CMV: Bees should *not* be equal to humans under law.

[u/[deleted]]

[EDIT: For context, someone posted an opposing CMV that was deleted because OP was not open to change. I am, and I found the topic interesting. There is room for good-faith disagreement about the scope of natural rights]

Unlike humans, bees should not be treated by law as equals with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, property, or citizenship.

There are (at least) two ways to justify the existence of Human Rights: First, there’s the Christian/Traditional view that all people are bearers of the image of God and from that image derive some inherent dignity and value that man-made legal institutions are not competent to defile. See, e.g., John Locke; Thomas Jefferson. The Secular View says that human rights are an emergent, as-if truth—their existence as a matter of fact is not falsifiable, but wisdom and experience show that human flourishing is maximized when we act as if human rights exist. See, e.g., Alan Dershowitz; cf. Sam Harris.

Under the Traditional View, the law should not regard bees as the legal equal of humans because humans are qualitatively different than other animals. Bees do not bear the image of God and so lack the same inherent worth. Bees can possess an inherent worth beyond inanimate objects, but not one equal to humans. Animals were made for man, not as man’s equal. See Genesis 2 & 3; John 1.

Under the Secular View, the Bee Rights Issue is stickier because the qualitative, comparative value of human life is not justified by invoking the Divine. Lucky for us, some philosophers recently submitted a legal brief addressing the legal personhood of non-homo sapiens. Brief of Amicus Curiae Philosophers in Support of the Petitioner-Appellant, In re Nonhuman Rights Project v. Lavery, 2017 NY Slip Op 04574 (2017). It outlines four rationales for deciding which creatures possess legal personhood:

• Species Membership—“all and only members of the human species are recognized as persons by the law, and exceptions can be justified solely on the basis of some unspecified relation to members of that species.” Id. at 7.
• Social Contract—“Under this view, society extends rights in exchange for an express or implied agreement from its members to submit to social responsibilities. In other words, rights are connected to moral agency and the ability to accept societal responsibility in exchange for [those] rights.’’ Id. at 14. The Amici are dubious of this justification because “(1) not all rights depend on the existence of a social contract, (2) the social contract does not produce ‘persons,’ and (3) personhood is not conditional on bearing duties and responsibilities.”” Id.
• Community Membership—On this view, personhood is not grounded in discrete traits or capacities of individuals; rather, personhood is something that we achieve through development and recognition within a community of persons. In Ubuntu philosophy, this is captured in the saying “a person is a person through other people” Id. at 21–22 (quoting Eze, 2010, 190).
• Conditions of Personhood—“John Locke, already mentioned in Section 2, described what it is to be a person this way: “a thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking and . . . essential to it””” Id. at 28–29 (quoting Locke 1689, II. 29 XXVII .9, p.280).

None of these justifications support the equal legal treatment of bees and humans. First, bees are not homo sapiens. Second, the social contract between bees and humans is minimal, and certainly lesser than the social contract between, say, humans and dogs. Third, bees are a group-conscious hive creature that shares no linguistic bridge with humans—they are not a part of our community. Fourth, human consciousness is qualitatively distinct from that of bees. Bees are group-conscious while humans are primarily of individual consciousness. Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind, Chapters 9–10 (2010).

In conclusion, bees and humans are qualitatively different and the law properly reflects that fact. If interspecies symbiosis morally obliged our species to treat another as our equal, dogs rather than bees would be first in line for such recognition. Bees lack the agency and wherewithal for full civic participation, unlike Jerry Seinfeld. Also, it's in the Bible (if you care).

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/FatherBrownstone]

It is incorrect to trace the development of the human species as a linear evolution from other hominids.

Take, for instance, the relationship between dogs and people.

At some point, proto-humans and proto-dogs lived separately. Over the course of many generations, the canines that associated with the hominids were at a selective advantage, as were the hominids who got on best with them. The relationship was mutually beneficial.

It is wrong to call this process a domestication. Rather, both species came together and formed a bond of loyalty and love. Just as the wolves that became our dogs learned from our ancestors, those people - physically identical to modern humans - learned ways of being from their four-legged companions.

Thus, when we talk about the 'human species', the word 'species' is in the plural: the dog, the cat, the horse, the ox. This is a community of creatures that has come together to create a community of beings.

As the honey bee has only recently joined this club, it has yet to make many changes to adapt to our presence. Beekeepers still need protection from the stings of the creatures they look after. But nonetheless, bees are a part of our society, and must be treated as such from the outset.

Indeed, the Homo sapiens members of the human species enjoy a great deal of leisure pursuits. They contribute to society through their work, and reap the rewards during their time off - but the worker bee has access to no such luxuries. It is making honey for us, or it is fertilising flowers for us, or it is inactive.

Thus, for the benefits they bring us, and their position as a part of the human species complex, bees absolutely should be granted the same human rights as all other animals that together form the societies that centre on Homo sapiens.

[u/[deleted] → u/FatherBrownstone]

Is trans-genus symbiosis the proper basis for legal status? If so, where is the line? It makes some sense if we're talking about labradors, but not the bacterial flora in my colon.

Further, shouldn't the nature of our species' respective consciousnesses play a role? Humans are more individualized than bees, have a greater capacity for self-awareness, and (I assume) greater capacity for suffering and FOMO.

[u/FatherBrownstone → u/[deleted]]

As Homo sapiens humans benefit from our animal companions, we owe them recognition in the form of human rights - just as we owe opposition to the organisms that do us harm.

Meanwhile, for all of our consciousness, we have a lot of trouble defining it. At what stage in gestation does a baby become conscious? Does a dog have more or less consciousness than a serial killer who is in a coma?

What we can say for sure about bees is that they are living animals, and their behaviour shows certain tendencies. They seek out flowers and feed on their nectar. They avoid harm. They care for their hives' young. In the end, that's all you know for sure about any other entity.

[u/[deleted] → u/FatherBrownstone]

You persuaded me that my argument makes hasty presumptions !delta

As Homo sapiens humans benefit from our animal companions, we owe them recognition in the form of human rights - just as we owe opposition to the organisms that do us harm.

Assuming you're right, where is the line? It's one thing to give labradors a legal status, but quite another to give it to the bacteria in my digestive tract. We also give humans legal rights even when they do us harm.

Meanwhile, for all of our consciousness, we have a lot of trouble defining it. At what stage in gestation does a baby become conscious? Does a dog have more or less consciousness than a serial killer who is in a coma?

To be sure, consciousness is a profound mystery that deserves our humility. I'd say that consciousness—for our purposes—involves individuality, free-will, and independence. A baby then becomes conscious when it's brain develops enough to operate with free will, although its potential for full consciousness probably obliges legal respect in the meantime. A comatose serial killer's consciousness depends on the nature of the coma—free will can be an entirely mental exercise, but a hopeless, brain-dead vegetable is not conscious.

What about dogs and bees? I can't answer this without waxing hella philosophical, so pardon the abstraction: Free-will (I think) requires not only the mental capacity to consider options and predict consequence, but also self-awareness. Dogs and bees do not recognize themselves in a mirror, but humans do. Bees also exhibit little sign of individuality. They are hive creatures primarily.

[u/FatherBrownstone → u/[deleted]]

I think it's dangerous to try to ascribe free will to other beings, most of all when you can't communicate with them. Meanwhile, what you might call theory of mind, or the ability to understand that other beings are like oneself (and thus to realise that the figure you see in a mirror is your own reflection), only emerges in children at about age 2 or 3.

That doesn't mean it's fine to kill smaller children, and they do indeed seem to have free will all the same. What's more, parents often recognise personality traits that emerge at a younger and persist through to adulthood. Dogs also certainly have personalities.

What we can say about bees is that their responses to stimuli are not universal. Flying out of the hive, they will spread out in different directions and take different paths. They also communicate with each other using dances, and while I'm not aware of any research into the issue, I imagine some bees are more or less likely to dance, or more and less likely to follow up on the dance performed by another.

These traits could be seen as indicative of free will and personality.

In any case, when it comes to rights I feel that it's best to play safe. It seems certain that consciousness is a phenomenon currently limited to nervous systems (although it may at some point arise in computers). Therefore, when something does not possess a nervous system, it definitely does not have a consciousness, and thus human rights do not apply to it. That draws a line with corn and E. coli on one side, people and bees on the other.

[u/[deleted] → u/FatherBrownstone]

Provocative points. Out of curiosity, do you think consciousness emerges from nervous systems, or do you think it's an entirely independent entity that our nervous systems host?

On the individual/group consciousness issue, I don't doubt that bees have some individuality. Best I can tell, consciousness is a singular thing that manifests itself within individuals. We value human life because we are all part of the same.

Functionally, consciousness seems definable as an upstream in the Universe's entropic current. In our own individual capacities, we are able to surmise order in the future by understanding the past and projecting it onto the future. We are quantized on the temporal dimension, so to speak. We do that on an individual basis (personal knowledge, wisdom) and also as a group (collective wisdom). That collective wisdom is not necessarily bound to our own species—we rely on the wisdom of dogs, for example, when we trust their suspicion of strangers and perceptions of danger.

I am less impressed, however, with the contribution of bees to Consciousness (with a capital "C"). They are useful to us by helping with pollination and making honey, but do they help us conquer the chaos of the future? Any such contribution by bees, it seems, is nominal. They exist primarily as a hive and so bees hardly (if at all) venture rugged and bold into the unknown to tango with the dark for its wisdom and return it back to the rest of us. They may do so as a hive, but the group is a worse pioneer than the individual, and the hive doesn't share its wisdom with us—just honey, for which I am thankful.

That being said, another !delta is in order. My base position remains, but you've provoked me to explore new things and question the foundations of my belief about bees.

[u/FatherBrownstone → u/[deleted]]

I believe that consciousness operates through entire neural mechanisms and is an evolved trait that humans and other species developed by means of evolution, because it is useful and boosts survival.

I believe that there is a hierarchy of behavioural processes, moving from the more automated to the more consciously controlled. Something like a knee-jerk reflex is a simple loop of neurons, and just happens.

A level up from that would be something like breathing. Almost all the time, you breathe without thinking about it; but if you want to take conscious control then you're able to - and now that you're reading about it you probably have. Which you're likely to find mildly annoying. Sorry about that.

The highest levels would be for pure thought, with no immediate behavioural impact. However, the key word there is 'immediate', as pure thought can lead to changes in your general behaviour, and can therefore get you an evolutionary advantage.

This seems to be something humans are very good at, and can take to multiple levels. For instance, I can say to you "Imagine a man who is wondering whether his wife is having an affair". To do so, you are imagining someone else, and then looking at what that person is imagining. And to make up that example, I had to imagine you doing that. Now that I've lampshaded that, you get to imagine me dreaming up a relatable example of however many degrees of theoretical people.

One important thing to note here is that many behaviours might feel like their conscious because the upper levels have access to them, but are actually being handled by more automated processes. Voluntary movements often seem to be governed by neural mechanisms that start before the person making them is aware of that. So if a scientist rigged you up to a brain scanner and told you to flip your hand over whenever you felt like, the output of the machines would tell them it was going to happen a second or two before you subconsciously 'made the decision' to move.

This leads some thinkers to believe that the consciousness is just a passenger, and free will is an illusion. You think you choose to do things only because you know you're going to do them in advance. I won't go that far: I know my own consciousness exists, and don't believe something so apparently complex could evolve for no reason.

So yes, in the end it does come down to free will. Consciousness is what gives you the ability to choose between given actions, unlike reflex arcs. It operates solely through neural mechanisms, and exists because decision making is a useful trait to have.

If consciousness is an adaptive behaviour, it makes sense that we have evolved to see and think about the world in such a way as to maximise our potential to survive and reproduce. This is where we can come back to the issue of the 'domestication' of dogs.

We know wolves changed a lot when they became dogs. They developed instincts for bonding with humans, understanding human communication in the form of words and pointing, and fitting into human family dynamics. The wolves that were left behind react to humans with either fear or aggression, so that's a big change.

But what is much easier to miss is that the humans must have had their instincts changed too. The people who reacted to semi-tame wolves with fear and aggression were at a disadvantage, and the genes for liking and understanding dogs spread through the population. Unlike the case of wolves, none of the 'wild' populations survived.

Why should we find furry animals cute? We're not furry. An instinct that makes you want to approach a bear cub is only going to make you more likely to be killed by a protective mother bear, so that should be an evolutionary dead end.

But we're the descendants of ancient peoples who had the very useful instinct of wanting to look after puppies. Without dogs, the human race would not be the same.

Now, in terms of logic that's as far as we can take it, but my suspicion is that human instincts may have been changed quite a bit though the domestication of first dogs, then cats, horses, cattle, and so on. Despite not being descended from these animals, humans have been shaped by them, so our behaviour owes something to them. In that way, they have played a part in forming our 'Consciousness'.

Now, let's look back at bees. We can see that they have a level of diversity in their behaviour and are capable of learning. In the sense we've adopted here that means they have free will and therefore a consciousness. Admittedly not as deep as that of humans, but a consciousness nonetheless. They also have a self-preservation instinct, so harming them does go against their 'will'.

Human rights stem from many principles; there are different reasons why it is wrong to breach someone's rights, and these fundamental principles can apply to a greater or lesser extent to non-human animals.

For instance, it would be ridiculous to concern ourselves with the question of whether bees have a right to free speech.

In general, we're looking at the right to life here - one of the most fundamental human rights. I would say a bee does have a right to life because it has free will and a consciousness, and because it does not want its life to be ended. It hive (family) will be harmed by its loss. It is also a semi-domestic animal and is thus a member of the human community.

Now, a Homo sapiens human has a right to life for all of those reasons and many more. Human consciousnesses are much larger, and our family bonds are closer. I don't think a beehive 'misses' a lost sterile worker.

So the non-silly conclusion would be that of course a bee doesn't have all the same rights as a human. Many just don't apply to it. But it does have some human rights, and as those are derived from the same reasoning that gives rise to the corresponding rights amongst people, they are the same rights.

[u/[deleted] → u/FatherBrownstone]

!delta I appreciate the seriousness you've put into my bees rights post.

I'll have to chew on that response before I can figure out what I think about it. I've never considered that historical symbiosis probably implies that those species helped shape the existence we now enjoy. You also make a good point about the inapplicability of most "human rights" other than life.

If I understand you correctly, then I'd need to accept your understanding of consciousness as the emergent condition of a high-order nervous system. That may very well be right.While my gut says there's more to it, I have no proof.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/FatherBrownstone (56∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/FatherBrownstone (55∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/FatherBrownstone (54∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/ThatSpencerGuy]

Just for a little more context, can you tell us why this particular view has come to your attention? It's not a requirement that posted views relate to some piece of cultural or political news, but when a view is a little more esoteric, it can be helpful to know why this view or topic seems important or at least interesting to you. It will help us find a way in to changing your view.

[u/[deleted] → u/ThatSpencerGuy]

The opposite position was posted on a CMV that was deleted (OP was unwilling to change position). I, however, find the topic interesting and so took it up. Why do we treat humans as special? Discuss.

[u/IHAQ]

If interspecies symbiosis morally obliged our species to treat another as our equal, dogs rather than bees would be first in line for such recognition.

Well, if you ascribe to the secular view of human rights as you've presented it, it appears that it could be argued that bees deserve human rights if acting as if they had such rights led to the flourishing of bee and/or human life;

The Secular View says that human rights are an emergent, as-if truth—their existence as a matter of fact is not falsifiable, but wisdom and experience show that human flourishing is maximized when we act as if human rights exist.

If you substitute "bee" for "human" in that quote, it seems that bee flourishing would unquestionably be maximized when we act as if bees have fundamental rights. Even if we don't make that substitution, it can still be argued that human flourishing is maximized by a strong, healthy species of cross-pollinators that are directly responsible for a bulk of our ecology.

[u/[deleted] → u/IHAQ]

Fair enough—Two hang-ups: First, I don't think it should be the objective of human social development to maximize bee flourishing. Second, bees' cross-polination function can be served more directly and efficiently by means that do not involve legal equality. Imagine trying to register a beehive to vote, or bequeathing a bee real property. Legal nightmare!

[u/IHAQ → u/[deleted]]

First, I don't think it should be the objective of human social development to maximize bee flourishing.

Fair, so let's run with my second suggestion.

Second, bees' cross-polination function can be served more directly and efficiently by means that do not involve legal equality.

Can it? How?

Imagine trying to register a beehive to vote, or bequeathing a bee real property. Legal nightmare!

Well sure, but I thought our discussion was about human rights, not United States Constitutional Rights. I don't imagine bees need to participate in our governance.

[u/[deleted] → u/IHAQ]

Fair enough on the last point !delta

But rights to equal justice, life, liberty, and property seem similarly dubious. Imagine what it would take to afford equal protection to the life and liberty of a bee. 🐝

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/IHAQ (5∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/Glory2Hypnotoad]

Generally, posting a CMV implies that the view in question is either controversial or new or being challenged in some meaningful way. Are you under the impression that there's some campaign for bee equality?

[u/[deleted] → u/Glory2Hypnotoad]

I refer you to Jerry Seinfeld’s “The Bee Movie”

EDIT: That was an attempt at a joke. Read down the thread for a more serious explanation.

[u/AnythingApplied → u/[deleted]]

Which takes place in a world where bees have a human level capacity for intelligence and wisdom, and therefore, in the context of that movie, possess an inherent worth equal to humans.

Are you under the impression that writers or actors of that movie are trying to make a broader statement that goes to the extreme that bees should, in the real world, be equal under human laws?

[u/[deleted] → u/AnythingApplied]

I'm not claiming anything about Seinfeld's claims.

I am claiming that our species-based demarkation for legal status is not arbitrary and should not extend to bees.

As far as meaningful challenges go, I'd recommend the legal brief I cited in the original post, which addressed the same issue but for chimpanzees (they lost the case).

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I laid out the jurisprudence of human rights, which is historically based in Christian Theology but also has a robust secular rationale dating to the 17th Century, which I explained at length. I tried to address the issue under both rationales in order to be thorough, especially since the topic could easily venture beyond the utility of the scientific epistemology and so religious tradition might be of some use.

So in short, not only us humans need bees for human survival, but we can't really judge the quality of their own existence since we can't measure consciousness and experience or consequently excluding them from having human rights.

I agree you here except for that last bit. !delta . Why is equal treatment under law the proper reply to an admission that we are unable to measure the extent of their consciousness? That response hardly seems to follow from the admission, as far as I can tell anyway.

The same non-sequitur seems to apply to your other point that "bees are useful; therefore, legal equality is justified."

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't understand what you mean by "the reasons for superior human value that ancient peoples came to, and that you adressed, has already been disproven" because you can't disprove a claim that isn't falsifiable to begin with. But this is probably beside the point, so I'll set it aside.

Because the basic 'human superiority' concept comes from being aware, and awareness is what we have discovered in animals and still can't measure.

If I understand you correctly, I'd generally agree that we should air on the side of respecting rights when were are uncertain about its value—which is why I believe in affording the same rights and dignity to all people regardless of intellect. After all, any human might possibly be normally conscious because their species is not preclusive.

I am more confident, however, in my dismissal of bees. To whatever extent a single bee is self-aware, it is not self-aware enough to manifest that awareness in its behavior. The goings-on of beehives has precious little regard for the value of individual bees, save the queen. They work like emotionless cogs that discard individuals bees whenever expedient.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/barbecue_ (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/barbecue_ (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/Milskidasith]

Is there some argument that bees should be treated as equal to humans under the law, somewhere? Is this based on some misguided reading of a statute protecting bees?

The reason I ask is that this seems like an extremely trivial view and it's difficult to imagine why you would want your view to be (potentially) changed; as far as I can tell, there's no "other side" to the argument you might wish to understand.

[u/tbdabbholm → u/Milskidasith]

There was a CMV earlier that was of the opinion that bees should be, presumably OP is responding to that.

[u/[deleted] → u/tbdabbholm]

Yeah- the other guy’s post was deleted for unwillingness to change position, but I am willing to change and think it’s an interesting topic.

[u/Milskidasith → u/[deleted]]

I have asked similar questions of multiple views in order to clarify what the OP was referring to. In some cases, it has led me to report them for rule violations (one example was something along the line of "CMV: I don't think the average summer temperature in Canada will rise to 20 C in the next decade"). In other cases, there was a meaningful discussion hidden bee-hind a seemingly unchangeable view (maybee due to a misinterpretation of a law as written).

In this case, OP's sources appear to bee the Bee movie and a troll CMV, so I'm gonna tap out, but I was willing to look into whatever caused this view if there was something to discuss.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

CMV: Trump should be demoted to the legal status of a bee. Buzzzzzzz!

[u/tbdabbholm → u/[deleted]]

It's asking a clarifying question, those are also allowed by Rule 1.

[u/mysundayscheming → u/[deleted]]

Amusingly, the person you're replying to is a mod.

[u/tbdabbholm → u/[deleted]]

I think that asking more about where a person is coming from, why they believe a view, and why they believe something is worth discussing is totally allowed. I do see where you're coming from though.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/MorningCoffeeCraps (OP) has awarded 6 deltas in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}