Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Do animals have a right to privacy?

  1. Apr 30, 2010 #1

    Do animals have a right to privacy? Do animals even understand the concept of being filmed?

    Does a dog care whether or not you are standing there when it poops?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 30, 2010 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Oy, what will they think of next? I would say that since the animals do all of these things out in the open, in front of other animals, that they are not too concerned about their privacy.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  4. Apr 30, 2010 #3
    Animals have no rights, as they are irresponsible (and it's not just a concept, it does apply quite concretely to our judiciary systems). We human citizens have legal rights, and are mostly responsible for our animals.
  5. Apr 30, 2010 #4
    Oh god, is this an extension to Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer?

    Needless to say, have you ever been at a family party with lots of dogs running around in the backyard?
  6. Apr 30, 2010 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not really surprised here: this is an inevitable component of an animal rights position. No less absurd than the more common components, but it follows the same logic.
  7. Apr 30, 2010 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  8. Apr 30, 2010 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

  9. Apr 30, 2010 #8
    I love the faux news report "a leading UK academic." Really? A leading academic?

    It reminds me of the Black hawk helicopter crash where they had pictures of an MH-53. I mean, honestly. Can't they even Google what a UH-60 looks like? Morons.
  10. Apr 30, 2010 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    As if that kind of reporting/wording is unique to Fox news? Please. :rolleyes:
  11. Apr 30, 2010 #10
    I never said it was. Reports can't get facts straight: it's quite sad. This article was from faux news, so I called them out on their bad reporting.
  12. May 2, 2010 #11
    A better question: do animals even CARE?! The last time my dog was licking himself, he didn't seem too perturbed that I was there. :grumpy:

    I love animals, but come on...
  13. May 2, 2010 #12
  14. May 2, 2010 #13
    you gotta be kidding

  15. May 2, 2010 #14
    Please tell me that this is an incredibly elaborate joke! :cry:

    P.S. Horses need regular exercise as part of their digestive process. Failure to do so KILLS them long before social isolation would! Anyway, people usually keep a goat or other horses together (hence, "getting one's goat") because it's practical and helps them flourish. As for cows, same thing, and who the hell keeps ONE cow in a country as wealthy as SWITZERLAND?! Budgies.... I understand a bit. Goldfish... now that's genuinely ****ed.
  16. May 2, 2010 #15
    I actually don't object to any of that. (BTW, Slalashsaska, the "social animal" part in that sentence appears to refer to the words 'pigs, budgies, goldfish and other social animals' and then the horses and cows rules are another instruction.)

    People frequently have animals in their homes and aren't aware of their needs. I wasn't aware that a goldfish was social. Just because it's a tiny creature doesn't mean we get to be cruel to it, even out of ignorance. So rules about how to take proper care of animals and making people take training to care for dogs is wonderful, I think.

    On the privacy front, however, that doesn't even enter into an animal's consciousness. People really ought to deal with real animal care concerns. There are certainly enough of those that we don't have to invent pretend ones.
  17. May 2, 2010 #16
    I was with them right up until the goldfish... which can be much larger than budgies. Generally speaking I'm not thrilled with keeping fish in a tank, or birds in a cage, but birds have shown novel and complex intelligence, whereas goldfish seem to be... well... nearly mindless. Pigs of course, make perfect sense as they are incredibly intelligent and social. I think there is a huge difference between reasonable pet ownership and care, and a "right to privacy" that as you say, isn't even a concept for these animals.

    Any animal that is so evolved to desire privacy should probably NOT be a pet; primates, birds of the Corvidae family, some Parrots, "big cats", and more.
  18. May 3, 2010 #17
    It looks to me that animals have rights we don't. For example a person would be arrested for pooping in public. We are required to either hide or build bathrooms, and we should force animals to do the same. :smile:
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  19. May 4, 2010 #18
    That's why I said "you gotta be kidding"

    Without a doubt animals are abused by humans. BUT is their alternative any better?

    Is it better for an animal to have predator's teeth sink effortlessly into its flesh or be locked up in a cage?

    The fact is any sort of animal rights are born out of a human compassion trait which has evolved for human advantage. Applying it now to animals is just another evolutionary dead end which can lead to slight increase in animal population.

    Do I have a compassion trait? Sure I do, that's why some of these laws are great, but within reason of course.
    Last edited: May 5, 2010
  20. May 5, 2010 #19

    Sure, within reason. But you know that goldfish (and I mean the kind that swim in circles in bowl all day long -- not the giant koi-pond sort) are social and it causes that creature discomfort (however it's defined in fish terms) for them to be alone, then get a second because, surely, two can't be any more trouble than one. And why keep a living creature in a state of "mental and/or emotional" (however that exists or translates into their world) pain or discomfort when the fix is so easy. And should you be allowed to treat creatures poorly for your own entertainment? I don't think so. And I don't think that the least of all creatures should be harmed simply because we can.

    That's all talking within the context of something that's meaningful for the creature, though. Privacy isn't meaningful for them.
  21. May 5, 2010 #20
    Nature is more formidable than anything conjured up humans. Consider a Dragon of Komodo will inject venom into an antelope which will take a month to slowly kill it. When the animal becomes weak the lizard goes in to devour it. Or in another example, a parasitic wasp will inject its eggs into a caterpillar which will grow and eat away its internal organs as they mature. When they hatch they pierce through the caterpillar's body to see the light of the sun for a first time. A new life is born.

    In a sense, most animals in their natural habitats have it much worst than under a human watch.

    Also, humans using animals for entertainment is just an emergent process of human evolution. There is no need for it, but it's just a secondary effect of something else. On the other hand it also conflicts with a trait to feel empathy toward another person, that's all.

    And what animal rights really try to do is to patch this conflict.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook