Animal Rights (Chile)

[Sy Borg]

Looking at how poorly food animals are treated in the west, and how much worse again they are treated in the east, by the time humanity as a whole comprehends animal ethics most species will already be gone.

Animal ethics, like the ethics around slavery, are very gradually filtering through populations, even the new generations of Chinese, who are increasingly aware of the extreme, psychopathic cruelty of their parents' generation, including their "beloved" leader. However, with economic pressure comes pressure to rationalise factory farms even more to bring down costs, at the expense of decency. As for the wild, numerous mammal and bird species are already endangered, and their prognosis is poor.

[value]

Looking at how poorly food animals are treated in the west, and how much worse again they are treated in the east, by the time humanity as a whole comprehends animal ethics most species will already be gone.

Animal ethics, like the ethics around slavery, are very gradually filtering through populations, even the new generations of Chinese, who are increasingly aware of the extreme, psychopathic cruelty of their parents' generation, including their "beloved" leader. However, with economic pressure comes pressure to rationalise factory farms even more to bring down costs, at the expense of decency. As for the wild, numerous mammal and bird species are already endangered, and their prognosis is poor.

Do you have a special affinity with animal ethics? If so, would it be possible to explain something about your history with regard animals?

Philosophy can incite and facilitate cultural change and in today's increasingly internet connected world, cultural change can be lightning fast, in my opinion. Animal ethics is in its infancy but it might have a profound effect on well-being of animals in the semi short term.

(2019) Animal Ethics: an important emerging topic for society
Another reason for scientists to engage with the philosophy of animal ethics is that it might help them confront topics that have been traditionally off-limits: in particular, the notion of animal minds. While minds are difficult enough to talk about in humans, this difficulty is exacerbated when it comes to non-human animals.

... animal minds and consciousness have been consigned to a “black box”, an entity too complex or confusing to delve into, but whose inputs and outputs become the object of study.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/anim ... and-ethics

The concept 'moral culture' is a cutting edge (recently 'discovered') topic in business science of 2022. It is only logical that that concept will ultimately be expanded to include of animals and the natural world.

Today's businesses are struggling to become 'good' companies. It is on top of the priorities but many companies fail. It is seen that the cutting edge of business science is discovering the power of a moral culture as a critical factor to succeed. Culture, like consciousness, is something that is never done, which explains its potential for achieving success when it concerns securing morality in business. When culture is set to serve morality, it becomes an intellectual capacity that can grow infinitely from the inside-out, with intellectual resilience and long term value for durable success as a result.

"The current fixation on moral purpose puts pressure on executives to be seen as running a “good” business. Defining your purpose (morality) as embedded in culture—as operating in a thoughtful, disciplined, ethical manner—can be both pragmatic and genuine. The full potential of purpose is achieved only when it’s aligned with a company’s value proposition and creates shared aspirations both internally and externally."
https://hbr.org/2022/03/what-is-the-pur ... ur-purpose

When a moral culture is set in motion, like a domino effect, it will promote moral behaviour fundamentally.

Therefore, despite the history, humanity's potential for care for animals seems evident in my opinion, which also shows from the following quote of philosopher Henry David Thoreau:

"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual moral improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."

For example, animal cruelty is not supported by one of the primary philosophies in China, Confucianism:

Philosopher Mencius, the next great Confucian theorist after Confucius, said that by no means were human beings exempt from treating animals with respect and regard. It is certainly a good thing to treat animals with kindness, and, like Confucius, Mencius would likely have looked down upon a blatant recklessness toward animals and would have regarded the wanton, indiscriminate taking of nonhuman life as senseless.

Confucianism is the primary philosophy in China and as it appears from this quote, philosopher Confucius (the paragon of Chinese sages) would have disapproved of animal cruelty.

A moral culture + philosophy can be a key for progress in my opinion.

Rights of Nature could provide a foundation to facilitate a moral culture for animals and nature (within legal cases moral arguments will be sought so it essentially incites moral philosophical exploration for nature).

[Pattern-chaser]

For example, animal cruelty is not supported by one of the primary philosophies in China, Confucianism

I'm fairly sure that animal cruelty is not supported by Buddhism either, or Taoism. In fact, I can think of no such philosophy that teaches anything specific about animal 'rights'. But perhaps I'm mistaken. It doesn't matter. Our topic here is not about animal cruelty, as such, it's about animal rights.

[value]

For example, animal cruelty is not supported by one of the primary philosophies in China, Confucianism

I'm fairly sure that animal cruelty is not supported by Buddhism either, or Taoism. In fact, I can think of no such philosophy that teaches anything specific about animal 'rights'. But perhaps I'm mistaken. It doesn't matter. Our topic here is not about animal cruelty, as such, it's about animal rights.

Do you have an affinity with China or Eastern philosophy?

With regard Animal Rights being related to Animal Ethics. When it comes down to making a case, the available 'quality' in Animal Ethics is what might make a difference in outcomes.

When it is considered that Animal Ethics is in its infancy, that might be an issue of importance.

The following article provides evidence of lacking moral reasoning capacity in the practice of Rights of Nature:

(2022) ‘Rights of nature’ Is a Faux Rights Revolution Entangled in Anthropocentrism
The inability to move beyond anthropocentrism, even while granting legal personality to nature, is essentially because the concept of rights is people-centric. Rights were fundamentally developed to protect the dignity of individual human beings. There are inherent limitations to extending this framework to non-human entities.

This is why granting rights to nature presents us with a new set of problems. Balancing the rights of nature with competing human rights may see nature’s interests take the back seat. So the focus should instead be on inculcating a respect for ecology instead of farming out rights in the traditional sense to the natural world.
https://science.thewire.in/environment/ ... ocentrism/

[Sy Borg]

Looking at how poorly food animals are treated in the west, and how much worse again they are treated in the east, by the time humanity as a whole comprehends animal ethics most species will already be gone.

Animal ethics, like the ethics around slavery, are very gradually filtering through populations, even the new generations of Chinese, who are increasingly aware of the extreme, psychopathic cruelty of their parents' generation, including their "beloved" leader. However, with economic pressure comes pressure to rationalise factory farms even more to bring down costs, at the expense of decency. As for the wild, numerous mammal and bird species are already endangered, and their prognosis is poor.

Do you have a special affinity with animal ethics? If so, would it be possible to explain something about your history with regard animals?

No, I just love animals and it breaks my heart to see them being wiped out

For example, animal cruelty is not supported by one of the primary philosophies in 🇨🇳 China, Confucianism:

Do you have some special affinity with China?

It does not matter what people are supposed to believe, or seem to believe. The proof is in the actual and, when it comes to animals (and people), China is arguably the most cruel nation in the world, happily bullying the weak in grotesque ways, with zero consideration for what they feel, often harming them just for "fun".

Eating the brains of living, drugged monkeys. Skinning reptiles alive. 10 million dogs and 4 million cats killed for food, crushed into small cages. The west's treatment of pigs is a disgrace, but China does it to pigs,. bogs, cats, pangolins, bats etc.

The next generation of Chinese appear to be more humane, but that cannot undo prior evils or bring back extinct animals. Anthropocentrists are getting their wish - an almost entirely human world, free of "dirty, dangerous animals". The world is turning into a sterile oversized ER ward for humans.

[Pattern-chaser]

Do you have an affinity with China or Eastern philosophy?

I have always been attracted to the Eastern 'religions', so different from our Western ones, as they respect one another. Taoists might quote from Buddhist scriptures, or vice versa. I found this non-adversarial approach to be refreshing, and admirable too. I have no special connection to China, except that I have a friend there, who I met when I was working. She lives and works in Shenzhen.

[Sculptor1]

Hola hi hello

Here in Chile, they are drafting a new constitution. Within it, contains various hot-topic clauses.

For example: Animals now have the same rights as humans in terms of "Human Rights."

"Human Rights" is hotly-debated as to the definition, and now even more so with the loosely defined, "Animal Rights." No one really seems to know what any of this even remotely means, it just looks good and sounds good on paper. But to what it is / how to enforce, I am still waiting for that answer...

So, I suppose a question to start would be: Should animals have equal to or more rights than humans?

jdb

I assume this is just red meat for the gammons here.
Animals are not been given human rights in Chile or anywhere else.

[Sy Borg]

Summary: Ley 20.380 is the is the Chilean Animal Protection Statute. It recognizes animals as living beings and establishes the norms for the “recognition, protection and respect of animals” in order to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. This law punishes animal cruelty with imprisonment of up to 3 years.

https://www.animallaw.info/statute/chil ... ct-spanish

As you said, Sculptor, other species don't have human rights, just a few rights.

[Sculptor1]

Summary: Ley 20.380 is the is the Chilean Animal Protection Statute. It recognizes animals as living beings and establishes the norms for the “recognition, protection and respect of animals” in order to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. This law punishes animal cruelty with imprisonment of up to 3 years.

https://www.animallaw.info/statute/chil ... ct-spanish

As you said, Sculptor, other species don't have human rights, just a few rights.

Indeed and Chile is not remarkable in this respect sharing much the same rules as most other countries.

[value]

No, I just love animals and it breaks my heart to see them being wiped out

For example, animal cruelty is not supported by one of the primary philosophies in China, Confucianism:

Do you have some special affinity with China?

No, but I am interested to learn about Eastern philosophy.

The following topic might be of interest. It is for the most part unattended.

Universal values
THE ORIENTAL UNIVERSAL VALUES DERIVED FROM CHINESE CIVILIZATION HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A CHALLENGE TO THE WESTERN UNIVERSAL VALUES
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14969

It does not matter what people are supposed to believe, or seem to believe. The proof is in the actual and, when it comes to animals (and people), China is arguably the most cruel nation in the world, happily bullying the weak in grotesque ways, with zero consideration for what they feel, often harming them just for "fun".

Eating the brains of living, drugged monkeys. Skinning reptiles alive. 10 million dogs and 4 million cats killed for food, crushed into small cages. The west's treatment of pigs is a disgrace, but China does it to pigs,. bogs, cats, pangolins, bats etc.

The next generation of Chinese appear to be more humane, but that cannot undo prior evils or bring back extinct animals. Anthropocentrists are getting their wish - an almost entirely human world, free of "dirty, dangerous animals". The world is turning into a sterile oversized ER ward for humans.

The cited topic intends to argue quite the opposite. I would be interested to learn your reply in the cited topic

[Sy Borg]

The cited topic intends to argue quite the opposite. I would be interested to learn your reply in the cited topic :wink:

It struck me as propaganda, motherhood statements of ideals and values that are not only not adhered to in practice, but completely flouted.

[Sculptor1]

The cited topic intends to argue quite the opposite. I would be interested to learn your reply in the cited topic

The evidence of widespread casual animal cruelty in China and Japan is a more powerful argument than some citation.

[Pattern-chaser]

The evidence of widespread casual animal cruelty in China and Japan is a more powerful argument than some citation.

Indeed. But I'm not sure it's a simple as it seems. We see the evidence, and we conclude that Oriental people are just cruel (a very negative judgement). But I wonder if this is more about culture, and that Oriental cultural perspectives show a really big difference from those typically practiced by Occidentals? I do not seek to excuse anything, only to wonder if we're seeing the whole picture when we leap so easily to a knee-jerk condemnatory position?

[Sculptor1]

The evidence of widespread casual animal cruelty in China and Japan is a more powerful argument than some citation.

Indeed. But I'm not sure it's a simple as it seems. We see the evidence, and we conclude that Oriental people are just cruel (a very negative judgement). But I wonder if this is more about culture, and that Oriental cultural perspectives show a really big difference from those typically practiced by Occidentals? I do not seek to excuse anything, only to wonder if we're seeing the whole picture when we leap so easily to a knee-jerk condemnatory position?

IT does not mean that oriental people are more cruel in a genetic sense. But it just happens to be true that they do not see animals in the same way, presumably this is wholly a cultural phenomenon. What we would call a poor attitude can also be found amongst the Greeks too, who are presumably more genetically similar to dog loving Brits than a Japanese where they kill 100s of dogs everyday.
This underlines the cultural determinism of moral rules and rights.

[GE Morton]

Here's an interesting incident related to this topic: A court in San Antonio, Texas, sentenced a man to 25 years in prison for beating his dog:

https://reason.com/2022/08/10/a-25-year ... t-justice/

What is an appropriate legal deterrent to animal cruelty?

The dog, BTW, fully recovered from his injuries and has been re-homed.