3 ms·

It is not intended to be cold. I still appreciate nature, enjoy the company of animals, and want to work towards conservation. But a line does need to be drawn

It is not intended to be cold. I still appreciate nature, enjoy the company of animals, and want to work towards conservation. But a line does need to be drawn and that is where I think it should be drawn. Giving not-people the privileges of people is a slippery slope and I think best reserved until we achieve a greater understanding of intelligence.

mellosouls 7y ago
That's a fair argument - but I would counter that in the context of animals that behave in what appears to be clearly intelligent and social behaviour of a higher order, higher order rights should follow. They don't need to be the same level, just indicative of a special status.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  I agree, just not that the special status should be codified as law (yet). There are plenty of people problems to solve.
  - mellosouls 7y ago
    See the above thread in response to the poster making the same argument, tho in a somewhat more crass way.
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      I saw them but am not sure they made a point. Can you add anything? They're appealing to emotion by (re)stating that bad things can happen to nonpersons and that the nonpersons have some capacity to feel bad about those things. Which is true and not really disputed. But the counterargument of the relative importance isn't being addressed. Why should we have laws on this? As an extreme example, if someone kills puppies for fun they're probably not a great person. At the same time I do not know of a good legal framework to handle this. Relying on people thinking to themselves "that guy kills puppies for fun and may not be a great person" seems the more robust solution. Even then, what is fun? People selectively breeding dogs sometimes kill litters. If you keep people from killing puppies (for potentially good reasons) you have in a roundabout way made certain animal husbandry illegal.
      - mellosouls 7y ago
        The comment I'm referring to is the one saying we shouldn't grant rights because bad stuff happens to humans so we should solve those problems first. There are multiple replies to that, including mine, which I refer you to. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21100715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21100715
        snagglegaggle 7y ago
        Hmm... I think you are misreading his point. He seems to be pointing out that there are other things that are more important and that this seems to be a waste of time. Broadly I agree. One problematic reply I think is: >We should fix both immediate problems and the fundamental ethics issues that perpetuate an exploitative mindset. Animal rights are part of that. Until we have a really good test for animal intelligence and some tractable way to map that to utility I think this is seriously misguided. At the end of the day the wants of a human supersede the wants of an orangutan, even if only by force. Do I think there is much utility in how this orangutan was treated? Not really. But am I allowed to exploit the orangutan? Yes, to the same extent I have a right to life.

mellosouls 7y ago

That's a fair argument - but I would counter that in the context of animals that behave in what appears to be clearly intelligent and social behaviour of a higher order, higher order rights should follow. They don't need to be the same level, just indicative of a special status.

snagglegaggle 7y ago
I agree, just not that the special status should be codified as law (yet). There are plenty of people problems to solve.
- mellosouls 7y ago
  See the above thread in response to the poster making the same argument, tho in a somewhat more crass way.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    I saw them but am not sure they made a point. Can you add anything? They're appealing to emotion by (re)stating that bad things can happen to nonpersons and that the nonpersons have some capacity to feel bad about those things. Which is true and not really disputed. But the counterargument of the relative importance isn't being addressed. Why should we have laws on this? As an extreme example, if someone kills puppies for fun they're probably not a great person. At the same time I do not know of a good legal framework to handle this. Relying on people thinking to themselves "that guy kills puppies for fun and may not be a great person" seems the more robust solution. Even then, what is fun? People selectively breeding dogs sometimes kill litters. If you keep people from killing puppies (for potentially good reasons) you have in a roundabout way made certain animal husbandry illegal.
    - mellosouls 7y ago
      The comment I'm referring to is the one saying we shouldn't grant rights because bad stuff happens to humans so we should solve those problems first. There are multiple replies to that, including mine, which I refer you to. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21100715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21100715
      - snagglegaggle 7y ago
        Hmm... I think you are misreading his point. He seems to be pointing out that there are other things that are more important and that this seems to be a waste of time. Broadly I agree. One problematic reply I think is: >We should fix both immediate problems and the fundamental ethics issues that perpetuate an exploitative mindset. Animal rights are part of that. Until we have a really good test for animal intelligence and some tractable way to map that to utility I think this is seriously misguided. At the end of the day the wants of a human supersede the wants of an orangutan, even if only by force. Do I think there is much utility in how this orangutan was treated? Not really. But am I allowed to exploit the orangutan? Yes, to the same extent I have a right to life.