Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
By Spooky
#1690530
Nomad63 wrote:Yes, but the point is It could be done with a bit more respect for the Land and Creatures it exploits.
I grew up next to a Farm and have visited many, the things that go on are **** shocking


No different to many workplaces.

As for farms, most I’ve visited in the UK look after the animals very well even though they’re viewed as a commodity or tool.
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1690531
PaulB wrote:You’d be lucky to see a rhino in the dusty plains of Africa, and if you did it would probably be hornless (the horn having been removed to reduce the risk of the animal’s killing by poachers.)

No one would dispute that poachers are a serious problem wherever rhino exist, and all species/subspecies are endangered by both poaching and loss of habitat.

Fully horned rhino in the dusty plains of Africa, however, are still not that difficult to find, if you know where to look.

Here is one of seven, fully horned, rhino I saw in one night in Namibia, just eighteen months ago:
Image
PaulB, Spooky, eltonioni liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1690536
What is meant by 'animals' in the context of this thread?

According to Wikipedia there are over 7 million species of animal. Do they all need rights? Where do we draw the line? What about parasites like intestinal worms - they are animals.

I'm sure if some ancient galactic civilisation of silicon based life forms stumbled on earth they might just wonder if those puny carbon based organisms had any rights before demolishing earth to build their by-pass, but I bet they wouldn't differentiate between humans and the other 6,999,999 species.

Oh and what about neanderthal people? Did they have rights during the time they co-existed with homo sapiens?

So, lots of avenues for our first year philosophy students to explore in their ethics tutorials...
User avatar
By PaulB
#1690537
lobstaboy wrote:What is meant by 'animals' in the context of this thread?


Described in the article at the top...

In part, this

In support of Happy’s case, six elephant experts submitted an affidavit arguing that elephants are “autonomous beings” who share “many behavioural and intellectual capacities with humans, including: self-awareness, empathy, awareness of death, intentional communication, learning, memory and categorisation abilities”. Elephants have the largest brains of any land mammal, and that’s not just a reflection of their stature. Their brains are twice as large as one might expect given the size of their bodies, which is suggestive of their intelligence. Their brains also share several key structural similarities to human brains.

Elephants have been observed helping members of their herd who are sick or injured, and when one dies, the rest of the herd mourns, maintaining a reverent quiet around the body, guarding it from predators and sometimes covering the corpse with dirt or leaves. They have sophisticated and rich ways of communicating with one another and engage in collective planning and decision making. They are “intelligent and social mammals” wrote Joyce Poole, who heads the research and conservation group Elephant Voices, in a court statement. “Held in isolation elephants become bored, depressed, aggressive, catatonic and fail to thrive. Human caregivers are no substitute for the numerous, complex social relationships and the rich gestural and vocal communication exchanges that occur between free-living elephants.”
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1690546
OK. So if we accept that elephants should have rights because they exhibit behaviours that suggest they are intelligent in the same way that humans are, I'd still want to know where to draw the line?
My dog is intelligent and communicates pretty well with me. She's trained me well. Does she have rights?
Why does human like intelligence confer some special status? All animals have the amount of intelligence they need for their way of life. It's very presumptuous of us to say only human like intelligence counts (in Erewhon, Samuel Butler says that the humble potato in a cellar possesses sufficient cunning to be a potato).
By JoeC
#1690573
FlarePath wrote:
2: Rights infer/require responibilty, animals have no resposibilty whatsover, therefore should have no rights.



Why?

In that case human babies have no rights until...what age do you suggest?

Are you saying that those with limited mental capacity, certain physical disabilities or illnesses that incapacitates them should have no rights?

Per another thread - how about the rights of those with severe dementia or mental illness?
PaulB, JAFO liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1690596
Rights, as much as they are, don't seem to extend beyond a species. Humans confer rights on fellow humans, but while cheetah's rub along together they seem pretty ambivalent to the rights of a kudu.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1690602
lobstaboy wrote:. Do they all need rights? Where do we draw the line? What about parasites like intestinal worms - they are animals.

..


The difference is, the only intestinal worm you are likely to come across, is one thats got inside you and is doing harm. To kill and get rid of it is self defence. This elephant isn't harming anybody, quite the opposite.
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1690606
Sooty25 wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:. Do they all need rights? Where do we draw the line? What about parasites like intestinal worms - they are animals.

..


The difference is, the only intestinal worm you are likely to come across, is one thats got inside you and is doing harm. To kill and get rid of it is self defence. This elephant isn't harming anybody, quite the opposite.


Well, yes, that's why I gave that example.
So it seems that an animals rights are still dependent on the interests of humans; they aren't absolute or inalienable. Not rights at all in fact.
What if the elephant went rogue and started to hurt people? It wouldn't have any rights then, I guess.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1690607
lobstaboy wrote:[hat if the elephant went rogue and started to hurt people? It wouldn't have any rights then, I guess.


If a human goes rogue they lose some rights don't they?
By Chris Martyr
#1690611
JoeC wrote:In that case human babies have no rights until...what age do you suggest?


About 18 ?
:pale:
Or until they can start paying their way . Whichever comes first , although these days that be can somewhere between 30 & 40 can't it ?

Let's not insult the animals !
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1690628
Klaro!