"But at least based on present knowledge, an ant cannot possibly make such a showing. Happy is not a human, and an ant is not an elephant... [Happy] is extremely cognitively complex and comes from a highly social, empathetic species of wild animals. Those qualities of elephants make them unique in the animal kingdom, meaning the answer to the question for earthworms, domesticated pets, service animals and many animals subject to medical research, would be entirely different."
Writes Judge Rowan D. Wilson, dissenting, in In the Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project v. Breheny (New York Court of Appeals).
Here's the NYT article about the case: "Happy the Elephant Isn’t Legally a Person, Top New York Court Rules/An animal advocacy group had argued that the elephant was being illegally detained at the Bronx Zoo, in a case involving deep ethical questions about the basic rights of highly intelligent animals."
A question asked at oral argument of the lawyer representing the Nonhuman Rights Project: "Does that mean I couldn’t keep a dog?"
Posts
75 comments:
Get back to me when a wolf gets convicted of murder for eating a sheep.
Here in California, bees are classified as fish.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/04/california-court-rules-bees-are-now-fish/
Joe is a man., See RAH.,
To say that animals have rights is not necessarily to say that animals have human rights. We (nearly) all accept some level of cruelty laws; that means we (nearly) all accept that animals have some rights. But these rights are (and should be) decided by the public. That is, it's a political question, not a judicial question. The court decided correctly not to interfere.
I disagree with the common premise that being "cognitively complex", or conscious, or sentient is a basis for claiming Rights. For one thing such a definition would lead to obvious paradoxes with regards to certain humans who by reason of disability do not qualify.
It seems to me that you can make two arguments for why humans have Rights, neither of which can apply to non-humans. (1) Rights are a consequence of an implicit social contract that humans have entered into with one another. As non-humans are not party to this social contract, they do not have rights. (2) Rights are a metaphysical property of humans who have been "endowed by their Creator" with such Rights. As non-humans have not been so endowed, indeed western religions hold that non-humans do not even have souls, therefore they do not have rights.
Need I ask if Judge Rowan D. Wilson would consider a human child in utero to legally be a person with rights?
Note that Larry Tribe and Peter Singer are both listed as amici.
Happy: "But a bumblebee can be a fish? WTF? You judges are clowns."
Remember that Peter Singer is that odious Princeton professor who has stated that infants are not persons, that people with life-long cognitive disabilities never become persons at any time in their lives, and that people who acquire cognitive disabilities through injury, Alzheimer's Disease, or other means cease to be persons. Meaning that it is OK to kill them.
A horse is a horse, of course, of course
And no one can talk to a horse, of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.
Habeas that mofo Mr. Ed or he'll give you an earful.
and last week a Federal in California foun that a bee was a fish for purposes of more restricting environ rules.
The US could establish a National Park for non-native wildlife, and have zoo-rescues become free range herds. I suggest the plains of southeast Texas for the location. We already have a lot of exotic wildlife kept as semi-domesticated ranch animals, from ostriches to camels to antelope of all types. This could work as sort of an expanded version of the animal park outside San Antonio, where you drive through the park and feed alfalfa pellets to the zebra from your car.
And when dinosaurs are genetically re-engineered, hey, fun!
Animals are, at best, p-zombies. I sometimes wonder if it would better to argue from our empathy, rather than from the animal's alleged humanity. We empathize with the animal, so we owe it to ourselves to treat it humanely. Otherwise, the animal is still an animal, but we make monsters of ourselves.
these commies just want the power to tell everyone else how to live and what they can and can't do so they claim to speak on behalf of the animals and the trees and the rocks and the air we breathe. They should have no standing and courts should tell these power-hungry lunatics to fuck off and not come back.
When dissenting, expect some poetry. I don’t remember if I heard this before, that SCOTUS dissents make better reading.
So I just read, or at least power-skimmed, the California court case providing that a bee is a fish. Much as I enjoy the outrage of the day, I have to admit it's at least a close call. Not whether a bee is in fact a fish, but rather whether within a complicated statutory scheme, the legislature's inclusion of "invertebrates" in a definition of "fish" was meant to be limited to aquatic invertebrates (jellyfish, for example) or was broader. Sorry to disappoint.
A stronger case could have been made for Babar and Celeste ...
I detest zoos. If I were king of the world there would be no zoos. Only wild animal parks where people had to be in cages to view the roaming animals.
These are questions best settled by the people, not lawyers and judges. No controversial issue is ever truly settled by judges.
"[Happy] is extremely cognitively complex and comes from a highly social, empathetic species of wild animals. Those qualities of elephants make them unique in the animal kingdom...."
Not unique at all. Many animals of the sea, land, and sky are social and empathetic, (to varying degrees, of course). Herd animals have these traits as they are necessary for the herd to hold together, cooperate, raise their young, and survive in the wild. Even rats are cognitively complex and empathetic.
" ... in a case involving deep ethical questions about the basic rights of highly intelligent animals."
The intellectual chasm between "highly intelligent [non-human] animals", such as elephants, and humans is ... vast. So vast as to be immeasurable ... even using logarithms, powers of ten and space-time continuums.
Well, I 'm no biologist, but..
...if the come from a highly empathetic species then they certainly are not people.
It would seem to me a good line of questions for oral argument would be:
You assert that Happy is being held against Happy's will. Yet your argument is not based on some knowledge of Happy's actual wishes or desires. Instead, it is generalized argument about Happy's level of cognition and emotions. So, how do you know that Happy is being held against his will? On what basis do you assume the right to assert what you believe Happy does or does not consent to? Aren't you in the same position as the zookeeper with regard to deny Happy agency?
These animal nuts never ever bring up the fact that humans have souls and the lower classes of animals don't.
Elephants have rights. Same as fetuses!
No better time to have this discussion, while an AI seems within our grasp.
To my mind they seem related.
The courts treating the poor elephatant like a January Sixer insurrectionist.
Jordan Peterson says lobsters need equilateral Rights because they are altruistic. This was empathetically covered in David Foster Wallace book Consider the Lobster
"These animal nuts never ever bring up the fact that humans have souls and the lower classes of animals don't."
Who says humans do, or that animals don't...have souls?
Talk of gods and souls are simply our own means to try to understand (and thus control, to a degree) natural phenomena we could not once explain, as well as a projection of our own ego, wishes, and fears onto a natural world barren of spiritual beings.
The animals of the field, forest, sea and sky have as much right to their lives as do humans; we are "superior" to them only in intellectual capability and achievement, but in no other manner. We have been on the planet for but a fraction of its existence, and we will probably disappear from the planet many eons before its destruction when the sun expands and swallows up the inner planets of our solar system. We will have had but our brief time on the stage of life. Dinosaurs were the predominant land animals on earth for millions of years. I seriously doubt humans will remain extant on this planet for as long.
You mean when I got reincarnated after dying as a tortoise my soul was added from storage from when I had walked the earth as Napoleon? (Or a Napoleon)
Who knew Asian elephants were so like humans that they develop violent dislikes of one another and have to be kept separated for their own good?
What of the Great Writ in NY if ET gets left behind on a UFO foraging voyage and is captured?
Humans have been trying to answer the big questions for all of our 300,000 years of existence. That is what separates us from the other animals. It's a form of metacognition, thinking about thinking. Chimps don't wonder where they go when they die. Elephants don't ponder the purpose of existence.
Why do we meta cognate? What advantage did it provide us? How did it evolve?
What and where are we? Are we spirits driving otherwise biological bodies? Where does the spirit reside? Where does the spirit come from? What happens to it when the physical body dies? Humans are obsessed with these questions, your dog doesn't give a shit.
Is metacognition controlling over the development of the common law? The majority and minority agree that higher animals can be deserving of special protections. The majority says pass laws aimed at higher animals. The minority says apply common law protections already at hand.
"Chimps don't wonder where they go when they die. Elephants don't ponder the purpose of existence."
How do we know this is true? Some animals other than humans may have some form of consciousness of themselves as distinct beings, and they may have some form of metacognition. How would we know what they know (or don't)?
How would we know what they know (or don't)?
300,000 years of observation.
Bottom story of the day from the Telegraph:
An elephant trampled a woman to death in India, only to return during her funeral to pull her body off a pyre and trample over her corpse again.
Ed Whelen
From NRO’s Bench Memos
Elephants and Habeas Corpus (no habeas trunkus)
'...In her straightforward majority opinion, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore holds that the common law writ of habeas corpus is a remedy available only to human beings. Happy is not a human being, and thus “while no one disputes that elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion,” habeas corpus relief can not be sought on Happy’s behalf.
In an interesting but discursive and unpersuasive 70-page dissent, Judge Rowan D. Wilson roams over a lot of terrain. Wilson acknowledges that Happy is not a human being (or a person). But in his view the writ of habeas corpus is available to Happy if Happy’s detention is “unjust”...'
'...In a second dissent, Judge Jenny Rivera broadly agrees with Wilson and opines that the “human/nonhuman binary relied upon by the majority” is unsound: “I conclude that history, logic, justice, and our humanity must lead us to recognize that if humans without full rights and responsibilities under the law may invoke the writ to challenge an unjust denial of freedom, so too may any other autonomous being, regardless of species.”
Those who discern a general inverse relationship between elite education and good judgment won’t be surprised to learn that Wilson is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School and that Rivera (who clerked for then-district judge Sonia Sotomayor three decades ago) has degrees from Princeton, NYU law school, and Columbia law school.
By contrast, DiFiore graduated from C.W. Post College and St. John’s law school.'
Happy is definitely more intelligent than Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.
Ants may or may not have consciousness, but it is my understanding that they do have high hopes.
There is some speculation that plants may have consciousness. So, if a rubber tree plant were moved it might be aware it was being moved.
"300,000 years of observation."
For most of that time, and for most humans even today, the observation produced only the conclusion that animals were "dumb beasts" lacking in feeling, emotions, or any other "higher" mental capabilities.
If one stares at something without thinking outside of one's own assumptions, one will learn nothing, even if he stares for eternity. Such is the nature of most human beings.
Recent studies do suggest at least some animals may or seem to have some degree of meta-cognition.
"An elephant trampled a woman to death in India, only to return during her funeral to pull her body off a pyre and trample over her corpse again."
I saw that. That elephant knew the particular person who had pissed him off in some manner, and he (she?) was determined to get pay back!
Here's a different view point of elephants!!
Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...
I detest zoos. If I were king of the world there would be no zoos. Only wild animal parks where people had to be in cages to view the roaming animals.
**************
So...you love animals, but despise humans.
Got it.
'...In a second dissent, Judge Jenny Rivera broadly agrees with Wilson and opines that the “human/nonhuman binary relied upon by the majority” is unsound: “I conclude that history, logic, justice, and our humanity must lead us to recognize that if humans without full rights and responsibilities under the law may invoke the writ to challenge an unjust denial of freedom, so too may any other autonomous being, regardless of species.”
But Happy is not challenging his unjust denial of freedom. Some animal rights idiot is bringing action on Happy's behalf without actually being able to determine what the elephant thinks of the situation. When the elephant learns to communicate directly with humans, maybe it can bring a claim in court. The fact is that all the claims about non-human rights fail because they all rely on a self-appointed human claiming the right to act on their behalf.
"An elephant trampled a woman to death in India, only to return during her funeral to pull her body off a pyre and trample over her corpse again."
I saw that. That elephant knew the particular person who had pissed him off in some manner, and he (she?) was determined to get pay back!
I guess that means that congressional Democrats are at least as smart as elephants.
An ant is not gay, is but a fetus, waiting to evolve. Happy, too. Not viable. Next!
That elephant knew the particular person who had pissed him off in some manner, and he (she?) was determined to get pay back!
So does my cat. That doesn't mean he's ready to major in philosophy.
"So does my cat. That doesn't mean he's ready to major in philosophy."
Neither are most humans.
This is not a matter for the courts to decide. It is for the legislature.
Just as determining if bees are fish.
No rights without responsibilities.
Ants vs elephants is a David v Goliath story.
When Happy can file his own writ, pro se, then he would be eligible for it. Next question.
>>Joe is a man. See RAH.
That was one of my first thoughts. Though, shamefully, I was thinking Asimov rather than Heinlein, the greatest SF writer of all time.
--gpm
This garners stupidity.
Heinlein was my go to SF author (I so much want to write Sci-Fi, but I know that's wrong speak) in the mid- to late 60s and through the 70s. I half-remember a reference semi-praising Heinlein about 40 years ago, probably in an "alternative" Boston newspaper (Boston After Dark or The Real Paper), as having introduced sex, politics, and religion into SF, except that the sex was kinky (pretty indisputable), the politics were wrong (debatable), and I forget what the religion was supposed to be.
--gpm
Tim Maguire writes, "We (nearly) all accept some level of cruelty laws; that means we (nearly) all accept that animals have some rights."
Ordinances and statutes regarding animal cruelty do not extend rights to animals, they restrict human behavior, they do not broaden, or restrain animal behavior. If the pit bull next door mauls your cat, an act of cruelty if assessed in human terms, there's no modern law with which to sanction the dog. (Though in Medieval Europe such laws did exist.) The human owner could be found liable in a civil action filed by you, the cat's owner (not the cat), or he might be prosecuted under public nuisance ordinances.
Why a dissent and not a separate concurring opinion? If the judge wanted to riff on the value of elephant lives it could have been done in a concurring opinion. An elephant isn't a person, and if for some reason "the government" is going to decide an elephant is a person or has the rights of a person it is a matter for the legislature not a judge. The left was correct to worry about personhood bills in states to regulate abortion. How can this judge not understand the dangers of people in black robes getting to decide which rights now attach to the various quasi-modos?
That elephant knew the particular person who had pissed him off in some manner, and he (she?) was determined to get payback!
Assuming that is true (how could the true intentions of an animal ever be determined?) does anyone but a psycho think an elephant is legally entitled to revenge?
Serious question.
How does this bit of sophistry make it into a court room? Under what jurisdiction is the judge claiming his power?
"This garners stupidity."
And in a performative way.
that means we (nearly) all accept that animals have some rights.
No, it means people are barred from some actions.
I can grab a live steer, by his ankle with a heavy chain, hoist him up, and let him dangle, alive, until I use a very sharp blade to slice his throat and watch all of his life drain from his body.
Sounds cruel to me.
tcrosse said...
Bottom story of the day from the Telegraph:
An elephant trampled a woman to death in India, only to return during her funeral to pull her body off a pyre and trample over her corpse again.
Bad divorce?
But Happy is not challenging his unjust denial of freedom. Some animal rights idiot is bringing action on Happy's behalf without actually being able to determine what the elephant thinks of the situation. When the elephant learns to communicate directly with humans, maybe it can bring a claim in court. The fact is that all the claims about non-human rights fail because they all rely on a self-appointed human claiming the right to act on their behalf.
Obviously, bring Happy into the courtroom, along with activist and Happys' owner. Turn 'er loose and see which one she chooses.
"I can grab a live steer, by his ankle with a heavy chain, hoist him up, and let him dangle, alive, until I use a very sharp blade to slice his throat and watch all of his life drain from his body.
"Sounds cruel to me."
It's more cruel to the steer.
The animal advocates want the judge to prove a negative. This is similar to the train of thought followed by the Pro-Choice. In the former, the truth is in an axiom with rights. In the latter, the truth is in a stream of sophistry with rites.
If animals have human rights, then they get human punishments. Not sure what life imprisonment for a dog that mauled the neighbor's cat would look like, but I think it would be unfortunate for all involved.
Someone really has to put a dividing line in here, and I think that will be the point at which the whole edifice falls. Elephants and chimps, OK. Ants, probably not. Deer? Dolphins? Aren't we biasing things towards large and/or cuddly beasts? So far as I have seen, all the animals for whom rights are alleged are big, cute, cuddly.
What if someday scientists are able to dive deeply into animal consciousness and learn that the animals we eat, especially the ruminants like cows, sheep and deer, have much higher levels of consciousness than we give them credit for.
Will future generations then shun them as a food, and will vegans in the future condemn today's omnivores as genocidal monsters??
Robert Cook said...
"I can grab a live steer, by his ankle with a heavy chain, hoist him up, and let him dangle, alive, until I use a very sharp blade to slice his throat and watch all of his life drain from his body.
"Sounds cruel to me."
It's more cruel to the steer.
***********
Reminds me of a story about self-centeredness:
Two Bedouin are at an oasis deep in the Sahara. The next one is tens of miles away.
In order to proceed on their journey they need their camels to drink their fill.
One camel stubbornly refuses, and spits at the men when they try to use force.
One Bedouin says, "I've an idea. You hold the camel's head in the water, and I will take these two large stones here and smack him hard on his balls. He'll gasp, and then he'll drink"
The other says, "But won't that hurt??"
"Oh no, not if you keep your thumbs out of the way."
What if someday scientists are able to dive deeply into animal consciousness and learn that the animals we eat, especially the ruminants like cows, sheep and deer, have much higher levels of consciousness than we give them credit for.
Will future generations then shun them as a food, and will vegans in the future condemn today's omnivores as genocidal monsters??
Will they prosecute wolves for murder? How about my cat for torture? He loves to play with his food.
LOL. Q. @ 6:20 I must be a psycho.
Revenge!
The first case I had to argue as a young associate was in small claims court; Yuri the dog had killed Buffy the cat. Buffy's owners were seeking damages for the wrongful death of Buffy. I argued that Buffy was a chattel under the law, and that damages for wrongful death were only available to humans.
I won the case (damages were the $25 paid to the Humane Society for Buffy, plus the cost of shots, etc,, but not annual check-ups; no emotional or consortium damages). But not without enduring a considerable amount of mixed amusement and opprobrium on the part of the special master and the assembled crowd in the courtroom.
Post a Comment