Where do you draw the line?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The purpose of this thread is to ask; where do you draw the line at which you offer a species of animal the same basic protective rights as humans?

Obviously, this has some limitations. We can't be giving animals the right to vote and social security. What I mean by basic protective rights is this:

You cannot hold the animal in captivity unless you can demonstrate that the program in which it is held captive for exists primarily for the benefit of that animal for entertainment purposes. So for instance, it cannot be held captive in order to use it for entertainment (tv, carnival acts, etc) or as a pet.

No intentional harm can be done to that animal, not even for medical research that would benefit that animal or humans. Just like in the modern day we can't just go injecting people with deadly diseases even if it would benefit mankind to do such a study, nor can we with this animal.

Strict and enforced standards would be set as to the environment the animal is contained in, making sure it is large, safe, and engaging to the animal.


For me, I feel this way about primates. I don't think we should be able to do medical research on them, or make them act in movies, or keep them in poorly maintained, entertainment only zoos.

(here's a link from Jane Goodall's page about the suffering of chimps in the entertainment industry: http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp-central-entertainment)

Having been interested in primatology from a young age, I just feel like primates are too much like us, in terms of intelligence, emotional capacity, and social complexity. One book I read about animal behavior had a story I'll never forget. An animal researcher was teaching sign language to a chimp named Lucy had brought the chimp to his home, and one day, Lucy started behaving very badly. In anger, he moved forward to strike her, and she signed to him, "No. Stop. It's Lucy." He realized in that moment he could never hurt that chimpanzee any more than he would a human child.

But even though I have this position, I know that where I draw the line is completely arbitrary. My reasoning is, well, we don't do stuff (like cruel medical experiments) on people these days. We've decided that's wrong. So doing that to animals that are so much like us should also be wrong. But is that really rational? I mean, wouldn't a dog tell his owner, "Don't. Stop. It's Rover." if he could? Why should I factor in intelligence as a reason not to harm an animal? Just because I'm from an intelligent species? Is it rational or ethical to use that as my deciding factor?

Where do you draw the line, if you have one at all? Most people I've spoken to do not agree with me and are not against using primates for experimentation, movies, etc.

But here's a thought experiment: let's say that on the earth there existed a small continent in which earlier hominids had not died out, they'd managed to survive in an environment isolated from homo sapiens. We find not only homo erectus and homo habilis, but even very early, very primitive hominids, like australopithecines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

Would you be against earlier homo species being used for medical research or carnival attractions? What about australopithecines? What criteria do you apply to decide which animals deserve such protections?

 

[Lowpro]

I have easily distanced human feelings from all other animals in my mind. Experimenting on chimpanzees to me is the same as experimenting with amoebas, even though I know one actually feels pain and the other does not.

If you want to draw a line, I think you should draw it to any animal that can communicate that it doesn't want to be treated so poorly. If it can evoke a response in YOU, that YOU feel something's morally unjustified that's where the line can be drawn.

And because I do have not had that feeling in myself in experimentation of many MANY echinoderms and amphibians I'm sure I won't feel it in primates and maybe humans as well.

By the way do YOU feel that an animal like a chimpanzee understands the humiliation(s) we attribute to them in circus performances, or movies etc etc

 

[Halfcentaur]

I struggle to define this in my thinking. I agree primates should not be experimented upon outside of behavioral studies.

 

[tsig]

The purpose of this thread is to ask; where do you draw the line at which you offer a species of animal the same basic protective rights as humans?

Obviously, this has some limitations. We can't be giving animals the right to vote and social security. What I mean by basic protective rights is this:

You cannot hold the animal in captivity unless you can demonstrate that the program in which it is held captive for exists primarily for the benefit of that animal for entertainment purposes. So for instance, it cannot be held captive in order to use it for entertainment (tv, carnival acts, etc) or as a pet.

No intentional harm can be done to that animal, not even for medical research that would benefit that animal or humans. Just like in the modern day we can't just go injecting people with deadly diseases even if it would benefit mankind to do such a study, nor can we with this animal.

Strict and enforced standards would be set as to the environment the animal is contained in, making sure it is large, safe, and engaging to the animal.


For me, I feel this way about primates. I don't think we should be able to do medical research on them, or make them act in movies, or keep them in poorly maintained, entertainment only zoos.

(here's a link from Jane Goodall's page about the suffering of chimps in the entertainment industry: http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp-central-entertainment)

Having been interested in primatology from a young age, I just feel like primates are too much like us, in terms of intelligence, emotional capacity, and social complexity. One book I read about animal behavior had a story I'll never forget. An animal researcher was teaching sign language to a chimp named Lucy had brought the chimp to his home, and one day, Lucy started behaving very badly. In anger, he moved forward to strike her, and she signed to him, "No. Stop. It's Lucy." He realized in that moment he could never hurt that chimpanzee any more than he would a human child.

But even though I have this position, I know that where I draw the line is completely arbitrary. My reasoning is, well, we don't do stuff (like cruel medical experiments) on people these days. We've decided that's wrong. So doing that to animals that are so much like us should also be wrong. But is that really rational? I mean, wouldn't a dog tell his owner, "Don't. Stop. It's Rover." if he could? Why should I factor in intelligence as a reason not to harm an animal? Just because I'm from an intelligent species? Is it rational or ethical to use that as my deciding factor?

Where do you draw the line, if you have one at all? Most people I've spoken to do not agree with me and are not against using primates for experimentation, movies, etc.

But here's a thought experiment: let's say that on the earth there existed a small continent in which earlier hominids had not died out, they'd managed to survive in an environment isolated from homo sapiens. We find not only homo erectus and homo habilis, but even very early, very primitive hominids, like australopithecines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

Would you be against earlier homo species being used for medical research or carnival attractions? What about australopithecines? What criteria do you apply to decide which animals deserve such protections?

Why draw the line at animals?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I work with wolves. Our primary mission there is to keep humans away from the wolves long enough for them to have a chance of surviving as a species. We may have a chance at doing that.

On the other hand, I've heard visitors casually discuss how much fun it would be to shoot a wolf.

 

[Trent Wray]

Why draw the line at animals?

Bingo.

I work with wolves. Our primary mission there is to keep humans away from the wolves long enough for them to have a chance of surviving as a species. We may have a chance at doing that.

On the other hand, I've heard visitors casually discuss how much fun it would be to shoot a wolf.

I signed up to volunteer at Wolf Haven outside of Olympia, WA about 12 years ago. Unfortunately, I only got the chance to volunteer one day lol

Of Wolves and Men was required reading. I desperately wish at times I had the chance to spend more time there, as I probably only visited a total of three times. But hearing the wolves howl in unison ... was awe inspiring and unforgetable.

 

[Fnord]

The purpose of this thread is to ask; where do you draw the line at which you offer a species of animal the same basic protective rights as humans?

When the animal takes the day off from his or her job, drives (or takes public transportation) to pick up his or her lawyer, then goes off with his or her lawyer to petition Congress for Same-Rights status.

I'd say that would be a good start.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Of Wolves and Men was required reading. I desperately wish at times I had the chance to spend more time there, as I probably only visited a total of three times. But hearing the wolves howl in unison ... was awe inspiring and unforgetable.

I did the storytelling at a campfire in January with a broken rib and walking pneumonia so I could hear them howl one more time.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

The purpose of this thread is to ask; where do you draw the line at which you offer a species of animal the same basic protective rights as humans?

Obviously, this has some limitations. We can't be giving animals the right to vote and social security. What I mean by basic protective rights is this:

You cannot hold the animal in captivity unless you can demonstrate that the program in which it is held captive for exists primarily for the benefit of that animal for entertainment purposes. So for instance, it cannot be held captive in order to use it for entertainment (tv, carnival acts, etc) or as a pet.

No intentional harm can be done to that animal, not even for medical research that would benefit that animal or humans. Just like in the modern day we can't just go injecting people with deadly diseases even if it would benefit mankind to do such a study, nor can we with this animal.

Strict and enforced standards would be set as to the environment the animal is contained in, making sure it is large, safe, and engaging to the animal.


For me, I feel this way about primates. I don't think we should be able to do medical research on them, or make them act in movies, or keep them in poorly maintained, entertainment only zoos.

(here's a link from Jane Goodall's page about the suffering of chimps in the entertainment industry: http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp-central-entertainment)

Having been interested in primatology from a young age, I just feel like primates are too much like us, in terms of intelligence, emotional capacity, and social complexity. One book I read about animal behavior had a story I'll never forget. An animal researcher was teaching sign language to a chimp named Lucy had brought the chimp to his home, and one day, Lucy started behaving very badly. In anger, he moved forward to strike her, and she signed to him, "No. Stop. It's Lucy." He realized in that moment he could never hurt that chimpanzee any more than he would a human child.

But even though I have this position, I know that where I draw the line is completely arbitrary. My reasoning is, well, we don't do stuff (like cruel medical experiments) on people these days. We've decided that's wrong. So doing that to animals that are so much like us should also be wrong. But is that really rational? I mean, wouldn't a dog tell his owner, "Don't. Stop. It's Rover." if he could? Why should I factor in intelligence as a reason not to harm an animal? Just because I'm from an intelligent species? Is it rational or ethical to use that as my deciding factor?

Where do you draw the line, if you have one at all? Most people I've spoken to do not agree with me and are not against using primates for experimentation, movies, etc.

But here's a thought experiment: let's say that on the earth there existed a small continent in which earlier hominids had not died out, they'd managed to survive in an environment isolated from homo sapiens. We find not only homo erectus and homo habilis, but even very early, very primitive hominids, like australopithecines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

Would you be against earlier homo species being used for medical research or carnival attractions? What about australopithecines? What criteria do you apply to decide which animals deserve such protections?

We've established ethical and moral principles underlining our laws so that we feel justified when we decide that it's legal to have sex past 18 years old, drink alcohol at 21 and kill certain animals but not others... but in reality, these are all imaginary lines drawn on the sand. I accept that I'm no exception and I too draw arbitrary lines, so I don't try to impose my arbitrary limits on others, claiming that they are the definite ones.

 

[The Norseman]

When the animal takes the day off from his or her job, drives (or takes public transportation) to pick up his or her lawyer, then goes off with his or her lawyer to petition Congress for Same-Rights status.

I'd say that would be a good start.

 

[Piggy]

Of Wolves and Men was required reading.

I recommend all of Barry's books, btw.

 

[Piggy]

Would you be against earlier homo species being used for medical research or carnival attractions? What about australopithecines? What criteria do you apply to decide which animals deserve such protections?

One of the things that truly bothers me about research into the brain, for example, is that so much of it relies upon torture.

As does a lot of other medical and industrial research.

There's no doubt in my mind that the ferrets, rabbits, cats, dogs, small rodents, and monkeys so commonly used in research suffer every bit as much as human do when subjected to pain.

Sometimes when reading medical research I have to stop and cry.

Do we really need to put drain cleaner into the eyes of rabbits held in stocks in order to know that it will cause harm to human eyes?

 

[Loss Leader]

But here's a thought experiment: let's say that on the earth there existed a small continent in which earlier hominids had not died out, they'd managed to survive in an environment isolated from homo sapiens. We find not only homo erectus and homo habilis, but even very early, very primitive hominids, like australopithecines?

I personally believe that we have no moral obligation to animals whatsoever. However, we have a moral obligation to each other. That means that animals (and plants) should be used for food only in a way that is healthy for humans and sustainable for the earth. Three chickens to a cage, widespread use of antibiotics, zero-graze milk production are examples of immoral use of animals by my standards.

In entertainment - dog-fighting, monkeys on TV, etc. - I think that animal cruelty should only be prohibited where it can be shown that cruelty to animals leads to cruelty, or lack of empathy, towards other people. This may be the case.

Any animal testing that creates valid results should be allowed.

As for your hypo, you correctly identify that the difference between humans and animals is only one of degree. And there have lived on this planet plenty of creatures who were on the spectrum between modern humans and whatever the smartest living animal is today. I am very, very glad that your hypo isn't real because I have no idea where I'd draw the line.

Welcome back. Read The City at the Center of the World.

I work with wolves. Our primary mission there is to keep humans away from the wolves long enough for them to have a chance of surviving as a species. We may have a chance at doing that. On the other hand, I've heard visitors casually discuss how much fun it would be to shoot a wolf.

Without question, the decline of wolves and other super-predators is an ecological disaster. It would probably help if wolves didn't compete with and/or try to eat humans. Unfortunately, hatred for the wolf by hominids probably predates h. sapiens entirely. That's a long history you're trying to overcome.

 

[truethat]

I'm probably weird. I'm completely anti pet. It comes across to me as slavery on the part of the animal. Domestication is humans shoving their way onto animals and it creates a cycle of abuse because anyone can own a pet. And people are jerks.

I think we've done enough experimenting. I've never understood why we don't use death row inmates for experiments. Allow the person to pay his debt to society by being experimented on. If he lives he goes free.

 

[Lowpro]

One of the things that truly bothers me about research into the brain, for example, is that so much of it relies upon torture.

As does a lot of other medical and industrial research.

There's no doubt in my mind that the ferrets, rabbits, cats, dogs, small rodents, and monkeys so commonly used in research suffer every bit as much as human do when subjected to pain.

Sometimes when reading medical research I have to stop and cry.

Do we really need to put drain cleaner into the eyes of rabbits held in stocks in order to know that it will cause harm to human eyes?

What if we bred animals that lacked nocireceptors or we disabled certain brain functions to stop pain sensation? How about then? I'm all for science breaking eggs left and right, and don't mind the tears shed. Plus, pain is an everyday experience to all animals no matter the cause. It's all summated the same in the end, so we come back to the question; what would it take to make YOU lack the empathy for these animals?

I think we've done enough experimenting. I've never understood why we don't use death row inmates for experiments. Allow the person to pay his debt to society by being experimented on. If he lives he goes free.

That's REALLY messed up. While I wholly embrace the death penalty, I think that using the person for experimentation while alive is cruel. He should just be executed immediately, do whatever you want with his corpse, but he's being executed for a crime and we shouldn't subject rigorous testing to him. We cannot mix science with the death sentence so easily lest we forget why we're executing them in the first place. Also, don't be so credulous. We have a VERY fine idea of what it takes to kill or keep a human being (and close relatives alive) to the point where other than LONG TERM medications the outcomes are very predictable.

We have a harder time determining the simple consequences of chemical imbalances in echinoderms than we do of complex mammals.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Without question, the decline of wolves and other super-predators is an ecological disaster. It would probably help if wolves didn't compete with and/or try to eat humans. Unfortunately, hatred for the wolf by hominids probably predates h. sapiens entirely. That's a long history you're trying to overcome.

We try to teach that an environment that can support the top predators is a healthy environment. I just hope there's enough humans among the people that visit. We also teach that humans are not the natural prey of wolves. There has been only one documented case of wolves attacking humans in the past fifty years that I'm aware of. We tell them, "Don't run, that triggers the hunting response."

 

[truethat]

What if we bred animals that lacked nocireceptors or we disabled certain brain functions to stop pain sensation? How about then? I'm all for science breaking eggs left and right, and don't mind the tears shed. Plus, pain is an everyday experience to all animals no matter the cause. It's all summated the same in the end, so we come back to the question; what would it take to make YOU lack the empathy for these animals?



That's REALLY messed up. While I wholly embrace the death penalty, I think that using the person for experimentation while alive is cruel. He should just be executed immediately, do whatever you want with his corpse, but he's being executed for a crime and we shouldn't subject rigorous testing to him. We cannot mix science with the death sentence so easily lest we forget why we're executing them in the first place. Also, don't be so credulous. We have a VERY fine idea of what it takes to kill or keep a human being (and close relatives alive) to the point where other than LONG TERM medications the outcomes are very predictable.

We have a harder time determining the simple consequences of chemical imbalances in echinoderms than we do of complex mammals.

I am against the death penalty. See I have this thing that executing people is more cruel than allowing them to participate in a science experiment. I'm not talking cutting his head off or injecting him with cleaning solutions, but just using products we're not sure are safe for people.

 

[Lowpro]

We try to teach that an environment that can support the top predators is a healthy environment. I just hope there's enough humans among the people that visit. We also teach that humans are not the natural prey of wolves. There has been only one documented case of wolves attacking humans in the past fifty years that I'm aware of. We tell them, "Don't run, that triggers the hunting response."

You'd have better luck laying curled up in a ball submissively. IIRC and this may be the documented case, a researcher on wolves who's name escapes me ( I heard this story in a Mammalian History class) that a leading researcher of wolves got attacked by one of his wolves, but because he knew that as an evolutionary instinct to "act submissively" can trigger the predatory response to end in the attacker, as if he's already won.

Is that the documented case?

 

[Piggy]

What if we bred animals that lacked nocireceptors or we disabled certain brain functions to stop pain sensation? How about then?

Such animals would likely be useless for research.

But if we disabled pain receptors, then it would be difficult to torture such animals, except by extreme boredom, or perhaps fear.

I'm all for science breaking eggs left and right, and don't mind the tears shed.

Good for you.

Btw, there's an experiment I'd like to try on your spouse.

Plus, pain is an everyday experience to all animals no matter the cause.

Oh, ok, then in that case you should have no objection at all to my experiment on your spouse, who is, after all, just another animal.

what would it take to make YOU lack the empathy for these animals?

I dunno, a labotomy?

 

[Lowpro]

I am against the death penalty. See I have this thing that executing people is more cruel than allowing them to participate in a science experiment. I'm not talking cutting his head off or injecting him with cleaning solutions, but just using products we're not sure are safe for people.

Lol well do you see the confusion? A death row inmate has a choice as you say to participate in the experiment. A death row inmate. That's the equivalent to a rapist and murderer who can participate in a program that allows him to "walk".

A Death. Row. Inmate.

Here's the thing, when we test humans, AGAIN the outcomes are particularly predictable, especially now. Why? Because we test on animals rigorously, we've come a long way in understanding metabolism of particular chemicals.

So what you want is to allow a death row inmate to elect himself to participate in an experiment that could PROBABLY do nothing and walk?

It's easier to fry the guy, and the outcome is worlds better.