Elephant Ruled to be "On Par" With Humans
An Indian court has granted damages to the owner of an elephant killed in an auto accident because the pachyderm was "on par" with a human because it could obey commands and do tricks, etc.
Well, then the owner had better be charged with slavery, because you can't own humans but you can elephants.
I am not saying the owner should not have been compensated for his loss, but this gets awfully close to the idea of "wrongful death." Sure, it's India. But it is also a denial of human exceptionalism.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:47 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
This reminds me of a section I find incredibly hilarious in The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond where he discusses the mental power of elephants. He takes as proof of elephants minds being comparable to humans the example of when a drawing by an elephant was taken to a famous modern artist who was asked to assess the skill level of the elephant doodling witout being told that it had been done by an elephant. The artist concluded that the producer of the art work had considerable talent. The thing about the story that makes it ten times as funny is that Jared Diamond is taking it with utter seriousness as evidence for how close elephants are to humans as part of his construction of an evolutionary narrative.
From the article:
"should be considered on a par with a human being because she responded to commands, performed elaborate tricks and was the main breadwinner for the family."
Hmmm, I'm skeptical. I'd like see the actual opinion to see if this discussion was in the damages/compensation part or in the cause of action part.
I don't think this denies human exeptionalism so much as shows why the current categories are breaking down. Likewise, I'm comfortable with this opinion as I view human exceptionalism as a worthy idea, but should be a capstone on a hierarchy of ethics. For I cannot deny elephants SOME worth for the reasons stated above.
Royale: Of course elephants have some worth, or we woudln't have a duty to them. But the damages should be based on the owner's loss of use, loss of income, etc., not akin to a wrongful death kind of approach as would be the case if the man's wife instead of his elephant, had been the killed party.
I believe in a hierarchy of moral worth, with all humans at the top rung. Thanks Royale
Welllllll now we tread somewhere a little bit.. eh.
Unfortunately I don't have the kind of high grasp of Hinduism as I would like to, but I believe that elephants do rank very high, as one avatar of their version of God resembles an elephant.
In a case like this I don't know that I can entirely agree with your opinion, Wesley. I'm a firm believer in human exceptionalism, and I don't believe, for example, that grapes are on par with human beings and need saving, but I get very, very pissed off when vandals spit in the Sacred Blood of Christ (which has happened at my church before, sad to say).
For those of you who aren't Catholic, we believe the wine and bread really do become the Body and Blood.
Besides which, Hindus, like Buddhists, believe that all beings reincarnate until they reach Nirvana, or Oneness With God. That includes animals. That's why the two Hindus I have known were vegans.
So, I recommend everybody take a step back for a bit before we start screaming "this denies human exceptionalism!" This is a very tricky area. I have a great deal of respect for people who SINCERELY believe "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" and treat ALL BEINGS with equal kindness and compassion out of love (which is why I detest PETA - they show no love for anything, and they're not against killing).
This is a very tricky area. What was the sincere motive behind the "considered on par" comment? Was it to degrade human beings, or was it a genuine attempt to show true compassion to another living creature?
I'm not saying that you're wrong, Wesley, but I don't know for sure that you're right in this one case. Honest religious beliefs are hard to weigh. Now, if this had nothing to do with religion and was simply something political, then you're absolutely correct, but I can't be sure that's the case, and I'd rather wait until the facts are clearer before I start protesting.
God has handed down some specific rules about how to treat His animals before. If He really feels that elephants deserve damages in this case, I'm not about to tell Him He's in the wrong.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home