ANIMAL RIGHTS! ANIMAL RIGHTS?

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I don't recall talking about animal intelligence/rights with you. So let's have at it!

What questions in the area of animal rights do you think are most urgent that we resolve?
Do you see hypocrisy in the way we protect some animals more than others?



First a poll:

[Poll #1768683]

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Animals have the right to be prey to another animal. I think that's pretty much it. If humans want to try and protect some of them for various reasons, that's a different issue.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Funny you post this, African Gray parrots are being ranked as intelligent (or even more intelligent) than higher form primates based on their ability to use logic in problem solving. And it appears several species of animals show six traits that were originally thought to be uniquely human: culture, "mind reading" (figure out what the other "thing" is thinking), tool use for solving problems, morality, emotions, and personality.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I wonder if intelligence is the right metric. Lots of creatures are smarter than cats, but as a cat owner, I think killing them and eating them should be illegal.

Yet I just had a wonderful pulled pork sandwich made of an animal much smarter than a cat.

In other parts of the world people may eat cats.

I don't think that's any more wrong than eating a pig or a cow, we just don't have the same cultural values.

so if this is about cultural values do I have a right to say it should be illegal? (maybe not!)

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Yeah I was noticing that there were some gaps in the scale of "intelligence" of the animals chosen here.

The obvious ones being elephants, dolphins and some whales, and a few species of birds, all of whom exhibit cognitive abilities that overlap into the human range in at least some areas. On the other hand I was impressed to see Octopi and Pigs included because most people don't realize just how smart those 2 can be

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yet the only one with wars is common chimpanzees, Gorillas actually being the nicest apes of them all. Chimps and humans have qualifications as sapient life forms that other animals simply do not have. Bonobos also qualify as well for that matter.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

When it comes to Prion, are we talking about the bird?

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

no, this thing:

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

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I don't think status-based questions are very helpful in this debate. Whatever we come to determine empirically about the cognitive functions of any given organism, it still leaves the ethical question unasked, or assumed and begged. Responsibilities based not on the status of the object, but on the nature of the subject, is a far more productive avenue of investigation.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

ask away!

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Very interesting post!

I definitely see "speciesism" or hypocrisy as you put it in our treatment of animals. We keep dogs, cats and horses as pets, and the idea of eating any is revolting to most US citizens. Why do we think it is okay to eat pigs but not dogs? Pigs are at least as smart as dogs, if not smarter, and they also make good pets.

When you ask yourself why you would not eat a dog. You might say "because they're smart", but that obviously doesn't hold water when you compare them to pigs. If you say it's "gross" or "not right", you have to explain why, when you still eat other animals. If it's because dogs have a right to live, or because you don't want to subject them to the pain of being raised and slaughtered for food, then you must ask yourself why you still eat pigs and cows.

Personally, I would love to see a future where the idea of eating any animals is repulsive to humans. Of course a part of reaching that future is developing an larger variety of protein-rich foods and foods rich in nutrients it's harder to take in without eating meat like iron and B12. But with science on our side, I believe it can be done, and I think our culture is moving, ever so slowly, towards the notion that we can and /should/ learn to survive without using animals for food.

With food, though, there's some gray area, and there are people who have a lot of trouble getting protein if they don't eat meat - not everyone, it varies from person to person, of course.

But it appalls me in our society that anyone still thinks it's okay to use animals for their skin or fur or for sport, when we have so many alternatives available as far as clothing materials and entertainment. We don't need leather or fur or bullfights to survive the way we need food. I hope an end is put to these things very soon.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

All of this.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I agree that this is an interesting and important post. But of course I am too biased. =)

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Animals have rights...the right to be on my plate next to the exploited and missing vegetables!

But seriously...

What questions in the area of animal rights do you think are most urgent that we resolve?

Abuse and abusive/neglectful breeding.

Do you see hypocrisy in the way we protect some animals more than others?

Definitely. But there is even more hypocrisy in how we protect some animals more than we protect human beings.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

A few quibbles.

Consciousness and emotions are relative to the species. I have human emotions. My cat has emotions, but they are not the same as my emotions. They are cat emotions. Same for consciousness, for certain values all living animals are conscious, even some plants. But that doesn't me that I and a Venus flytrap "share" the experience of consciousness.

On the same level, learning is relative. I can train my cat to use the toilet, but that process of learning is very different than my child being trained to use the toilet.

For me, "animal rights" is a contradiction in terms. Animals do not have rights because rights are not a quality of animalness. We can provide "rights" to animals in relation to us by circumscribing our own actions, but that doesn't mean that "rights" abide in them in any way that I am compelled to respect.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

How is that different from humans? Define 'animalness'.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

I am amazed by the number of people who are okay with the hunting of sandstone for food... I will take my chances with cannibalism first.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

*crunch crunch crunch* NOM

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I was very disgusted with the hog factories I saw on tv back in the 90's. I have no idea if they're still like that, but they shouldn't be.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I never saw them, but on a visit to Greely, Colorado, I sure could SMELL them.

Nothing having to do with food should put out that kind of stench. It got into your clothes.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I answered "venus fly trap" for everything because I am concerned they are going to get bombarded by radiation, grow really large and take it out on us.

This keeps me awake at night.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"feed me"

I think some people didn't understand the questions..

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

A prion has emotions? Really? =/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

It should be illegal to kill a virus for sport? Are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

Re: I think some people didn't understand the questions..

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, one of the poll-takers said E. Coli wasn't alive. *sigh*

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

What are rights?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

As opposed to lefts I guess.


This post is about confurvatives.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

um how the hell would I know how "concious" other creatures are? whether they have stream-of-concious and are self-aware?

When I learn how to talk to an octopus, I'll ask them. The questions are silly. They use labels for identification that scholars and philosophers have spent centuries arguing about and I'm supposed to apply that to animals who can barely communicate with me - if at all? Might as well as me, an American, how Maori feel about living in the southern hemisphere.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

to answer your larger question; animals are animals and every human is free to interpret that as they see fit since animals by and large are not capable of letting us know for themselves. We make laws about how animal husbandry is done because we know that a human who abuses an animal is highly likely to abuse humans AND the empathy most humans have extends to animals enough that we are uncomfortable with pointless abuse and violence towards other creatures. our protective instincts generally extend to creatures who are weaker and defenseless - which most animals on an individual level are. We separate animal husbandry rules from the "hypocrasy" of consuming animals because we are omnivores and have been for a long time thus the concept of consuming them isn't an ethical issue mostly - we need to survive and for many people consuming animals is natural and expected within the natural/animal world. All higher-minded arguments are an attempt to place humans above the rest of the animal kingdom and separate ourselves from our primitive roots. Some folk like to do that, but most folks have more pressing matters to be concerned with.

Two equally important questions:

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Do animals believe they have rights? Do they believe that humans have rights?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I think animal rights are fine, so long as we don't mistake animals for human beings. The main animals I would consider exceptions to that rule are the apes, primarily because they're more human-like. Particularly common chimps which have culture and even wars.