6 ms·
Should elephants have the same rights as people? A Colorado court may decide
- x86_64Ubuntu 2y agoLike they mentioned in the article, I can imagine it's only a matter of time before household pets are given personhood.
- dudeinjapan 2y agoMy dog already thinks he's a person. He wants to eat people food.
- echoangle 2y agoAnd house flies would need to be recognized as persons next.
- block_dagger 2y agoIn which case I would assume that domination over them by us would be illegal. I would absolutely support this. Future generations will look back on pet ownership with clarity. It’s right there in the word - ownership.
- colonwqbang 2y agoI agree that keeping pets is probably immoral. But even if we accept that, there are multiple problems. - There may not be much of a "wild" left to release animals into. - Some animals have been bred for hundreds of generations and are now dependent on humans. - Who has the right to speak for these animals? How do they divine what their client wants? It's not reasonable that any person on the street can bring a motion of habeas corpus on behalf of your dog.
- the_other 2y ago> I agree that keeping pets is probably immoral. Watching the foxes and squirrels that live near humans has suggested to me that domestication is two-way. The animals want what we have: spare food, shelter. Some of them are brave and willing enough to interact with us, some aren’t. Over time, more of them become brave and willing enough to interact. Anyone that considers a cat their pet will observe that cats are mainly in it for themselves. They (try to) go out when they want, they’ll make it clear when they’re not in the mood for attention. They spend hours each day ignoring us whilst making use of the shelter we provide. They’ve been known to leave their humans and return to their familiar territories when their humans move house. I don’t think pet “ownership” is inherently immoral, but some people’s implementations of it, and the terminology, probably are.
- exitheone 2y agoCan't wait for the legislation so I can finally be released from servitude to my cat. /s
- jobigoud 2y ago> I would assume that domination over them by us would be illegal. I don't think being given personhood would necessarily make it illegal. There is the precedent of dependent persons (mentally handicapped, babies) that have personhood but are also under the control of someone else that take decisions for them.
- CalRobert 2y agoWhy pets but not the animals we eat?
- NullPrefix 2y agoCan it vote?
- userbinator 2y agoIt would obviously vote Republican.
- chris-orgmenta 2y agoOr they might oppose: [Elephant Lawyer]: Dear Republican Party, On behalf of our clients, the global elephant community, we formally request that you cease and desist from using their likeness as a party symbol. The unauthorized use of their image fails to represent their values, interests, and, most notably, their stance on environmental preservation. Our clients object to being associated with policies that conflict with their dedication to ecological stewardship and community welfare. Therefore, we urge immediate cessation of any elephant imagery in relation to your party. Further unapproved usage may result in legal action. Sincerely, Counsel for Proboscidea
- out_of_protocol 2y ago> Should elephants have the same rights as people? Only if they pay taxes. Jokes aside, there's no legal framework for this kind of stuff. "Full rights" means citizenship, passport, ability to travel, requirement to pay taxes etc etc. There's no other kinds of not-exactly-people-rights
- dudeinjapan 2y agoDon't forget military service. Time to bring back War Elephants--they deal Trample damage!
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- webnrrd2k 2y agoI wonder if an elephant will ever have a human as an emotional support animal? I've heard that they can become very close with their mahout.
- jobigoud 2y ago> There's no other kinds of not-exactly-people-rights There are rights without requirements for people that can't function in society: babies, infants, mentally handicapped, elderly with alzheimers, etc. They all have rights even though they can't fight for them themselves. Especially the right to not be imprisoned or killed by humans, which are the typical fundamental rights sought after for animals with high cognitive capabilities. It's not all or nothing. Paying taxes, citizenship and ability to travel are one level of abstraction higher and has nothing to do with these fundamental rights. Similarly some other rights like the right to vote are not granted to all citizens.
- imjonse 2y agoThe zoo statement: "We hope Colorado isn’t the place that sets the slippery slope in motion of whether your beloved and well-cared-for dog or cat should have habeas corpus and would be required to ‘go free,’ at the whim of someone else’s opinion of them" The elephant (ha ha) in the room is another slippery slope leading to the question whether we should be killing and eating intelligent and social beings.
- noisy_boy 2y agoIntelligent and social beings are being killed all the time by other beings. But none of them have the outsized edge of intelligence and tooling we have. We are too big to be doing the killing.
- karmakurtisaani 2y agoI would argue that our true cruelty of killing other beings is that we specifically farm them in horrible conditions just to be our food. If all meat was hunted from nature, I would have no issues with it.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y agoI’m a fairly staunch animal rights supporter. I think your take is the most reasonable. Related: I hope that Spanish cephalopod farming operation gets axed by law soon for precisely the same reason. Industrialized animal farming is a cruelty factory that (mostly) doesn’t even produce quality product. Senseless by any sane measure.
- tourmalinetaco 2y agoFarming them is fine, we don’t need to exclusively hunt them, and arguably animals are far happier (certainly better fed) in captivity than in the wild. The problem is factory farms, and more loosely poorly maintained farms in general. Additionally breeding chickens, for instance, can be problematic because as big and juicy modern breasts are the scientifically engineered chickens deal with many painful health problems due to their excessive weight. Another cruelty is, especially in regards to hunting, the difficulty is getting a painless kill. At least on a farm you can always guide the cow into a barn, knock it unconscious with a bolt pistol, and kill it humanely from there.
- kaliqt 2y agoNo. Glad we cleared that up.
- anon-3988 2y agoCats and dogs have more rights than other animals for seemingly arbitrary reasons too. At the end of the day, its all whatever we decide is matters.
- x86_64Ubuntu 2y agoIt's long been known that certain animals are far more charismatic than others. Dogs and cats should never suffer, while thing like rats, mosquitos and wild boars are to be terminated on sight. Things such as hippos, squirrels and food sources are somewhere in between.
- anon-3988 2y agoHow much of that is us imposing our impression on their internal being? Are you certain that if we know enough about bees, mosquitoes and wild boars life we wouldn't empathize with them more?
- chris-orgmenta 2y agoShould we not allocate rights based on varying levels of consciousness and sentience as emergent phenomena?
- userbinator 2y agoWhat a waste of taxpayer money. This nonsense should've been thrown out long before it got to court. The animal rights group NonHuman Rights Project Where do you stop? Insects? Bacteria? Viruses? In these times, what about an AI?
- black_13 2y ago[dead]
- thomashop 2y agoIn my opinion, anything sentient should be guaranteed basic rights. Including AI.
- drakonka 2y agoThe project's website[0] addresses your question and explains which species they focus on, and why. I suggest reading it if you are genuinely curious. [0] https://www.nonhumanrights.org/about-us/ https://www.nonhumanrights.org/about-us/
- userbinator 2y agoAll it has is a bunch of fluff about wanting non-humans to have rights, which I vehemently disagree with.
- 9dev 2y agoWhy do you disagree with the basic premise, can you elaborate?
- katbyte 2y agoProbably not, but there likely should be legal provisions for clearly intelligent animals like elephants that elevate them above say a snail or mouse. We generally are too soft on animals abuse and abuse of an animal like an elephant should carry a sentence similar to abusing a person.
- AStonesThrow 2y agoElephants are not merely individual organisms, but they are social animals who group in herds. Likewise, ants, termites, and bees are eusocial insects, who may sometimes be considered individuals, but indeed, their hives and mounds comprise singular organisms which are greater than the sum of their parts. Therefore, who deserves personhood and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship? An individual termite, or its mound and colony as a whole? How mature and ancient is any given termite mound in the Australian outback? Do presidents and kings owe tribute to Termite Pharaohs?
- IceHegel 2y agoRights don't exist. They're an idea made up by man. You have a right to what you can defend. In the long run, legalism will align itself with that iron law of nature. I would protect the elephants because I like them. No use bringing rights into it.
- readthenotes1 2y agoRights are obligations we constrain ourselves with for the sake of others. They absolutely do exist, but it's really unfortunate that we don't talk about them more accurately.
- alexashka 2y ago> No use bringing rights into it History would beg to differ.
- make3 2y agoIt's not that simple, people systematically create groups with laws, and those groups (governments) defend laws with violence, so as long as something is law, things don't need to be strong to be protected. "The iron law of nature" defends grandmas, because groups (governments) don't like grandmas being attacked, and defend grandmas with violence. One could do the same with elephants, no problem.
- 000ooo000 2y agoIdea's can't exist? Legalism will tend towards might equals right? Dubious at best. >I would protect the elephants because I like them. No use bringing rights into it. Rights are rarely needed to protect x from y when y likes x..
- alexashka 2y agoA more poignant question is what rights activists ought to have and whether a non-trivial amount of resources ought to be spent addressing their concerns. Should policies of countries be decided by a small number of single minded zealots whilst make pretending there's some sort of 'democracy' taking place? Anyhoo :)
- defrost 2y agoThis isn't the thread for the undemocratic Federalist capture of the US Court system.
- alexashka 2y agoPlease tell me and perhaps others what delightful happenstance led you to conclude that you are the definitive arbiter of what this thread (and I assume all others?) is for.
- defrost 2y agoI've made no such conclusion, you do as you wish. The title indicates that this isn't a thread for the discussion of that small number of single minded zealots who have captured the US Court system in a thoroughly undemocratic manner .. but by all means discuss that further.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- asdfman123 2y agoLAWYER: Let me address... the elephant in the room. EVERYONE IN THE GALLERY TURNS QUICKLY TO FACE THE BACK OF THE COURT. THERE STANDS AN ELEPHANT WEARING A TRENCHCOAT AND CARRYING A BRIEFCASE, READY TO GIVE HIS DEPOSITION.
- tmtvl 2y agoThat's not an elephant, that's my wife.
- makeitdouble 2y agoIt's nowhere discussed in the article, so the other elephant in the room: Our whole society is based on animals not having rights. Some people see a gradation where we could have criteria to determine how many rights could each kind of animal have, and argue about small details. But of course the other point of view will be that any fissuring of the concept of animals as "things" will break the dam and there will be no going back. For anyone seeing simple and clear lines that could be drawn, try to classify the elephants in the article, the differnt kind monkeys, pigs, cows, dogs , racoons and ant colonies. You see the wall that rises the minute elephants get special rights while cows keep feeding us, for instance.
- Dalewyn 2y agoI believe it is backwards: Human society is predicated on humans being special. Any truly objective observer will say humans are no different from other animals on Earth. And of course, an elephant will likely say they're special while everything else isn't.
- oefnak 2y agoWe are on top, which makes us special.
- ben_w 2y agoThe endemic diseases say we're not on top of the food chain. We're special to each other because we wouldn't function very well if we didn't find each other special.
- 9dev 2y agoYet, we take great care in our own society to ensure people higher up in the food chain don’t take advantage of those below them—so much so, in fact, that the declaration of human rights declares we’re all born equal. If we sort ourselves in a hierarchy with other sentient beings, why doesn’t the same concept apply to them too?
- dartos 2y ago
- sklivvz1971 2y agoWhen a court is essentially dictating law, you know we are in trouble. When a law tries to do philosophy, it's even worse. You can't do this stuff unless you have a working definition of personhood. Good luck with that. The moment that animals have rights you run into a huge series of ethical problems. Should dogs have rights? Should rats? Should insects? Should tardigrades? Should plants? Bacteria? Most of these philosophical questions have no univocal answers and are usually the layperson can't go beyond "this cute animal has rights because I like it and this other animal doesn't because it's ugly", which frankly is appalling.
- throw93209 2y agoHow about equal rights for dogs? They are already family members and "children"! We need something like child support for dogs. Shelters are horribly underfunded. Animal abusers deserve to have their income confiscated, so their family members can have a dignified life!
- metalman 2y agoI would argue,and I am sure that if they could the elephants would also argue, that colerado has NO juristiction in ANYTHING elepantocentric,or African,or Indian, or Asian in any way shape or form,did some one say sanctions?The idea that Colerado can get away with a blatant attempt at re colononising whole continents by declaring them as legato incognito is quite a little something I do love Colorado,fine place,fine people,but they have most definitly had there legal system hijacked by others looking for a place to set precidents?,presidents?
- hulitu 2y ago> Should elephants have the same rights as people? A Colorado court may decide How about slugs ? Or bacteria ?
- 9dev 2y agoElephants are social beings that live in groups, mourn their dead, raise their young, and care for their elders. They show emotions like anger, joy, boredom, and can be playful or even cheeky sometimes. That you don’t take a second to consider they may have a subjective reality similar to your own, and instead ridicule the mere thought that these animals deserve some kind of protection, leaves me troubled.
- makeitdouble 2y agoI'm not replying in the context of the gp, but more curious about where you see a line to be drawn (or if you see no line ?). I'm personally not sure where I stand, but there is a whole can of worms when we start to evaluate which animals "deserve" protection and on what grounds. For instance many of the characteristics you underline probably apply to crows, except crows are either categorized as nuisance or only tolerated in many places in the world. And it might be too much expanding the subject, but there is a chance that most animals that are living in urban or technically advanced settings are getting some boost on "inteligence" and will show traits that make them better fit for a human environment, including better display of emotions for instance. I think we're already seeing such a development in cats, and as animals crossing that threshold would be protected while other get the boot, the selection for that trait could happen pretty fast.
- 9dev 2y agoThe line I draw isn’t a clear one; my personal opinion is that we should try to minimise overall suffering, and that requires realising that almost all animals are capable of suffering the way we do. That doesn’t mean we should try to abdicate animal suffering altogether, because that just plain won’t work and conflicts with basic human interest. But we still can try to avoid suffering in every way possible. In a broader scope, I think we’re just now realising that continuing the human way of life is just not sustainable and makes the planet inhospitable to Sapiens: We consume too much at once, and bring a disbalance to the global ecosystem. Fixing that requires rethinking a lot of the systems we rely on, and yes, also restraining ourselves from doing things that damage the ecosystem we depend on. A practical consequence is drastically reducing meat consumption and mass farming, and that ties back in to the point of reducing suffering. I think we’re aware of an equilibrium in our environment, and if we look at the world close enough, everyone realises the status quo just won’t work much longer. Drawing the consequences is the hard part, and realising animals suffer and that that is a sign something is wrong is one of them.
- TheUnhinged 2y agoPeople in which part of the world? Need to be specific, elephants (should) probably care just about how much rights they’re getting.