By Nadine Moedt (Contributor) – Email
Print Edition: April 11, 2012
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) met in Vancouver this February, attracting scientists and journalists from over 50 nations. A wide variety of topics were addressed, but gaining the most publicity was the introduction of a bill entitled “Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans.” Since the conference, the issue has sparked controversy and made headlines around the world.
The basic idea of this declaration is to give cetaceans the title of “non-human” persons, thereby giving whales and dolphins the same ethical considerations as humans. A right to life, privacy, and freedom are included in this document.
It is thought that dolphins and whales are second only to humans in their level of intelligence. Like humans, they are highly social beings, and consistently demonstrate self-awareness, compassion and individuality. Dolphins have long been known as altruistic creatures, and they often assist other species in need. This bill, first drawn up in May 2010, states that “no cetacean should be held in captivity or servitude, be subject to cruel treatment, or be removed from their natural environment.” It goes on to state that “no cetacean is the property of any state, corporation, human group or individual.”
In October 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued SeaWorld, accusing the aquatic amusement park of violating, under the 13th amendment of the U.S. constitution, the rights and freedom of five Orca whales. While the case was eventually thrown out, the issues brought to attention by PETA’s suit should not be dismissed so easily. Comparatively, a whale in an aquarium experiences the same sensory deprivation that a human experiences when locked in solitary confinement. Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, states that the whales are “denied freedom and everything else that is natural and important to them while kept in small concrete tanks and reduced to performing stupid tricks.” It is, PETA maintains, nothing less than slavery. Should these creatures continue to suffer simply for our entertainment?
Why don’t cetaceans already have a right to life? Shouldn’t all living things? Why do we feel, simply because we are human, that we have priority over all other creatures on this earth? Intelligence is not the only factor. Compare a mentally-challenged child who has little cognitive function to a chimpanzee, for example. Why does the child have the right to live and the chimp not? Should IQ be a measure of one’s worth?
Perhaps it all comes down to the myth of creation. Typically, in a religious system, God (or gods) create(s) the earth and mankind. Mankind, the centre of the universe. Evolution, at least how it is popularly interpreted, takes the same perspective. Single-celled beings in the ocean grew legs and lungs, crawled out of the water and a billion years later, here we are. The final, triumphant product.
The myth is propagated everywhere; it’s not “save the wildlife,” it’s “save our wildlife.” We build where we want, eat what we want, and live how we want. Yes, we are arguably more intelligent than our fellow living creatures, as indicated by our highly developed nervous systems and complex structures of ethics and morals (most of us). But how does that give us the right to exploit the creatures that don’t have these qualities? We need to take a leaf out of Uncle Ben’s book here: “With great power, comes great responsibility.” And we need to take this message seriously before it’s too late.
The proposal of a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans has received much criticism. The archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, in an interview with The National Post, said that the issue distracts from other more important problems.“I sometimes wonder whether we’ve got our priorities mixed up when we treat animals and the environment with more respect than human beings,” he said. What I think the Archbishop does not realize is that we are animals and the earth is our home, which we as human beings cannot exist without. Even if we are so selfish as to think only of ourselves, we should realize that we have to respect the home (and its variety of life) that sustains us if we want to continue to survive.
Why couldn’t a declaration of rights extend, within reason, to all living creatures? This is not such a radical idea. Animals that we kill for our own benefit (I am making a concession here, assuming that we would not all be vegetarians) could have their own category. Cattle raised for slaughter should at least have the right to a happy existence before we take their lives. Chickens should be allowed to see the light of day. Pigs should not be confined to a space which does not allow them to even turn around (see Jonathan Foer’s Eating Animals.) Simply because these animals are not “intelligent” by a human’s standard does not justify their mistreatment. All we would be allowing them is a right to a dignified existence.
The Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans should be enshrined in law just as rights for humans are. It is a simple question of compassion. The proposal is a small but significant first step. Perhaps our species is finally opening up to the idea that we are not the only creatures on this earth with the inherent right to a life of dignity.
