Animals have 'right to privacy'

[Meta menardi]

If the experimenter is doing their job, we should not find it easy to see their goal.

[wizzo]

Having given this some thought, I'm undecided as what actually gives any of us a 'right' to privacy. Surely if rights are handed out on ones ability to comprehend or understand the concept of rights, then, as somene pointed out in an earlier post, babies or young children have no rights and neither (as many people believe) do people with severe learning difficulties. It's a dangerous thing, to assume that 'rights' should be based on intellect, intelligence or understanding. It's an argument that child abusers have been using for ever. Just my opinion of course - Wizzo

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by wizzo

It's a dangerous thing, to assume that 'rights' should be based on intellect, intelligence or understanding. It's an argument that child abusers have been using for ever. Just my opinion of course - Wizzo

as i said above the perceived right of babies , those who dont otherwise comprehend, and indeed animals is in fact not a right for them but a responsibility for others.

in the case of animals they dont have a right not to be treated cruely, but we have a responsiblity not to do so - the responsibility doesnt extend to animal to animal interactions as anyone who has seen a cat playing with a mouse can surely testify ... and therefore the "right" is inherent only in our relationship with them and thus appends to us, not to the animal.

[wizzo]

I still don't see the difference in what a cat does to a bird or mouse, anymore than I can, when a kid from a deprived background and doesn't know any better, tortures or inflicts pain on an animal. We all have the basic right to a pain/trauma free existance, even the mouse I guess. What we get may differ from that. Doesn't make it right though. I don't see why we constantly have the percieved opinion that we are above all other creatures on the planet, and that we are entitled to things that our co-inhabitants aren't. I guess that's taking the thread into the realms of religeon though - whoops! As i said earlier, I'm not so daft as to think that animals really worry about their privacy, but neither do lots of people who can't make that call for themselves.

[thunder]

Originally Posted by wizzo

IWe all have the basic right to a pain/trauma free existance, even the mouse I guess. What we get may differ from that. Doesn't make it right though.

So who do I sue when I get some painful disease, or when my house falls down on me during a massive earthquake? The truth is none of has any 'rights' to anything, but most humans have responsibilities, which is more or less what Eeyore has said, I think.

henrya

[wizzo]

Yep Thunder. I kind of think that's what I'm saying. We can't really expect rights that others don't. Maybe none of us have any rights - whatever 'rights' mean. Complex innit

[spillergent]

i think a animal has the right not to be desturebed but when i end up been taken to court by a animal i have invade its privacey then i will take this seriosley untill then i will keep take photos

[acherontia]

A very interesting thread.

As said - any wildlife photographer worth his salt will always desist when he feels the intrusion is impacting on the animal's welfare. He/she'd get a bad name if he/she didn't - it's Rule No 1.

Another subject that this man, or anyone here, has not broached is the motivation behind the recording.
If you see film of a starving Mother and child this is not taken for kicks and cheap entertainment - it is taken to increase our awareness and to create empathy for a cause.
Most respected animal photography is done for the same reasons. It teaches us and makes us aware of our environment. It has to be a good reason in this day and age.
Animal exploitation (think PG tips chimps) is getting to be completely none PC in most of the western world which is good and nowadays the emphasis in on education.
........ With the exception of 'Animals do the funniest things' , of course

Acher