BBC News - Court in Argentina grants basic rights to orangutan
I'm uncertain as to whether this is a first, but it's certainly significant nonetheless! Of course, it could be appealed, but I see this as a step forward in the fight to recognize that it is not only humans that can be accurately regarded as "persons" or as beings that desire freedom and to be free from harm!
Yes, we can give rights to frogs if we want also. But, when we start going to court and giving animals rights, well, that's just stupid.
Yea okay, I'm gonna call fallacy on this one. LOL! Seriously this is one of most hyperbolic things I've ever read!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
Irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Not in the eyes of the law. It's important to state the difference because people such as yourself like to paint this issue with an absurd brush and claim we advocate awarding other animals "human rights". They aren't human, but doesn't mean they can't be a person.
Er... you mean besides the obvious? It's easily demonstrable that orangutans live rich emotional lives and care about their own well being. This isn't as simple to prove when it comes to flies. Not to say that it's impossible, but it's clearly an issue that doesn't need to be addressed every time we concern ourselves with the rights of beings that are clearly sentient.
Animal cruelty laws do not indicate that we see other animals as persons or right's holders. Legally, they are still chattel property.
So where is the line? It's ok to kill bacteria. How about insects? Can I kill insects?
And, in other news, the orangutan will be replacing Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. :mrgreen:
Animals already have rights. For example, if an animal is endangered they are granted various protections. Pet's have various rights to prevent cruelty and ensure they are cared for. Given an orangutan ha the intellect of a 4 year old child, is self aware, is capable of empathy, and mourns the death of its friends, why would we not grant them some rights and protections that we might not would grant say a lab rat or a beetle?
given the logic at hand the answer would be no. even bacteria has some sentient intelligence to it.
Whether you want to call it a reflex or not, pain and sight reflexes, if the latter exist, are dependent on consciousness.
And how does the researcher know that?
We do experimentation on humans, too, though with their consent. With the greater intelligence attributes that primates have, doing experimentation on them (regardless of whether they are capable of the sort of abstract reasoning that would allow them to understand and consent to such experimentation) is unethical.
I think you're looking for a different word than "sentient."
No, they don't have any rights at all. Those are restraints we put on ourselves, nothing to do with the animal. What rights do cows and chickens have, we slaughter them by the thousands for food and other products? Animals are a resource, have been that for millions of years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?