Animal Intelligence, do they deserve better from us?

[The Magic Pudding]

I think animals deserve better treatment from us, but then I think we deserve better treatment from each other.
Do Theists excuse themselves from paying animals respect?  I think a lot of them do.
There is a reluctance from many humans to recognise animal intelligence, birds it turns out aren't so bird brained as we believed.
Personally I don't mind animals being given person-hood status.

Join Natasha Mitchell with leading cetacean scientists and an ethicist for a tour of a waterborne 'alien intelligence

Thomas White: Personhood should be distinguished from simply what it is to be a human being. Among philosophers personhood is a concept that we use as a way of trying to keep species bias out of the mix. To be a person is to be a being of a certain sort with a very sophisticated inner life. Among philosophers the standard criteria are not simply awareness of the world but self-awareness, the ability to control one's behaviour and have a sense of uniqueness and individuality, personality, emotions, recognising other personsâ€"and what is most favoured among humans, a very wide range of higher intellectual abilities. To be a person is to be a who, not a what, to be a being of uniqueness, not a commodity, not property. And to be a person is then to be, no matter what your species, to have the kind of consciousness that is normal among humans.

And that the becomes important to me in this whole enquiry because what I've then done is to look at the scientific literature in the last 20/30 years and see that studies of everything from captive dolphins to wild dolphins...we then see virtually all of these abilities reflected in the scientific literature. And not just a kind of superficial literature but a very deep literature that suggests that dolphins have those cognitive abilities and hence should be regarded as non-human persons.

MP3 download  http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/ ... 101225.mp3
Streaming audio  http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/pl ... 202010&p=1
Transcript  http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/s ... transcript

[Whitney]

I think a lot of us already do this with animals that we keep as pets so it shouldn't be too foreign of a concept for most people to think of non-humans as persons (once some thought is given to the matter).

It's probably important to note that human babies don't fit the criteria for personhood till later on in their development yet we still incorporate them into our moral framework.

[Stevil]

I actually don't like how we treat dogs, horses and birds, even as pets.
Dogs are locked up all day and when they are allowed out they are held tightly on a leash.
Horses have a saddle put on them, a dirty cold hard bit shoved between the teeth which gets yanked on according to the direction the rider wants to go and then they are frequently kicked in the ribs.

I can't stand the sight of birds in cages, so sad. Birds should be free to soar the skies.

Cats on the other hand are free animals apart from the castration part. Other than that, they come and go as they choose and are treated rather well.

[Whitney]

I don't think it's wrong to put animals on leashes if it's for their own safety...young human children aren't smart enough to not run into the street so they are restrained by hand holding (sometimes leashes too) most dogs aren't smart enough to run into the street so they are restrained as well.

My cats want to go outside, they aren't allowed for their own safety...they will get attacked by loose dogs, stray cats, caught by the pound (outdoor cats are illegal in most areas), or run over by a car; since they aren't able to understand these dangers I decide for them.

I don't think anyone could make an argument for extending personhood to cats or dogs on the basis of their brain function; as cute as they may be and as much as we want to think they understand us when we talk to them...they simply don't have a high degree of self awareness.  They are no more self aware than a small human toddler and the only reason young humans get personhood is because we emotionally extend that status to them.

[LegendarySandwich]

Dogs are locked up all day and when they are allowed out they are held tightly on a leash.

In exchange for this, they get food, safety, love, comfort, etc.

Horses have a saddle put on them, a dirty cold hard bit shoved between the teeth which gets yanked on according to the direction the rider wants to go and then they are frequently kicked in the ribs.

Eh, can't really argue here, although they do get food and safety (and possibly love).

I can't stand the sight of birds in cages, so sad. Birds should be free to soar the skies.

Again, I can't say much here, although I think it's false to assume that freedom means happiness when it comes to happiness.

Cats on the other hand are free animals apart from the castration part. Other than that, they come and go as they choose and are treated rather well.

They are castrated for their (and others') own good.

[Stevil]

Dogs are locked up all day and when they are allowed out they are held tightly on a leash.

In exchange for this, they get food, safety, love, comfort, etc.

Same can be said for slaves.
Anyway, this is my opinion on how I treat animals. I won' expect others to think the same as me here.

[Whitney]

Dogs are locked up all day and when they are allowed out they are held tightly on a leash.

In exchange for this, they get food, safety, love, comfort, etc.

Same can be said for slaves.
Anyway, this is my opinion on how I treat animals. I won' expect others to think the same as me here.

I don't think it's fair to make a blanket comparison between pets and slaves.  Not only does it unnecessarily bring an emotional wording into the discussion but it's not even an accurate comparison...humane pet owners, unlike slave owners, don't beat their pets, they don't force their pets to work under harsh conditions until they are about to die etc.

Since this is in the philosophy section, please don't post opinions unless you want to discuss and support them. Thanks.

[LegendarySandwich]

Dogs are locked up all day and when they are allowed out they are held tightly on a leash.

In exchange for this, they get food, safety, love, comfort, etc.

Same can be said for slaves.
Anyway, this is my opinion on how I treat animals. I won' expect others to think the same as me here.

To compare keeping dogs as pets to keeping slaves is deeply ridiculous, and, in my opinion, rather insulting (not to myself, but to others...at least, I would presume).

[Stevil]

Dogs in the wild are much different creatures. In captivity they are used for working on the farm or for human entertainment. If they were given the freedoms of cats I wouldn't have an issue. They are very social creatures, I feel it is cruel to lock them up all day in anticipation of the owner coming home from work.
I just looked up teh word "slave" on dictionary.com seems it applies only to people, so I appologise, I thought the term could also apply to animals. Shame we don't have a term that defines animals that have lost their freedoms (maybe simply captivity). I personally don't think taking away an animal's freedom is a display of love.

... but this is how we treat the animals we love, it gets much, much worse for the other animals. People are disgusting with regards to how we treat animals. I don't think it really matters how intelligent they are.  BTW I don't have a problem with people eating animals, just how they are treated.

[Wilson]

Most of us who have pets treat them kindly and with affection, and in many cases we treat them better than other people.  As long as you give your pets a good life, there's nothing to be ashamed of.  With regard to animals raised for food and such, they should also be treated kindly, and their deaths should be as quick and painless as possible.  That's about it, as far as I'm concerned.  We should treat people kindly, and animals kindly.  But if you believe, as I do, that morality is not absolute, we need to be aware that not everybody is going to agree on this subject.  For instance, I see dogs and cats as little people in there, and I have empathy for most animals - but many other people don't.

[LegendarySandwich]

But they are slaves, dogs in the wild are much different creatures. In captivity they are slaves for working on the farm or for human entertainment. If they were given the freedoms of cats I wouldn't have an issue. They are very social creatures, I feel it is cruel to lock them up all day in anticipation of the owner coming home from work.

... but this is how we treat the animals we love, it gets much, much worse for the other animals. People are disgusting with regards to how we treat animals. I don't think it really matters how intelligent they are.  BTW I don't have a problem with people eating animals, just how they are treated.

While dogs and other animals are technically "property", so they could be defined as slaves, we don't make them work for us. In many cases, they are treated as members of the family, and given love and attention.

I agree with how we treat non-pet animals, though. Although I do think intelligence matters. I think how self-aware and sentient they are, their capacity for pain and suffering, etc. determine what we can do to them. You wouldn't have any objection to somebody squashing a fly, wouldn't you? Why not?

Most of us who have pets treat them kindly and with affection, and in many cases we treat them better than other people. As long as you give your pets a good life, there's nothing to be ashamed of. With regard to animals raised for food and such, they should also be treated kindly, and their deaths should be as quick and painless as possible. That's about it, as far as I'm concerned. We should treat people kindly, and animals kindly. But if you believe, as I do, that morality is not absolute, we need to be aware that not everybody is going to agree on this subject. For instance, I see dogs and cats as little people in there, and I have empathy for most animals - but many other people don't.

^This

EDIT:

I just looked up teh word "slave" on dictionary.com seems it applies only to people, so I appologise, I thought the term could also apply to animals. Shame we don't have a term that defines animals that have lost their freedoms (maybe simply captivity). I personally don't think taking away an animal's freedom is a display of love.

I have no problem with modifying the term "slave" so that it also can apply to animals, though I don't think it works in regards to most pets.

Concerning freedom of animals: what does freedom have to do with anything? Animals don't care if they're free.

[Stevil]

You wouldn't have any objection to somebody squashing a fly, wouldn't you? Why not?

Actually, this probably shows that I am too sensitive but, I do cringe when I spay insects with flyspray and notice a day later that it is still squirming on the ground.

[LegendarySandwich]

You wouldn't have any objection to somebody squashing a fly, wouldn't you? Why not?

Actually, this probably shows that I am too sensitive but, I do cringe when I spay insects with flyspray and notice a day later that it is still squirming on the ground.

I don't. There's no good reason to. They're bugs. They have literally no value or significance. I realize that I sound really...cynical (is that the right word?) right now, but it's true.

[Heretical Rants]

I don´t kill anything unless it´s going to hurt someone or I want to eat it.

Insects included.  
The way you're talking about it rather unsettles me, actually. No animal, including humans, has any real ultimate significance, so should I just go on a murderous rampage? ...and what's this about animals not caring about freedom?

"cynical" is not the right word, by the way.

[LegendarySandwich]

I don´t kill anything unless it´s going to hurt someone or I want to eat it.

Good policy.

Insects included.

I kill insects that annoy me.

The way you're talking about it rather unsettles me, actually. No animal, including humans, has any real ultimate significance, so should I just go on a murderous rampage?

You're right. Nothing has significance unless we give it significance. And to me, insects have little to none significance or value.

...and what's this about animals not caring about freedom?

Why would they?

"cynical" is not the right word, by the way.

What would be the right word?