Orca rights are human rights. Right?

Written by

in

You’ve got to love it!

Do you agree that there is no fundamental difference between human beings and animals?

If you answer, “No difference.” then you will agree that just like humans, animals should not be treated as slaves. Therefore, liberate the whales from slavery. Let the orcas free!

No, it’s not an April 1st trick. It’s a court case in the USA:

A federal judge for the first time in US history heard arguments in a case that could determine whether animals enjoy the same constitutional protection against slavery as human beings.

“… a federal court heard arguments as to whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human. By any definition these orcas have been enslaved here.”

Orca rights are human rights. Right?

No. Sorry, wrong!

On what grounds might we humans disagree?

Well, why aren’t the orcas’ judicial courts hearing the case or at least presenting it to a human court? – just a thought 😉

My argument: Jews and Christians believe human beings are different to animals and more highly valued than animals because human beings carry the very image of God. This belief is grounded in their sacred accounts of life’s beginnings in the Book of Genesis where humankind is God-breathed.

Hence, in the Judeo-Christian understanding of life, orcas do not have the same rights as humans. That’s why I like the newspaper’s sub title: “We’re talking about hell unleashed”. A quote,

If the court were to grant orcas constitutional rights, Shaw warned the ruling would have profound implications that could impact everything from the way the U.S. government uses dogs to sniff out bombs and drugs to how zoos and aquariums operate.

“We’re talking about hell unleashed,” he said.

But it is not just hell because animals have the rights of humans but, more strongly, that humans will have been reduced to animals.

It’s the old “nothing but” argument that reductionists use to state for example that a person is “nothing but” a composite of chemicals and therefore of only modest physical and financial value. Or that human beings are “nothing but” a randomn statistical piece of space junk hurtling mindlessly through space as it decays to oblivion .

I can only imagine that accepting orca rights as human rights would have interesting implications for Articles 1 and 3 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (Article 1)

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (Article 3)

Clearly, these Articles are based on the view that there is something very special about human beings. But why? That’s the million dollar question. Your answer?

Read more: ‘We’re talking about hell unleashed’: whales sue Sea World and In the Image of God: Human Rights-Religion.

Comments

6 responses to “Orca rights are human rights. Right?”

February 13, 2012

Angela Mclean

I don’t think we’re talking about hell unleashed, but the garden of eden restored. We’re not bringing humans down, we’re raising animals up. Adam and Eve didn’t eat animals or ‘use’ them in their unfallen world – Christians need to start heeding God’s warning in the old testament about His disapproval of treating animals cruelly, and more christians need to stand beside people like Emma Haswell at Brightside farm in Tassie. It’s not right to keep Orca’s in captivity – maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation if more Christians had picketed the aquariam/”nautical fun park” earlier to take a stand against animal cruelty.
February 13, 2012

Angela Mclean

And further to this the Old testament didn’t talk about rights either, if we want to talk biblical – humans didn’t have them either we were in subjugation to God. All creation was God breathed not just humans and as a result deserves respect and reverence: Jesus thought enough of creation to use it again and again in his metaphors and parables. He was born next to the animals. It’s not a logical jumpt to just say because humans were made in God’s image He valued them more and therefore it’s okay to treat animals the way we do. It’s an absolute disgrace the way we farm and treat animals; further to that to use them for our pleasure, fun and entertainment as these Orcas are. Come on, get real when is the institutional church gonna take a stand against animal cruelty and not look at the heart of this matter; it’s not about ethics but compassion. Do you think it’s okay to treat Orcas this way???
February 13, 2012

Angela Mclean

And there wouldn’t need to be a court case like this if the Church contributed to a social milieu where it was disdainful to go to these “funparks” to see Orca’s like this. If the church preached against animal cruelty we’d have a different society. Instead we just get; ” man’s made in God’s image and we’re more important” Well that’s not good enough. It’s not all about us. The reason why these people go to court on such a basis is because societies allow this form of entertainment to go on, because people in power like the church do not speak out!!!!
February 14, 2012

Will Briggs

Hi Angela. I wonder if your concern for animal welfare is an actual example of the “difference” (more than “nothing but”-ness) of humans that Bishop John is talking about. After all, one might argue that your appeal for understanding and respect, for stewardship and care, is actually an appeal to our ‘humanity’ – our ability to rise above our base instincts (that drive pleasure and exploitation) and seize hold of a good ideal.

And I suspect the humanity of Bishop John is demonstrated by the fact that he and his wife are renowned for their care and rescue for abandoned animals.

W.
February 24, 2012

Angela Mclean

I have yet to read the full explaination about the court case in the U.S but it appears the bishop isn’t appealing to our humanity in a response to the case but to a sense of outrage of what this will mean for our humans righs and how this should enlighten us to see ourselves as special and differential to animals when in fact i believe his repsonse should be about what the hell we are doing to animals and creation in this world and how this court case is symptomatic of arguments not adressed by the church. It’s all well and good for the donkies to be taken care of and the bishop to show animal welfare tendancies in his private life but the rubber hits the road when people in power can take a risk and use their platforms to speak out about how we treat animals, in debates such as : Live Export, Rodeos, loss of habitat due to greedy forestry and the subsequent the plight of our native wild life ( the tassie devil, wedge tail eagle, native frogs, fresh water crayfish, ..),puppy farms, sow stalls, battery hens… the list is endless and it’s not trivial, it’s symptomatic of human sin. Lets talk about some of the court cases in our own back yard, get our hands dirty in the political fray and start bringing God’s radical kingdom of justice, mercy, freedom to all creation as the new testament talks of all creation being redeemed in Christ.
February 24, 2012

Angela Mclean

Will, what good is it if we know how we are different to animals if we go on to abuse and misconstrue that understanding, at the expense of all creation? Or to believe that somehow by treating animals better, being compassionate and gentle, offering them the status God gave them, we threaten our own identity in the Lord? I think that’s what the argument has been withered down to: fear and power with no articulate exploration of the problems that an unbalanced Christian exegesis of Genises has brought upon the West. Our interpretation serves our power and lifestyles. The Anglican Church is populated in Australia by white farming and industry communities and the ability to challenge injustice where it may tread on these people and a vital power source for the church – means these ideas cannot and will not be discussed. Look how they treated Jesus when He challenged the status quo.

Leave a Reply

More posts