{"id":1322,"date":"2019-12-23T18:10:24","date_gmt":"2019-12-23T18:10:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/?p=1322"},"modified":"2019-12-30T15:05:24","modified_gmt":"2019-12-30T15:05:24","slug":"sentience-biological-imperatives-and-personal-interests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/2019\/12\/23\/sentience-biological-imperatives-and-personal-interests\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentience, biological imperatives and personal interests"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
A sentient being – unlike a chair or table – cannot have an “owner” in the usual sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The relationship must be more like that between a legal ward and her legal guardian (or caretaker or parent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Guardians must be entitled to go to court in the interest of their ward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the animal being has no guardian, or if the guardian does not act in her interests, she must become the legal ward of the court, which must act in her interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Without this the notion of “well-being” is voided of meaning — and with it the notion of a sentient being with biological imperatives (= interests) that must not be violated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is why no one (including the “owner”) can do whatever they like to their dog, unlike to their chair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why? Because a dog, as a sentient being, has an interest<\/em> in her own well-being (in not having her biological imperatives violated: deprived of food, water, shelter, space, freedom of movement, social imperatives, freedom from pain, freedom from fear, freedom from stress). That is what it is to be a sentient being. Chairs have no interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is incoherent to enshrine this interest in law, formally recognizing animal sentience and its biological imperatives, yet not accord that interest legal standing in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n