The 32 countries that have formally recognized non-human animal sentience include the European Union, Switzerland, Chile, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
Ever since I looked at the dictionary definition of the word, I have thought animals had sentience. It just means the thing has senses and some awareness of the world around them. Yet it’s more commonly used to describe the difference between humans and non-humans, which is what the word “sapience” is supposed to mean. It’s like at some point, we started using the wrong word.
I’ve always understood sentience as the ability to sense oneself, i.e. a being’s capacity at introspection and awareness of one’s own existence as a separate experience from other beings.
Many mammals and birds tick this box, some more than others.
Non-human animals may also be sapient. For example, mammals are. There is no meaningful general difference between humans and all other animals.
There is no meaningful general difference between humans and all other animals.
I look forward to you arresting that orca for suspected murder of that shark.
Non sequitur. Or, what is the meaningful general difference that you are trying to describe that applies to every human and no non-human animal?
You could have “own kill” laws, then you’d have lots of new vegetarians, some small farmers, and some newly discovered psychopaths.
Hear, hear!
Signed. After all, clubbing seals is more fun knowing they are capable of feeling suffering 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
I signed it but I don’t really get what’s the goal here other than rectifying a minor semantic issue
It will make it harder to argue in favour of animal abuse in the court of law.
I doubt it. But I hope you’re right.
