Do animals have a right to privacy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MotoH
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Animals
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of whether animals have a right to privacy, particularly in the context of being filmed for wildlife documentaries. Participants explore the implications of this idea, questioning the understanding animals may have of being observed and the relevance of privacy in their lives.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that animals do not seem to care about being filmed, suggesting that their behavior in public spaces indicates a lack of concern for privacy.
  • Others challenge the notion of animal rights, stating that animals are irresponsible and therefore do not possess rights similar to humans.
  • A few participants reference animal welfare legislation in Switzerland, discussing the implications of such laws on animal care and rights.
  • Some express skepticism about the seriousness of the privacy argument, viewing it as an extension of broader animal rights discussions that they find absurd.
  • There are claims that the concept of privacy does not enter into an animal's consciousness, emphasizing the need to focus on real animal care issues instead.
  • Participants also discuss the intelligence and social needs of various animals, questioning the appropriateness of certain pets and their care requirements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the issue. Multiple competing views remain regarding the concept of animal privacy and the broader implications of animal rights.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion over the definitions and implications of animal rights and privacy, indicating a lack of clarity in the discussion. There are also references to specific animal welfare laws that may not be universally understood.

MotoH
Messages
53
Reaction score
2
Animals filmed for television wildlife documentary series are denied their right to privacy, a leading U.K. academic claimed in a report that emerged Friday.

Dr. Brett Mills of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, southeastern England, analyzed the behind-the-scenes footage of the BBC documentary series "Nature's Great Events."
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...nied-wildlife-documentaries/?test=latestnews"

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:
Physics news on Phys.org
MotoH said:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...nied-wildlife-documentaries/?test=latestnews"

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?
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:
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.
 
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?
 
Evo said:
Oy, what will they think of next?
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.
 
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.
 
Cyrus said:
I love the faux news report "a leading UK academic." Really? A leading academic?

...Morons.
As if that kind of reporting/wording is unique to Fox news? Please. :rolleyes:
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
As if that kind of reporting/wording is unique to Fox news? Please. :rolleyes:

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.
 
  • #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.

I love animals, but come on...
 
  • #13
rootX said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8554012.stm

you got to be kidding

Switzerland already has some of the strictest animal welfare legislation in the world.

Pigs, budgies, goldfish and other social animals cannot be kept alone; horses and cows must have regular exercise outside in summer and winter; and dog owners have to take training courses to learn how to care for their pets.
 
  • #14
what said:
you got to be kidding

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.
 
  • #15
what said:
Switzerland already has some of the strictest animal welfare legislation in the world.

Pigs, budgies, goldfish and other social animals cannot be kept alone; horses and cows must have regular exercise outside in summer and winter; and dog owners have to take training courses to learn how to care for their pets.

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.
 
  • #16
GeorginaS said:
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.

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.
 
  • #17
MotoH said:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...nied-wildlife-documentaries/?test=latestnews"

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?
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:
  • #18
Shalashaska said:
Please tell me that this is an incredibly elaborate joke! :cry:

Budgies... I understand a bit. Goldfish... now that's genuinely ****ed.

That's why I said "you got to be kidding"

GeorginaS said:
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.
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:
  • #19
what said:
That's why I said "you got to 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.


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.
 
  • #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 into 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.
 
  • #21
what said:
In a sense, most animals in their natural habitats have it much worst than under a human watch.

Oh, cummon. I get the point about humans bridging their own empathetic sensibilities to extend towards animals, and I don't see why we shouldn't. But lines like that one is like saying, "What are you complaining about? I only beat you senseless twice a week. You should be grateful! It could be daily!"

Just because situations can be worse doesn't excuse already bad ones.
 
  • #22
If animals cared for privacy, like if they actually ran off to a private area to go poop or have sex, then the case could be made to respect that...however, animals really don't seem to care at all about who or what is watching them (other than predators). Since the animals do all these acts in public anyways, I don't see how their "right to privacy" could be violated.
 
  • #23
Oddly, I did have a dog who was very private about her bathroom habits. She just would not "go" if someone was watching. I ended up sectioning off a area with lattice for her comfort.

She also would turn her head, if she was walking down the hall and someone was in the bathroom, and the door was open. She never drank from the toilet either.

Now my new fur friend Strider, seems to show off his bathroom habits. He makes direct eye contact, barking if I am not looking. Look Mom, I'm making this poop for you:!)
 
  • #24
hypatia said:
Oddly, I did have a dog who was very private about her bathroom habits. She just would not "go" if someone was watching. I ended up sectioning off a area with lattice for her comfort.

All modern day dogs are descendant from cunning grey wolves that would pounce on a human without the slightest hesitation. Gradually over time some of these less aggressive wolves began to stick around human tribes a few thousand years ago, and a sort of unintentional selective breeding took place which produced wolves that are more likely to stick with humans. And compounding this process for generations produced the variety of dogs that exist today, and most of which love to snuggle, roll over for a treat, or retrieve a stick.

GeorginaS said:
What are you complaining about? I only beat you senseless twice a week. You should be grateful! It could be daily!

If it wasn't for us humans there wouldn't be any domesticated animals. :cool:Also, treating animals in horrible ways is detrimental to our society as it reflects how we treat each other.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Cyrus said:
I love the faux news report "a leading UK academic." Really? A leading academic?
...
Morons.
I'm not sure if it's just simply lazy moronism or deliberate agendaism.

Either way ... if one asked what field within animal science or ethics/philosophy Dr Brett Michaels is "a leading UK academic" in, one might run into this info from his webpage on the University's site (this took about 15 seconds to Google up and find):

http://www.uea.ac.uk/ftv/People/Academic/Brett+Mills
Brett Michaels said:
Research interests - popular television forms, in particular comedy; especially interested in the sitcom, both historically and institutionally, as well as its national and international inflections. Other interests are the relationships between media/culture and identity, especially related to nation, region, and class.

And what is the appropriate moderating action to be taken with a thread when the OP is shown to be based upon a strawman and a false appeal to authority?

Edit: Not accusing the OP of setting up the fallacies - referring to the cited article in the OP.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
MotoH said:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010...nied-wildlife-documentaries/?test=latestnews"

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?

I don't quite agree with the so called "study" by the academic. However, I do think in certain cases the presence of excess photographers and filming crews might be a hindrance for predators like lions, cheetahs etc. because their hunting strategy often relies on ambush. The presence of too many photographers/tourists around frightens their prey even before they can close in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Im an alien from the planet Xenophobia. What does "right" mean? It seems to be some fundamental law of physics. Or is it something like purple sound?
 
  • #28
Al68 said:
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:

A dog will often be "arrested" just for enjoying a pleasant stroll by him/herself through the neighborhood.

I walk my dog off leash a lot and people flip.
 
  • #29
Well, we honestly can't say we know what animals feel or are thinking but they probably don't mind because in the wild/nature, they don't exactly have privacy either so they're probably pretty used to being out in the open about everything. Gosh, I'd be annoyed though!
 
  • #30
Phrak said:
Im an alien from the planet Xenophobia. What does "right" mean? It seems to be some fundamental law of physics. Or is it something like purple sound?
If used to mean entitlement, it's an obligation owed to someone by another party due to an agreement, or contract. For example, according to my wireless contract, I have an entitlement to a $50 Walmart gift card after 90 days of service.

If used to mean natural rights, they're derived from those those powers we are endowed with naturally, such as blinking, for example. The "right to blink" isn't the result of a human contract, it's the result of nature, or "God-given" if you prefer. Not quite a "fundamental law of physics", but based on natural law.

If you are capable of traveling all the way from Xenophobia, I'm sure you can understand the concept of a contract, and of the fact that intelligent beings are naturally endowed with certain physical powers.

And you should be at a significant advantage, since you haven't been exposed to the confusing modern habit of many humans to use the words "right" and "entitlement" interchangeably, and to "bait and switch" between those two concepts to confuse and manipulate people.