Orangutan granted "non-human person" rights status

Kevin

Code Monkey
Staff member
141222-sandra-orangutan-hg-1714_99bf60d85964a0260af80f8662f94897.nbcnews-ux-720-480.jpg


It was only a matter of time till something like this was to happen, I just wasn't sure that it would happen in my lifetime. An orangutan in captivity has been granted non-human person rights status by Argentina.

By granting Sandra, the 29 year-old orangutan, rights, the Argentinian courts have decreed that the animal has basic rights such as life, freedom and a premise of "no harm" either physically or psychologically. This allows her to be freed from the life of captivity at the Beunos Aires Zoo that she was born into and to be transferred to an animal sanctuary. The zoo has a period of two weeks to appeal the ruling.

Similar cases in the US have either been dismissed or decided against the petitioners trying to release animals such as chimpanzees and orca whales.

Captive Orangutan Has Human Right to Freedom, Argentine Court Rules

Thoughts?
 
If you consider that any 'right' is something that must be granted by a human it is just stupid. Nature gives nothing rights. Not even the right to live - it is a concept made by mankind to control the actions of men. The issue shouldn't be that a creature needs rights, the issue should be who gave mankind the right to capture, imprison and enslave another life form? Mankind's delusions of grandure shall be its downfall.
 
If you consider that any 'right' is something that must be granted by a human it is just stupid. Nature gives nothing rights. Not even the right to live - it is a concept made by mankind to control the actions of men. The issue shouldn't be that a creature needs rights, the issue should be who gave mankind the right to capture, imprison and enslave another life form? Mankind's delusions of grandure shall be its downfall.
It's a sentiment that I mostly agree with. I say mostly because while I enjoy a good bacon-cheeseburger I also find it deplorable that in the US pets and other animals are considered property and the penalty for animal cruelty is often the same as if it was an act of vandalism.
 
I say mostly because while I enjoy a good bacon-cheeseburger
Animals for food is a natural act. It is common all over the animal and plant kingdoms and has nothing to do with rights. Our intelligence has allowed us to harvest food at incredible rates compared with other species. Should the cow have rights? We give it the right to die to nourish our bodies.
I also find it deplorable that in the US pets and other animals are considered property and the penalty for animal cruelty is often the same as if it was an act of vandalism.
In the natural world life is not cherished nor despised. It just is. Ownership is a concept created by mankind to give power and control. Power and control is also a concept that was created by mankind. Dogs chose to be near mankind because it was to their advantage as well as cats. Mankind corrupted that relationship and now forces companionship. Mankind forced control over the animals they call pets. If left to their own devices they would freely roam and hunt and kill like any animal. Another concept mankind created is responsibility. It is mans responsibility to care for those they enslave. The animals do not need rights - Mankind needs to step up to their responsibilities.
 
Animals for food is a natural act. It is common all over the animal and plant kingdoms and has nothing to do with rights. Our intelligence has allowed us to harvest food at incredible rates compared with other species. Should the cow have rights? We give it the right to die to nourish our bodies.
Who gets to decide though which animals are only worthy of being used as food stock and which animals should deserve to be treated as intelligent creatures? Recent studies have shown that a range of animals, such as dogs, pigs, dolphins & porpoises, whales, and, yes, many of our simian DNA cousins, have the same intelligence & emotional range as a human child would.
In the natural world life is not cherished nor despised. It just is. Ownership is a concept created by mankind to give power and control. Power and control is also a concept that was created by mankind. Dogs chose to be near mankind because it was to their advantage as well as cats. Mankind corrupted that relationship and now forces companionship. Mankind forced control over the animals they call pets. If left to their own devices they would freely roam and hunt and kill like any animal. Another concept mankind created is responsibility. It is mans responsibility to care for those they enslave. The animals do not need rights - Mankind needs to step up to their responsibilities.
Whether the animals are companions or not really isn't the point I was making in the part you quoted but rather how some "civilized" societies treat animals as an inanimate object instead of a living creature. Whether a person mistreats a wild roaming dog or a persons pet, the penalty that person receives shouldn't be on the same level as if the person broke a park bench.
 
I think that as we develop better ways of perceiving the world around us we will find that there are many animals that have intelligence. Humans are predators and we eat meat (Carnivore) {Actually, Omnivore}. We decide what is food and what is not. As we become more aware of other species intelligence we may find it immoral to eat meat as a society but our nature will still crave the meat and the hunt. I read an article long ago that touted that it was our abundance of meat and the proteins it gives us that allowed our brains to develop as they did. We got really good at hunting so we ate more protein and thus became smarter. Now we know that proteins can come from plant sources as well so by substituting plant for animal proteins we can survive without eating meat. But do we Want to?

From what I get from the article is that Humans are granting the Orangutan Rights. It doesn't know it has been granted Rights. It may never know. It only knows what it encounters. So are the Rights the orangutan's Rights or human Rights? Seems to me it is only happening to justify human action.

As for how animals are treated by humans, It is all on the human laws and morality that govern us that determines if animals are treated like living creatures or not. Whether it be a pet, a wild animal or a creature bred for experimentation the animal has no knowledge of the right to anything. It just lives.
It is up to us as the dominate intelligent species to be moral or not. Do we respect life or not? We like to think we do but in some countries even human life is not worth a dime. Should our laws be changed to protect all life? Perhaps. Do rights have any bearing on how animals are treated? Yes but only from the human perspective. Is life fundamentally sacred? I don't think so. It is only fundamentally sacred to the humans that have the morality to make it so. Nature doesn't care if you live or die. In fact, Nature, if given the chance will kill you dead.
Our ability to empathize with other living things makes us act counter-naturally.

Is it right to force your pet dog to eat dry dog food and be chained to a small box? Does the dog know? We habitually change the natural order of life to fit our personal desires.

the penalty that person receives shouldn't be on the same level as if the person broke a park bench.
Agreed. If I recall correctly I have seen some penalties that are fitting of the atrocity. Missouri has beefed up their laws concerning puppy farms. What is defunct is the fact that there is not a force that polices the animal welfare like we have for child welfare. Most people just don't care. It takes Money (Human Concept), Manpower and Dedication to the Cause to affect the changes that are needed to sanctify all life. I don't think it is an animal rights thing but a morality thing.

If we ever begin to understand animal intent and they begin to communicate their intent to us there might be a reason to grant them rights. But if we ever learn how to communicate with plants things will get really complicated really fast. Will humans respect a right that is desired by an animal? There are plenty of SciFi stories that depict intelligent animals that can communicate with us. If something like that were presented to us could we honor the requests they might make concerning what they have the right to do? If a tiger requested the right to hunt and kill would we allow it? If a cow requested the right to graze free-range and not to be killed and eaten would we grant it? What about a tree that wants to live to its ripe old age instead of being razed for lumber. Then there is the microscopic world of viruses and bacteria.

It all smacks as delusions of grandeur on the part of the humans. Our intelligence and the ability to have concepts and morality cause us to act unnaturally. This is my issue with the depiction of alien life in scifi. We tend to grant our rights, morals and senses to the aliens that may not behave unnaturally. We define the concept of intelligence based on the things we hold dear. We think that for an alien species able to break the distance barrier to come see us that they MUST hold the sanctity of life, freedom and expansion as a fundamental concept. Other scifi flips the coin and portrays alien species of domination, resource hogs and war as their fundamental concepts. Good and bad it is all based on human concepts created by the human mind.

This is also probably the case with other species on our own planet. We THINK they think like we do. We put them in our little box of knowledge and call it a turd and go about our lives.

Since I am ranting I must add one more thing about Rights that really gets my goat. The USA constantly gives our American rights to foreigners. Rights that our servicemen die to protect. Whether it be a terrorist, Someone visiting on a VISA or an illegal immigrant you can bet they will get the rights that are supposed to be only for US citizens. If those rights are denied there is public outcry. I served my country and every time I see someone getting the rights that I protected it is a smack in my face. The American public has become pussified. End Rant.
 
Back
Top