Michael Cook | Friday, 2 May 2008
Treat your goldfish well – or else!
Depriving a goldfish of fishy companions has become a crime in Switzerland.
Switzerland is well on its way to becoming the most dignified country in the world, after its federal parliament decreed that goldfish must be protected against physical and psychological abuse. From September 1, Swiss aquariums must have an opaque side to allow the fish live in a natural cycle of day and night.
The new law sets rigorous standards for the treatment of all "social animals". It will be an offence, for instance, to keep only one guinea pig or budgerigar. Or one rhinoceros, apparently, because the law also covers pet rhinoceroses.
The Swiss are amongst the best educated people in the world, but they are about to be educated even further. Prospective dog owners will have to pay for and complete a two-part course on the theory and practice of dog ownership. Anglers will also be required to take a course on handling fish with dignity.
The Swiss are pioneers in this field. In 1992 Switzerland was the first country in the world to begin to phase out battery hens. Since then the law has become even tougher. In 2006, for instance, a researcher was forbidden to give thirsty monkeys a drink of water because a reward mechanism to get them to carry out a task was deemed harmful to their dignity.
And if that is not absurd enough, it now seems possible that the ever-expanding boundaries of non-human dignity will include plants.
The Swiss Constitution requires respect for "the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms". The body in charge of interpreting this Delphic phrase, the Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology, has just released a discussion paper about the dignity of plants. In due course its astonishing conclusions could become law.
Amongst them is that "decapitation of wild flowers at the roadside without rational reason" is essentially a crime. In fact, the committee was unanimous in its agreement that any "arbitrary harm caused to plants[is] morally impermissible." Genetic modification of plants would be permitted -- but only if their "independence", including their reproductive ability, is ensured. This could mean, for instance, that producing sterile roses or seedless fruit would become an offence under Swiss law.
None of this is a joke. The world’s leading science journal, Nature, recently reported that Swiss biologists are worried. Funding for their work might get cut off if they offend the dignity of plants.
Switzerland’s passion for the dignity of all creatures great and small, however, rings hollow in view of its treatment of human beings. It is one of the few countries in the world where assisted suicide is legal. The best-known agency for DIY euthanasia, a Zurich-based group called – what else? – Dignitas, recently opened its thanatorium in the same building as Switzerland’s biggest legal brothel. Surely that violates one of the numerous provisions in the constitution guaranteeing human dignity. As it is now, there seems to be about as much bureaucracy involved in killing a Swiss goldfish as there is in killing a human being. (Special chemicals are required since flushing fish down the toilet has been deemed undignified.)
The poor, befuddled Swiss have clearly lost the plot on what dignity is and who is entitled to it.
But they are not alone. Around the world the concept of human dignity is in crisis. Influential government reports in country after country are now condescendingly placing scare quotes on either side of the phrase "human dignity".
Britain’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority last year complained that "it is difficult to gain a consensus on the definition of human dignity". And the Irish Council on Bioethics last month declared that "its exact meaning is elusive". The President’s Council on Bioethics in the US has just released a fat report which tries to clarify what it is. Although many of the contributors defend it, neuroscientist Patricia Churchland guts "human dignity" of all content. She contends, like many of her colleagues, that morality and free will are essentially illusory and that past defenders of "human dignity" have been self-righteous, totalitarian fanatics.
The trigger for this controversy is a widely-discussed paper written four years ago by an American bioethicist, Ruth Macklin, in the British Medical Journal. She stated bluntly that "dignity is a useless concept in medical ethics and can be eliminated without any loss of content."
Well, the Swiss folderol suggests we will all be very sorry when "human dignity" is eliminated. As the scope of human dignity in Switzerland has shrunk to the point that international death tourism there has become a boutique business, the scope of non-human dignity has expanded. This is to be expected. For years the radical fringe of animal rights activists has defended animals against violence by using violence against humans.
What is unexpected is that there seems to be no brake on the ever-expanding circle of dignity. You would think that it must stop somewhere above spiders and slugs. But the Swiss experience suggests otherwise. Once the DNA of human dignity has been tampered with, it keeps expanding by some crazy logic, unrestrained by common sense, until it includes plants, and even "other organisms". It is already burdening Swiss farmers with additional costs and hampering the work of Swiss scientists. Now it threatens to turn treading on wildflowers into a crime. And it might not stop there. What constitutes respect for the dignity of bacteria and viruses must send shivers through the Swiss pharmaceutical industry.
The Swiss need to recover the conviction that human beings deserve a special status because they are unique in the universe, the only beings with reason and free will. That is not only the wellspring of our dignity, but the source of our obligation to treat animals and plants with due care.
Otherwise they will end up conferring rights upon irrational beings who
cannot appreciate their dignity by stealing them from rational beings
who can.
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
RSS | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy | 
Comment (31)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
Comments (31)
Duty said...Surely this is a left over April fools joke - or else this is like Swiss Cheese. It’s full of holes and smells funny.
-- | Saturday, 3 May 2008 at 12:39 am
Maria Doll said...Mr. Cook’s final comment is very good. We cannot have rights without responsibilities which means the use of rational thought. As far as I am aware, human beings are the only creatures that have rational thought patterns, ie. I know I exist.
Those in the article who can so happily discard the human dignity of others would certainly cry “Foul” if the same was done to them. It’s all very well to pontificate from their ivory towers in their perfectly ordered world with cars, cell phones & the grocery store. But they would do well from an educational standpoint in going to areas of our sad world where people are not given the basic dignity to live their lives respectfully.
Canada | Saturday, 3 May 2008 at 12:59 am
Markus Frank said...It seems to me that the Swiss misconception of dignity is just the latest manifestation of the rampant misanthropism that drives much of the environmental movement.
Peter Singer’s cold utilitarian calculus that equates the happiness of animals with our own has for too long been a refuge for the decrepit thinking that prefers moral outrage and indignation to reason. I’m sorry, but unhappy chickens or hamsters just don’t register on my scale of concern while poverty, war and disease condemn millions of people to lives of misery.
Australia | Saturday, 3 May 2008 at 1:00 am
Benton Boggs said...Michael! Michael! Michael! Have you no foresight ? Just imagine the possibilities. As soon as I get done with this I’m writing a pilot for a TV series called “Benton Boggs--Goldfish Cop”, or maybe “CSI: Fishbowl” Tag line for latter: “Herman lay belly-up in Zurich, his roundish eyes fixed on a pescine infinity. It looked to the unpracticed eye like a normal fishy departure--but not to me, I’m a cop. I’m a fish cop” (Cascade of dramatic music--very hip but very profound as befitting the ahem dignity of the situation). I’m sorry. I’m just too choked up to go on.....BBB
United States | Saturday, 3 May 2008 at 3:05 am
George Herman said...Michael Cook has brilliantly provided incredible examples which
give a profound new meaning to “slippery slope.”
United States | Saturday, 3 May 2008 at 3:15 am
Obbop said...I, for one, eagerly anticipate the 50-mile-wide celestial object traveling at 15,000 miles-per-second to impact the planet and destroy the virus-like species of bi-pedal primates also known as humans.
The species is too ignorant while at the same time too intelligent to be allowed to continue.
United States | Saturday, 3 May 2008 at 12:20 pm
CLEMENTE said...What are-they eating ? I am afraid by the choice of aliments !
In our country we need pharmaceutical firms, that is for us a good situation....the only interest of the sad situation !
France | Saturday, 3 May 2008 at 11:12 pm
Mark Mason said...I don’t mind it. I think people need to respect the planet not just themselves. Although, the swiss are a little stuck in their own little world. not that it’s a bad thing though, if you ever go to Switzerland you’ll see their landscape is something special and it’s almost understandable why they might pass legislation like this. They’ve got everything figured out. Although, If i were going to point out something totally outrageous it would be the location of their power plants right on the border with France, the bile just floats down stream. Smart people :P
Australia | Sunday, 4 May 2008 at 1:06 pm
Mark Mason said......oh and my goldfish died the other day. i didn’t flush him i buried him. makes me feel so righteous after reading this.
And i replaced him with two others so that the existing one didn’t suffer loneliness or other psychological harm. I should just move to Switzerland.
-- | Sunday, 4 May 2008 at 1:09 pm
Mr Beezle said...@ Maria Doll
“As far as I am aware, human beings are the only creatures that have rational thought patterns, ie. I know I exist.”
By following your reasoning I guess you would say that animals don’t have rights. Or perhaps the just the ‘lower’ animals who are not self-aware don’t have rights.
What about babies or those in a permanent vegetative state - they are not (for babies ‘yet’) self-aware. Do these people not have rights also? I hope you would say yes they do.
So why not other sentient beings?
Holding human beings as ‘special’ is speciesist. Just like racism when it comes down to it.
Mr Beezle
Belgium | Monday, 5 May 2008 at 3:48 am
Ronk said...I’d like to think that this bizarre Swiss law, and MrBeezle’s even more bizarre comment, are just sick jokes. Tragically, I suspect both the Swiss legislators and Mr Beezle are deadly serious.
Mr Beezle, “sentient” has nothing to do with it. Human beings have rights because they are human beings. Animals do not have “rights”, that is a contradiction. Cruelty to animals is wrong because it offends the human dignity of the person committing the cruelty, not because of any imaginary “rights” of the animal.
I wonder what these brilliant legislators are going to do about all the Swiss cats who repeatedly and blatantly infringe the right to life of Swiss mice and rats and other furry “citizens”. Frequently inflincting horrific cruelty by half-killing the mouse and playing with it. Apparently in Switzerland the law really is an ass in both senses.
Australia | Monday, 5 May 2008 at 10:23 am
Group 104 Human Relations Class said...It is ok to respect animals but they are not definitely the same as human beings. We agree that animals and plants should be respected but saying that we are offending fish dignity for not having companionship is an exaggeration and it makes us worry about how some people are giving more importance to animal and plant dignity than to a person’s life.
Mexico | Monday, 5 May 2008 at 11:31 pm
Mr Beezle said...Ronk,
Sentience has everything to do with it. Animals are experiencing subjects of a life. They have a present, a past and a future to look forward to. If you take away their future, or inflict pain to them such that their present is causing them physical or mental harm, then you do *bad* to them, regardless if ‘human dignity ‘is compromised or not.
Animals have feelings and interests too, you know.
The comment you made is just like the comments made by die-hard fasciitis, racists, sexists etc. You’re effectively saying ‘look how different animals are to us, they don’t have rights - only our special group do’.
You said ‘[h]uman beings have rights because they are human beings.’ This is not a justification for why humans have rights and animals do not. Also, you should explain why animals don’t have rights rather than simply saying ‘that is a contradiction’. Why is it a contradiction? State your case rather than making baseless assertions.
One should treat animals with equal respect as we do with fellow humans - not because it makes humans feel good - but because the animal has a basic right to exist without unnecessary harm being inflicted upon them. Animals have rights in the same way new born babies or the mentally incapacitated have rights. The rights are held on their behalf, for their interests own. We have a duty to ensure that we uphold their rights on their behalf.
Mr Beezle
Belgium | Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 2:30 am
Duty said...And let us not forget the trees. They work hard for us - providing shade and producing oxygen, and how do we reward them?
We use the sharp metalic teeth of a saw. or links of a chain, and tear the trees limb from limb!
Trees have feelings too. Just watch them sway with every gentle breeze.
One should treat trees with equal respect as we do with fellow humans - not because it makes humans feel good - but because the trees have a basic right to exist without unnecessary harm being inflicted upon them. Their bark is nicer than their bite!
Why do we cut down trees?
Just so that we can have lumber, housing, paper ... civiliztion
Fish. Animals. Trees. Where will this madness stop?
Canada | Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 11:05 am
Duty said...Mr Beezle is right.
Animals have rights in the same way new born babies ...
Given the number of abortions, where we can no longer replace our numbers - animals should keep their heads down!
Governments will pass laws to protect goldfish. It is illegal to touch sea turtle eggs - but take action to protect our own flesh and blood ...
-- | Tuesday, 6 May 2008 at 11:12 am
Page 1 of 3 : 1 2 3 >
New comment