4 ms·

> I thought the entire animal rights movement is rooted in the idea that animals can experience emotion I thought it was rooted in people's knee-jerk anthropom

• arrrg 12y ago
  Animal rights seem like a predominantly ethical issue to me that has little to do with science.
  • koide 12y ago
    It's an ethical issue because it's likely that they have emotions. For instance, there is not a widespread movement for the ethical treatment of rocks. If science moved that likelihood close to certainty, the animal movements would gain lots of traction, which is what might be happening already
    • Shorel 12y ago
      Insects are animals. Jellyfish are animals. I don't think they can feel the great range of emotions mammals can. In fact they totally lack a brain limbic system, and it is presumed they can't. Yes, this means that I believe it is unethical to torture a dolphin or a dog, but I don't give a damn for mosquitoes or flies.
• Houshalter 12y ago
  What science do you suggest they are ignoring? I wouldn't call it "knee-jerk". It's not a reaction to a new thing. It is the new thing. Animals not having rights has been the norm for a long time.
  • Shish2k 12y ago
    > What science do you suggest they are ignoring? All of it - again not saying they're wrong, just that the overall mindset I've seen is "I believe animals have emotions, and that's what matters" or "we don't need proof, it's just obvious", not "I have collected evidence beyond anecdotes that animals have emotions". By knee-jerk, I mean people tend to believe first, and look at the evidence either later or never. (Though to be fair, much of the animal-non-rights movement seems to be similarly non-scientific :P)
    • Houshalter 12y ago
      Perhaps (I think you could say similar things about the average supporter of any mainstream issue.) I support animal rights, but evidence came out that they don't feel, I would find that extremely comforting.
    • pyre 12y ago
      > (Though to be fair, much of the animal-non-rights movement seems to be similarly non-scientific :P) Much of the "animal non-rights" movement is anti-free speech (e.g. ag-gag laws) (and is the recipient of lots of government hand-out money, tries to convince that government that peaceful protesters should be classified as 'terrorists' for pushing an agenda that is detrimental to their business, etc), so they should be opposed by more than just the animal rights people.
    • lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Have you had a look at The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness? We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non- human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.” http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious...
• Almaviva 12y ago
  Everyone I know, who has a conviction that other humans experience emotion, believes it for unscientific reasons.