Comment (34)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggTreat your goldfish well – or else!
Depriving a goldfish of fishy companions has become a crime in Switzerland.
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.
You SHOULD give your goldfish a companion.
Sure! How about a turtle, or perhaps a piranha.
I could not agree any more with this post. You SHOULD give your goldfish a companion. They’d be so lonely if you didn’t!
What idiots! They are damn fish. And gold fish at that- good grief IDIOTS all.
“It is interesting to note that with rare exceptions there is no tradition of vegetarianism or ethical eating within Christianity.”
Well… veggie ... Christ took Bread and wine in His hands.
Next you will tell us how bad He was for eating pulverized wheat drinking crushed grapes.
Free the grapes!
Meanwhile I quite like the understanding of the non-humans communicated in this website.
1. http://animalliberty.com
It is interesting to note that with rare exceptions there is no tradition of vegetarianism or ethical eating within Christianity.
And yes wide-sacle industrial “farming” involves systematic brutalisation of the animals subjected to it, and, more importantly, to the human beings that participate in the system.
“Can the being suffer?”
This is a bad yardstick! You can not measure ‘rights’ by this
To take a wild example, if suffering is the central issue, one could argue that murder could be justified - as long as death was quick, immediate and without suffering! Ridiculous!
The issue is not suffering but the human right to life - not death without suffering! Do not accept a lower standard.
Man has a right to life - from conception to natural death - and sometimes a little suffering can be redemptive.
and by the way fish have no such rights!
I’m afraid that Mr Beezle equivocates when conferring rights to animals. The charge of ‘specieism’ can only be levelled after equivocation of human and animal life. Briefly; taking responsibility for a baby or person with special needs is in no way similar to the responsibility we have to prevent needless suffering in an animal. We kill a badly injured animal to stop it from suffering. We do not (yet) kill badly injured or disabled people, although some, like Peter Singer, would like us to do so.
If ‘specieism’ is at all a valid concept, it follows that a lion killing an antelope is being specieist. Therefore, lions should become vegetarians.
The idea of ‘rights’, like all ‘ideas’ is the result of the ability to reason, which is, as far as we can tell, unique to human beings. To assert that animals have ‘rights’ in the same way that people have rights is an example of equivocation. Call me specieist, but I’d not hesitate to kill the last breeding pair of any animal on earth in order to save the life of a human being. Animals might indeed have feelings, a past and a future, but this doesn’t make them sentient in the same way that a person is sentient. Ronk is quite correct to call ‘animal rights’ a contradiction. We cannot bestow rights on animals. The ability to reason might lead us towards recognition of responsibility towards animals and nature, but also makes us unique among species regarding rights.
One more point. When asking if animals matter and if they have interests or not we normally ask the following sorts of questions: Are they aware? Do they reason? Do they remember?
These questions are irrelevant.
The most important question, when considering the interests of any being, is this: Can the being suffer?
Simple as that.
Let me get something straight here. I’m concerned for *all* living beings that are experiencing subjects of a life. If a being has the capacity for suffering then the being will also have the desire to avoid suffering. The being, be it human or animal, should have its ‘interests’ protected – such as the avoidance of suffering.
We, as fully mature and rational beings who are capable of making own decisions and usually aware of the consequences, can protect our own interests. But we also have a duty to protect the interests of those who are not yet, or ever will be, capable of protecting their own interests. We have a duty to babies and the incapacitated to ensure their rights are upheld - I know you all would agree to this.
So, when I say that animals have rights I mean it in the same way that babies and the intellectually incapable have rights. We have a duty to uphold the rights of animals - especially given that we, the human species, control a vast amount of the environment that we all share.
Of course, I don’t mean rights in the sense of ‘the right to vote’ or the ‘right to privacy’ etc. I mean rights in the sense of a right not to be exploited or mistreated. Simply, it is the extension of the principle of equality beyond the species barrier. In the same way we extended that principle of equality beyond the race barrier, the sexes, and so on.
Also, I’m not saying that human interests should be downgraded to that of the animals. I’m suggesting that animal’s interests are raised to the same level (or a close as possible) to that of humans. That is, we treat animals humanly – we should respect their interests and protect them when we can.
Of course, we all value human life more than we do the life of animals - in the same way that we value a family member more than we would do a stranger. Everything is a sliding scale and we start with those who are the most important to us as individuals and as a society.
I am reminded of a passage by GK Chesterton:
‘And Mr. Mick not only became a vegetarian, but at length declared vegetarianism doomed (”shedding,” as he called it finely, “the green blood of the silent animals”), and predicted that men in a better age would live on nothing but salt. And then came the pamphlet from Oregon (where the thing was tried), the pamphlet called “Why should Salt suffer?” and there was more trouble.’
Great post Duty, thanks for the laughs.
And Mr Beezle, were you really serious in suggesting that there is no difference between us and other animal species? Of course we all have rights. But which species is actually going to respect them?
Goldfish have a memory span of a few seconds. How on earth could they develop feelings?
Of course animals have rights - the right to not be subjected to cruelty and mistreatment. Mistreatment of animals by humans is of course disordered, and none of the comments above advocated cruelty at all. They, and the article were merely drawing attention to the nonsense of a law that would legislate that failure to provide an animal with a companion is criminally cruel. Would you say that a public housing officer is committing a crime for providing hosuing for an individual, and not providing them a companion at the same time? Or is it criminally cruel to put a prisoner in a cell without a companion. You are drawing a very long bow to compare a pragmatic reasonable attitude with respect to the place of animals in society with racism and facism. We all know the shocking crimes that have stemmed from facism, racism etc and to even compare the rights of a fish with them, is an insult to the memory of those who suffered from the terribly tragedies that stemmed from facism and racist ideologies.
Your suggestion that the right of animals is on par with the rights of new born babies or intellectually disabled people is completely misguided and offensive, and a view that most rational people in society will just not tolerate.
With respect to the Swiss government - it seems that the patients have taken over the asylum. This is a great tragedy for the people of Switzerland.
Gerald
Melbourne, Victoria
I cannot agree more to what Michael Cook said in his last statement.
I used to believe that our dignity only diminishes when we do not respect animals. Now I am made to believe that our dignity diminishes even more when we suffer the costs of the crazy rules that we make.
Duty, please look up the definition of “fallacy”. You seem to think I am arguing against your position rather than for it.
I have to agree with Ronk. “non-human things have “rights””
As I carefully examine them, they all have a right side, and a left!
Cows have a right to be my supper, and I’ll give you what’s ever left.
The logic is faulty. To say that we CAN’T treat “humans just like animals?” implies, in your own statement, that there is a difference between animals and people - or else, to follow your point to its logical conclusion, WE SHOULD TREAT PEOPLE JUST LIKE ANIMALS.
Since you agree that there is a difference, then it must follow that it is justified to treat animals just like animals and NOT just like people.
Seriously, and without getting too religious, Ronk The Bible did give us dominion over non human things - but NEVER people, Also, our abuse of people was not limited to the last century. We still kill our children.
There is a difference.
Animals,plants, nature, the whole of creation is for Man. God made man in order to subdue the earth. Hence the ‘rights’ that animals and plants have is to exist for the good of man.
Page 1 of 3 : 1 2 3 >