Spain to recognise great ape rights
- Thread starter vincent
- Start date
It seems that some are confused by the use of the word "person", which is used in a particular legal fashion in the article.
In this legal context, "person" does not necessarily mean "human". For example, companies are also called "persons" for legal purposes.
In this legal context, "person" does not necessarily mean "human". For example, companies are also called "persons" for legal purposes.
invert_nexus said:
There are wild apes in Spain.
Homo sapiens sapiens, the naked ape.
and
Macaca Sylvanus, the barbary apes. Which are technically a monkey I guess. And I guess technically Gibraltar isn't Spain the nation.
The only free roaming primates in Europe.
You are on a very slippery slope if you are saying it is ok to kill for some useful (to humans) reason creatures that are not "consciously perceiving."James R said:
First problem is: How do you know which are "consciously perceiving"? - This well know problem in psychology and philosophy is usually called the "other minds" problem. In essence you can only be sure that you yourself are "consciously perceiving." I may be just a commuter, as you have never seen me, but that is not what I am referring to.
I am refering to the fact that your wife (assume you have one, if you do not) may not be "consciously perceiving." I.e. she may be what is called a "zombie" in psychology and philosophy circles. - An unconscious biological creature that behaves like a conscious one in everyway. For example, if burning cigarette is pressed against the zombie's skin it screams, tries to get free, etc. but actually has no pain or any other "mental state" (to again use the jargon of psychology and philosophy.)
This "other minds" problem is rather academic for most other humans, but does come up from time to time. For example, is there any reason (other than the politics) to keep Israel's ex president alive in his complete and deep coma?
Once you start down to the "lesser creatures" assumed to be "consciously perceiving," such as your dog, where do you stop? How about a shark, of a squid, or a catfish or a bird, including chickens? etc.
I hope you know that one does not breath to get oxygen, that is just a fortunate consequence. One breaths to rid the blood of the CO2 that is building up in it. Proof in next paragraph.
I have posted elsewhere that two men working on an APL satellite inside a large bell jar had forgotten to turn off the dry N2 supply and were lazy, so they only hand cranked the massive steel bell jar up enough to crawl between its bottom lip and the base plate. When time for their car pool came, both were found dead inside. - They could have left at any time, but as the were keeping the blood CO2 low (until they died) they felt no urge to breath any “air” other than the basically pure N2 they were breathing.
Thus I wonder, would you object if while you are sleeping in your bed I bath your face in body temperature slow stream of pure N2? - Silly question - of course you would not, because you would be dead, and no "consciously perceiving" James R would have been killed. Thus, your wife, if she agrees with you that it is OK to kill the "non-consciously perceiving" could not object either. The "benefit" to some humans that justifies N2 gassing JR may be limited, (MacM might benefit
) but you were doomed to die someday, why not tonight? (Spare MacM years of agony).I of course know you could be come conscious the next morning and that is your excuse for not giving your OK to a N2 "face bath" tonight, but this all reminds me of a Woodie Allen joke: He said: "I am not afraid of death. I just don't want to be there when it happens." Sure you do not want to take his advise?
Perhaps you can just respond to the "How do you know which are "consciously perceiving?" question. You are always big on "operational definitions" etc. without which we are just dealing in nonsense or philosophy (assuming there is a difference.
)
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T:
For current purposes, I am content to regard any creature which acts as if it is consciously perceiving as in fact having that quality. This avoids the question of "other minds", which is a philosophical conundrum.
I can observe the behaviour of a deer or a cow or a cat and clearly see that they act as is they have goals, desires, an ability to react to their surroundings in a conscious way, and a perception of themselves as "subjects of a life" (to use a term found in the relevant literature). That is sufficient to raise the moral question, without going into metaphysics.
Does he react to his surroundings? Does he seem to have goals and desires? Is he aware of himself as a person? It seems not, to me.
Probably all of these would qualify.
Sleep is a temporary state. You have to look at all of a creature's activities, not pick and choose some as you find convenient.
For current purposes, I am content to regard any creature which acts as if it is consciously perceiving as in fact having that quality. This avoids the question of "other minds", which is a philosophical conundrum.
I can observe the behaviour of a deer or a cow or a cat and clearly see that they act as is they have goals, desires, an ability to react to their surroundings in a conscious way, and a perception of themselves as "subjects of a life" (to use a term found in the relevant literature). That is sufficient to raise the moral question, without going into metaphysics.
Does he react to his surroundings? Does he seem to have goals and desires? Is he aware of himself as a person? It seems not, to me.
Probably all of these would qualify.
Sleep is a temporary state. You have to look at all of a creature's activities, not pick and choose some as you find convenient.
Good your second word is "current" as I tend to agree that is currently a good basis for inferring another "mind" or in your original terms "consciously perceiving" being. The Japanese already have a well dressed "robot lady receptionist" who stands (or sits at desk) in the lobby and helps tourists by answering their question, but almost all, but not all know she is not alive. (She turns her head and looks at you, points where you should go, etc) Give them 20 years more and by your behavioristic standards, one dare not unplug her. :bugeye:James R said:
As you confer this "consciously perceiving" being status on chickens and catfish, let go a little lower: How about cock roaches, termites, ants and bees? I do not know much about the first, except the do not like the light and are very radiation resistant, but the last three are highly social (much more self sacrificing for the common good than man) with very purposeful behavior etc. I think the first also lives in social groups, but not sure about this. All four have strong likes (desires?) dislikes (fears?) wishes etc. and certainly exhibit “purposeful behavior.” Are they too "consciously perceiving" beings?
If not; Is your real, but tacit, reason for denying them this status more like: "To be/ qualify as / a "consciously perceiving" being, the creature must have more than 50% of its DNA in common with man"? (I do not know, but bet the catfish and chicken do have 50% or more of their DNA same as man and these insects do not, so are you sure you are not just being egotistical if you deny this status to these four?)
If you do think they too qualify, I can go lower still, but perhaps you will give example of some creatures that are not "consciously perceiving" beings.
Last edited by a moderator:
Likely yes, as they are the equal of the modern degenerate man.D'ster said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqvRjHaDX6M
Billy T:
Consciously preceiving?
Chickens: Yes.
Catfish: Borderline. I don't know.
Cockroaches: No.
Termites, ants, bees: no.
My rough test, given previously:
Insects do not seem to me to have the ability to think "I am a cockroach. This is me. I don't want to die in the next 10 minutes." Chickens, on the other hand, do have this ability, or at least act as if they do, which is what I said is sufficient.
Regarding DNA, I have deliberately avoided a kind of speciesist definition based on percentage of DNA similar to human beings, for example. A chicken will easily share 50% of its DNA with a human being, I am sure. A cockroach may be close to that amount. But for present purposes, I don't think it matters. What we're looking for here is sentience.
Consciously preceiving?
Chickens: Yes.
Catfish: Borderline. I don't know.
Cockroaches: No.
Termites, ants, bees: no.
My rough test, given previously:
Insects do not seem to me to have the ability to think "I am a cockroach. This is me. I don't want to die in the next 10 minutes." Chickens, on the other hand, do have this ability, or at least act as if they do, which is what I said is sufficient.
Regarding DNA, I have deliberately avoided a kind of speciesist definition based on percentage of DNA similar to human beings, for example. A chicken will easily share 50% of its DNA with a human being, I am sure. A cockroach may be close to that amount. But for present purposes, I don't think it matters. What we're looking for here is sentience.
Furher than that, I can clearly see when my dog is consciously trying to understand something peculiar to determine what she should do. She cocks her head side-to-side with ears periscoped toward the sound or object trying to figure it out what it is before making a conscious decision - no different than a human. Animals have equal rights. Praise be to the Buddhist monks who vow not to kill any living thing including stepping on an ants or fleas.James R said:
I know I'm getting off the subject here, but Austria takes the lead in animal rights by not allowing dogs' ears or tails to be cropped. They consider it to be inhumane - and it is. Pit Bulls are banned because they've been known to kill children.
OMG! NOOOOOOO. If they let apes have rights then all the apes will run loose in the streets and mess up everything!!!. And rape people and then have super ugly, smelly, hairy, dumb babies! NOOOOOO. and then They will get a bunch of diseases from apes! wtf is this world coming too!!! Apes cant even talk human languages. How the hell would they be able to benifit society if they can't talk!! They can't get jobs there too dumb also. And they cant even walk upwards traight. That would be bad to have kids that cant even walk straight.
Oh yea and if they were givin equal rights and brought into the city feces would be everywhere!!!. BECAUSE APES LOVE THROWING FEECES> DO YOU WANT FECES THATS LIKE SAYING WE SHOULD RATS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS> IF RATS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS THEY WOULD DESTROY SOCIETY!!!!! JUST LIKE APES> EXCEPT APES WOULD BE THROWING FECES AND POUNDING AND YELLING AT PEOPLE!!
Oh yea and if they were givin equal rights and brought into the city feces would be everywhere!!!. BECAUSE APES LOVE THROWING FEECES> DO YOU WANT FECES THATS LIKE SAYING WE SHOULD RATS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS> IF RATS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS THEY WOULD DESTROY SOCIETY!!!!! JUST LIKE APES> EXCEPT APES WOULD BE THROWING FECES AND POUNDING AND YELLING AT PEOPLE!!
Last edited: