"It's We The People..." Not "We The Orcas..."
The nutjobs at PETA are now asking a federal court to grant constitutional rights to whales. From an AP story in The New York Times:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery. SeaWorld depicted the suit as baseless.The suit, which PETA says it will file Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Diego, hinges on the fact that the 13th Amendment, while prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, does not specify that only humans can be victims.
The best is that the Orcas have lawyers:
The five orcas are represented in the case by PETA and four individuals: Ric O'Barry, a longtime orca and dolphin trainer; Ingrid Visser, a New Zealand marine biologist who has studied orcas extensively; Howard Garrett, founder of the Orca Network, an advocacy group in Washington State; and Samantha Berg, a former orca trainer at SeaWorld Orlando.
It's true that killer whales have much shorter lives in captivity, I'm not sure how Sea World compares to other parks, but I'm guessing its about the same.
Here's a quick google link that matches things I remember reading in actual newspapers:
http://www.orcahome.de/lifeexpectancy.htm
However, to grant them constitutional rights is silly.
NicoleK at October 31, 2011 5:42 AM
When judges just make it up, and legislators refuse to impeach them for it, this is the sort of madness you get.
MarkD at October 31, 2011 5:58 AM
I'd defend against this a different way, and arrest PETA, for false representation. No Orca has ever stated that they want PETA to represent them. A lawyer claiming to represent me and making deals in my name without my knowledge or permission, must be a crime.
Joe J at October 31, 2011 6:33 AM
Really? I mean really? They can't find any HUMANS that could use their help (i.e. money, time, effort, sympathy)? They are so focused on animals that are fed and cared (albeit not in the manner they believe is right), that they've not noticed the people living in poverty in this country? Do the damn whales need manicures too?
Renee at October 31, 2011 7:44 AM
> whales have much shorter lives in captivity
Goddam right they do.
> Do the damn whales need manicures too?
You're being harsh, even for a species-ist... If the whales are paying taxes, I'm totally cool with this.
But seriously, folks...
TPM Barnett says Obama might become the first president in history to die under a flag with the same number of stars as that under which he was a born. It's about time we started bringing some new chatter into our little coffee klatch.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 31, 2011 7:59 AM
Under which he was born! Under which he done was a'bornin'.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 31, 2011 8:07 AM
How many times does Shamu have to kill or hurt someone before we realize that they're wild animals, not meant to be kept in captivity and made to do stupid tricks for our own amusement. They're called "killer whales" for a reason.
Patrick at October 31, 2011 8:47 AM
The most bvious solution is for an LA prosecutor to charge the whale with murder of not only the various triners who have died, but of seals as well.
Once found guilty the whales should be imprisoned somewhere where they can not eat seals and froced to work to contribute to their incareration.
The net result will be that they stay where they are
lujlp at October 31, 2011 9:09 AM
“Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant?? I’m halfway through my fish burger and I realize, Oh my God....I could be eating a slow learner.” - Lynda Montgomery
Conan the Grammarian at October 31, 2011 9:24 AM
This is reason #87 why no one takes PETA seriously and why they actually harm the cause they allegedly take so seriously.
Patrick wrote:
> How many times does Shamu have to kill or hurt someone before we realize that they're wild animals, not meant to be kept in captivity and made to do stupid tricks for our own amusement. They're called "killer whales" for a reason.
THERE is a sane, reasonable argument against the SeaWorld entertainment. You may not agree with it, you may consider the entertainment worth the risk, but you can't dismiss it as prima facie nonsense.
art.the.nerd at October 31, 2011 10:49 AM
Well, now...
PETA, in this case, are being the same nutjobs that they always are, and as usual, hurting the case they're trying to make. That goes without saying.
But if we're going to talk about people, then we have to decide what constitutes a person, and that's not - if we're willing to discard theological arguments and reflexive assumptions - as easy a question as all that, because the line between humans and some other species gets pretty damn fuzzy once you start digging into what we actually know or think we know about the nature of consciousness and thought.
So while I don't endorse the notion of handing out the exact same constitutional rights to even the smartest animals that we possess, I would go so far as to say that there is the kernel of a point in there, and it's well past time to revisit animal rights in a paradigm not based in theology and 19th-century assumptions.
(I expand on this more at some length here, for those interested:
http://www.siliconcerebrate.com/post/9442181742/animal-rights-libertarianism
Counterpoints welcomed!)
Alistair Young at October 31, 2011 4:47 PM
"TPM Barnett says Obama might become the first president in history to die under a flag with the same number of stars as that under which he was a born."
Gee. I didn't know Kenya had that many stars on its flag. (j/k)
"How many times does Shamu have to kill or hurt someone before we realize that they're wild animals, not meant to be kept in captivity and made to do stupid tricks for our own amusement."
Got a better way to teach the public about wildlife than zoos, aquaria and parks?
Radwaste at October 31, 2011 5:09 PM
"it's well past time to revisit animal rights in a paradigm not based in theology and 19th-century assumptions."
I'll revisit their rights when they start paying taxes.
Cousin Dave at October 31, 2011 5:39 PM
@Cousin Dave: By that standard, shall we also declare that we may arbitrarily dispose of all other non-taxpayers - foreigners, children, and low-income individuals alike?
Also, if you want them to pay taxes... well, I think you've got the necessary causality a little backwards.
Alistair Young at October 31, 2011 6:08 PM
Sometimes Amy suggests that we have a "loser pays" legal system. I don't think we should have that for cases where you have a reasonable case, and you lose only because the other side has a slightly more reasonable case. I do think we should have some sort of standard which establishes a level of ludicrousness which, if met by your case, would be reason for you to have to pay both sides legal fees, in addition to extra penalties and possibly corporal punishment. I now think that standard should be called "The PETA Standard," as in "that case was so frivolous it sounded like something PETA would file."
clinky at October 31, 2011 6:27 PM
I worked at Disney's animal park for a while,and 2 summers at the Austin Zoo (little, rescue animals, but great!) and knew people whow worked Sea Sorld Orlando. These trainers are living their lifelong dream. They know the animal can kill. They chose to do it anyway. They would be PISSED if you stopped allowing them to.
I think bigger tanks would be nice. But to say animals shouldn't live in captivity? Insane. Many of them simply have no place TO live in the wild any more. And when living in captivity, training and performing staves off boredom. It's not done cruelly. They sue the same methods I use on my dog-a loaded clicker (meaning, they learn when they hear the clicker, they're going to get a treat) and observing to click when they do a bahavior you like. I wish someone would toss me a treat when I unloaded the dishwasher!
momof4 at October 31, 2011 6:40 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/10/31/peta_just_gets.html#comment-2728074">comment from momof4I wish someone would toss me a treat when I unloaded the dishwasher!
Hah - love that!
Amy Alkon at October 31, 2011 7:12 PM
"By that standard, shall we also declare that we may arbitrarily dispose of all other non-taxpayers - foreigners, children, and low-income individuals alike?"
Don't play the intentionally obtuse game with me. I'm sick and goddam tired of people reading into my words here things that I very clearly did not say. Are you implying that "animal rights" is a concept that we should actually take seriously? Screw this. If I have to attach five paragraphs of lawyerese to every sentence to make it impossible for anyone to intentionally mis-read my words, then it's too much trouble. OK, I'm a Nazi who wants the Koch brothers to own the entire world and old women and children to starve. You happy now?
Cousin Dave at October 31, 2011 8:10 PM
Oh and by the way, Alistar, I read your blog post (which was about 25 paragraphs longer than it needed to be) and I find no difference between your position and PETA's, despite your statement here to the contrary. Do animals have human rights or don't they? If they do, which ones specifically? How are those rights to be enforced? How does a dog or a whale go about hiring a lawyer? What consideration can an animal grant in order to make a contract legal? If you believe in animal rights, you have to take these questions seriously. Otherwise, you really aren't in favor of animal rights; what you are in favor of is leftists being allowed to wrap themselves in the moral-righteousness mantle of cute animals.
Cousin Dave at October 31, 2011 8:23 PM
Why do I always attract the most astonishing idiots?
Firstly, old chap, my sum total knowledge of you is that you're a name on the Internet. I have no way of knowing that you're not a bloody nutjob, and that your nutjobbery is not, in fact, serious.
Particularly since there are plenty of people out there who do advocate linking the exercise of various rights to taxpayer status, citizenship, etc., etc. And since analogies with other examples of entities which are incapable of exercising certain rights - for example, children, non-citizens, etc. - are a common way of discussing the issue at hand.
Secondly, even taken as hyperbole, your statement was functionally meaning-free. If you wanted it to be treated with some respect, then you might have considered imbuing it with something that merited it.
In short: getting butthurt when someone calls you on uttering a statement of such Brobdingnagian cretinosity is only going to convince your interlocutor that you are actually as big an idiot as I'm now inclined to believe that you are.
As for the latter - and for the length, I do apologize if you find yourself offended by completeness of presentation, but those of us who take our arguments seriously find it quite important - read, perhaps, but comprehended, perhaps not. I can tell because of your lamentably speciocentric remarks on "human rights" as if the only option were to grant "human rights" to the non-human.
As I point out, sophoncy - to which the notion of rights is more properly attached - is a spectrum, beginning well below us and ending, potentially, well above us. As such, it should be fairly obvious - especially since the world already contains subsets of humans whose rights are constrained in various ways due to their limited capacities - that it would not be at all difficult to construct a schema of rights that applies to different species in accordance with their capacities.
Unless, therefore, you can show more than an outlier demonstrating that a given species can conceptualize contract, no-one's talking about giving animals the freedom of contract. On the other hand, it should present no particular challenge to conceive that those species conscious of their own lives and (consciously) desirous to preserve them should not be arbitrarily killed; that those conscious of suffering should not be subjected to arbitrary pain; that those which desire to exercise their volition and suffer mental distress when that is prevented should not be arbitrarily constrained beyond that point, and so forth. (Constructing an actual rights-schema along these lines would be complex; the notion of one is not.) As for enforcement, we already have social and legal systems in place to protect the rights of people who cannot (or do not) speak for themselves, and the specific adaptations are left as an exercise for the reader.
It does, admittedly, require the ability to think with some degree of sophistication and nuance.
As for the final allegation: Please. That some part of a proposal - or, hell, not even a proposal, in either my comment here or that post, just a suggestion that the issue might be worth revisiting and actual consideration by intelligent people, neither naive, unscientific species-bigots nor PETA - might resemble something some leftists suggest, if seen on a dark and stormy night, is no reason to recoil from it like a conditioned response straight into the posturing empathy-deficiency of an old-time vivisectionist warming up his audience.
(And if I, most of the way to full-blown anarchocapitalism, can tell that the scary idea isn't going to bite, no-one else gets to use that excuse.)
Sigh.
You're not a Nazi. You're just a meme-bot.
Alistair Young at October 31, 2011 9:58 PM
"As such, it should be fairly obvious - especially since the world already contains subsets of humans whose rights are constrained in various ways due to their limited capacities - that it would not be at all difficult to construct a schema of rights that applies to different species in accordance with their capacities."
Well, this is nuts. Rights accrue to those who can understand them and lobby for same. Those who labor on behalf of others in this vein are called guardians.
In short, there are no animal philanthropists; that's why we say there is a law of the jungle. And being confused about our own role, or perhaps heartfelt and deep guilt about something we cannot change about our own nature is not a reasoning basis for action.
Out in the real world, we are a tasty snack for an almost inconceivable number of critters. That some are embarrassed at our success as a species - demonstrated by behavior beyond simple acts of conservation - is psychotic.
Go ask the elephant if the crocodile has rights. Bring peanuts.
Radwaste at November 1, 2011 2:20 AM
Personally, I just wanted to congratulate Alistair Young on their ability to use a dictionary.
I do, however, have contention with the idea that those of us who don't believe animals should have rights are unscientific species-bigots. You see, I too can use a dictionary, and the definition of a bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Until you can demonstrate exactly what a particular species creed, belief, or opinion is, you have no reason to say that Cousin Dave, or any of us, is intolerant of it. Intolerant of your insistence that rights be given to animals, sure. But you aren't a different species than me.
Jazzhands at November 1, 2011 8:04 AM
@Radwaste: Ah, I don't think that's the usual view of rights. Natural/inalienable rights theorists (that would be me) consider them self-evident and universal, not contingent on laws, customs, beliefs, or whether you do - or even can - understand or assert them for yourself. (Examples being minor children, coma patients, the mentally disabled...) The guardians are necessary to invoke the rights on behalf of those who can't invoke them on their own behalf, but that doesn't mean that the rights don't exist until the guardians invoke them. (Indeed, they have to; you can't invoke something that doesn't exist.)
(Legal rights, meanwhile, are just whatever the local government, or at best, constitution says they are.)
As for the remainder of your point: this is an is-ought dichotomy. I don't feel particularly guilty (PETA might) about being a member of the Top Species, but being able to do a thing is not in and of itself justification to do said thing. Might does not make right.
Yes, we have the power to dispose of every species of lesser mentality on the planet essentially as we will. We also have the collective power to enslave or wipe out groups of our own species, and to individually rob, rape, and kill. What does that tell us about whether we should do so? Not a damn thing.
An animal that is incapable of high-order moral reasoning is one matter (although, contra your argument, low-order "philanthropy" is far from unknown in the animal kingdom, even cross-species - check the science, or hell, check the anecdotes); but we don't have that excuse in deciding what "we" should do. Or, to put it another way, to claim that it is moral for us to do it because animals do it to each other is the tu quoque fallacy.
@Jazzhands: Not everyone adherent to that particular belief necessarily is.
Nonetheless, I maintain the usage is accurate in many cases. A predominant use (although dictionary-inaccurate) of the term in English is exemplified by "racial bigot" or "gender bigot" - those intolerantly devoted to their view of their own kind's innate superiority.
The scientific evidence, with regard to humanity, is that our brains are merely more advanced versions of the exact same type of neural network that operates the lower animals. The difference is essentially quantitative, not qualitative. There is, so far as we can discover, no special organ of human-style consciousness, no Descartean essence of mind, no distinctive signifier of a human-unique immortal soul. We just have more synaptic interconnections.
To assert that there is such a unique if imperceptible property is, therefore, certainly unscientific. To base arguments on that claim, especially since such arguments have been used with respect to different human ethnicities and women in the past to justify various prejudices, is the essence of bigotry in that same sense.
I hope that clarifies my point.
Alistair Young at November 1, 2011 1:05 PM
"In short: getting butthurt when someone calls you on uttering a statement of such Brobdingnagian cretinosity is only going to convince your interlocutor that you are actually as big an idiot as I'm now inclined to believe that you are."
You specifically asked for criticisms. You got one. You responded to it with an ad homineum attack. Right out of the Alinsky playbook.
"Firstly, old chap, my sum total knowledge of you is that you're a name on the Internet. "
And that is my fault how? I've left hundreds of comments here. It only takes a few seconds to Google and read some of them. I think my philosophy as expressed here is fairly consistent. But, by your own admission, you feel entitled to "correct" people that you know absolutely nothing about and have made no effort to learn anything about. That's what the story is here, rather than anything to do with animal rights.
Cousin Dave at November 1, 2011 3:42 PM
Gee, Alistair - you're sure crediting the animal kingdom for a lot of wisdom it's not showing.
Want a lesson in meus et tuus? Dispute a junkyard dog. The defense of territory we can call a merely semantic difference from our defense of property, but word games we play don't interest, well, whales.
Here, I'll be clever: Don't anthropomorphize the animals. They hate that.
It's easiest to simply recognize that with great power comes great responsibility, and that this means conserve the flora and fauna, you WILL need them later.
But in all cases where "rights" are argued, the plain fact is that we argue over our OWN definition on behalf of those who cannot understand the argument. That makes us guardians, and in the topic's case, idiot ones as well, because there is no better way to reach millions of people about conservation efforts than to put the critters in front of them.
Radwaste at November 1, 2011 5:28 PM
Leave a comment