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
    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: Apr 25, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 30, 2010 #2

    Evo

    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

    russ_watters

    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

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  8. Apr 30, 2010 #7

    Kerrie

    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

    russ_watters

    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.
     
  22. May 5, 2010 #21
    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.
     
  23. May 5, 2010 #22

    Matterwave

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If animals cared for privacy, like if they actually ran off to a private area to go poop or hav 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.
     
  24. May 5, 2010 #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:!!)
     
  25. May 5, 2010 #24
    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.

    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: May 5, 2010
  26. May 7, 2010 #25

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
    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: May 7, 2010
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook