylvania]

Well, think about it...what are rights?

I'm paraphrasing, but I like the following definition:

A right exists where it would be immoral for Person A to prevent Person B from performing action/non-action X.

With this in mind, I do not believe things like animal abuse is a right, because it would not be immoral for Person A to intervene in such an instance.

Since we as humans can enforce our own rules, we are in charge of our own rights. We get to determine our societal rules.

Certainly, but don't we determine societal rules with respect to children and the mentally handicapped? We act in their interest because we care about them and precisely because they wouldn't be able act in their own interest. In other words, we project a subset of our rights onto them.

If apes wanted rights, they would need the ability to right the wrongs that they feel are being made against them. And then the ability to enforce such an equal state moving forward.

Well I think it would work just like with children, someone would have to act in the interest of the ape, if, functionally anything were to be accomplished legally. In your opinion, does an orphan have rights? If so, which ones?

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't think a lot of people realize how intelligent some animals are.

Example:

YouTube - Kanzi and Novel Sentences

More intelligent and sentient than lots of people with low IQs that are considered to have natural rights by people here, including me, actually.

So, in light of that, I don't see how you can not support them having the same rights without being a hypocrite?

Should be an interesting debate..

No. The purpose of laws is to limit/avoid conflict b/w our own species.

 

[slothman]

Only sapient creatures get rights.
Only humans are sapient.
Other animals, or even plants, might be sentient or intelligent but they do not get rights.
Do they have free will?

 

[Elwar]

Certainly, but don't we determine societal rules with respect to children and the mentally handicapped? We act in their interest because we care about them and precisely because they wouldn't be able act in their own interest. In other words, we project a subset of our rights onto them.

They are part of society's rules. Sure, apes could be part of society's rules but they certainly wouldn't enjoy the same rights as those who enforce the rules just as children don't enjoy the same rights as adults.

If having a subset of rights is all that is called for then they already have those rights. They are allowed to exist in our world, they are allowed to live wild in the jungle or caged in our zoos. They have a subset of rights already. They will never have equal rights until they can equally enforce those rights.

 

[jake]

Do they have free will?

I assume so..

 

[BenIsForRon]

Easy answer: animals do have rights, just not the same rights as humans.

 

[fisharmor]

If having a subset of rights is all that is called for then they already have those rights. They are allowed to exist in our world, they are allowed to live wild in the jungle or caged in our zoos. They have a subset of rights already. They will never have equal rights until they can equally enforce those rights.

So, what you seem to be arguing is that children and the mentally handicapped do not have equal rights, as they are incapable of enforcing equal rights, and a subset is by definition not equal to the superset.
This idea of a subset kind of flies in the face of the idea of natural rights, doesn't it?

 

[Dr.3D]

Easy answer: animals do have rights, just not the same rights as humans.

Now, since you say they have rights, just what are those rights?

Just because humans have been given the authority to control the animals, it doesn't necessarily mean humans should mistreat animals. Anybody with a little compassion would recognize that animals feel pain, and from observation, that they may also feel joy, and disappointment. Seems like people just need to observe what so many call "dumb" animals to see that they have many of the same traits as humans do.

Sure, we may say they don't have rights, but if animals could talk, would it make a difference in how we think about them? At one time, "dumb" meant the inability to talk, so I would come to the conclusion that people believe animals can't think because they can't talk.

 

[Danke]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

 

[furface]

Something that's up to states to decide. For instance:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34470910/ns/today-today_pets_and_animals/

There are already anti-cruelty laws in most if not all states. I agree with those. However, applying "rights" to animals is generally an attorney full employment tactic. The more victims society has, the more attorneys can feed off them, as in the Vermont example.

The most important rights exist regardless of whether they're written down or not. In that sense animals already have rights, like the right not to be abused by a human.