Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Blackrook, Feb 21, 2012.

  1. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, if he was never publicly identified, he can't be jailed anymore than he can be shunned, so I don't see how your preferred form of punishment is superior in that regard.

    Do you think that dogs should be tried and imprisoned if they mutilate humans' ears?
     
  2. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dogs - or other animals - that attack humans are often seized and destroyed.
     
  3. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But why aren't they made to compensate their victims in civil court? And why aren't they entitled the rights of the accused?
     
  4. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because they are animals? Just because an amimal can't speak for itself doesn't mean it shouldn't be 'punished' when it harms a human.

    And as to the OP, just because a dolphin can't speak for itself doesnt mean it shuld be treated like garbage.
     
  5. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, we're not dealing with "should." The law isn't about sloppy "shoulds," it's about ensuring that rights violations are as fully recompensed as possible.

    Secondly, what's with this double standard? If the dog species has a right to life like a human, it should also have the rights of the accused. Which means dogs shouldn't be summarily destroyed, but tried by juries of their peers with access to attorneys. It sounds like your building your philosophy not on any kind of consistent intellectual principle, but based on what "feels right" to you.
     
  6. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A dog is not a person. Obiously it doesn't have the same (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rights as a person who is fully aware of what they are doing.

    I can't believe I am having this conversation.
     
  7. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesn't have any rights whatsoever as far as I can see. It has no free will. It is not able to take moral responsibility for its actions. You have not supplied any argument whence the rights of a dog derive, other than your personal feelings. A right is an individual's just claim to something. You haven't explained how or why a dog has a just claim to anything.
     
  8. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not the one who believes it is okay to mistreat an animal and get away with it. Kicking, hitting, burning, cutting, an animal, be it a dog, cat, or dolphin, is WRONG. It doesn't matter if the animal has no free will or cannot take moral responsibility.

    A newborn has no freewill either, is it okay to bash a baby and get away with it? Of course not, because despite the fact it can't speak for itself, it still has rights. Just like an animal.
     
  9. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who said it's okay? Again, you conflate things. Just because something's not okay doesn't mean it's a rights violation.

    The difference between a baby and a dog is that the babies lack of mental faculty is merely a transient state, akin to being asleep, whereas a dog's lack of mental faculty is part of its nature as a dog. It is not in the nature of dogs to have will or reason; therefore, it is not in their nature to have rights.
     
  10. Angrytaxpayer

    Angrytaxpayer Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    3,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd rather give dolphins more rights than humans. Humans are mostly a$$holes.
     
  11. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While I am generally reluctant to use inflammatory historical comparisons, you do realize that the arguments you're using for why non human animals have no rights is exactly the same argument used centuries ago for why Africans and other non European peoples had no rights?

    This is the problem with morality based on ideology. It blinds you to the reality in front of your face, and becomes a ready made rationalization for absolutely anything, no matter how horrific.

    Dogs don't have free will or reason? That's one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. You think dogs are just automatons, waiting to be programmed by humans? Dogs got along just fine on their own for a very long time before they decided to throw their lot in with early humans. Youtube has more examples of dogs and other animals using reason and free will then you can throw a stick at. And if you think a cat doesn't have free will, you've obviously never met a cat. LOL

    Humans are animals, and the differences between us and other species are differences of degree, not of kind. Many species use tools, for example, and chimpanzees have been observed using stone tools to crack nuts and even hunting with simple spears. Dolphins and elephants pretty clearly have some sort of spoken language, even if we haven't figured out how to understand them yet. And what if there were other hominid species still alive today, say Homo erectus? Erectus used stone tools and fire, lived in hunter gatherer family groups, and may well have had spoken language. How would you classify them? And what if we met a technological species from another planet? While it may bruise some people's egos, the notion of humanity as a special species is just absurd, and clearly inconsistent with observed reality.

    Which does not answer the question of how we are to treat other species. Firstly, when dealing with wild populations, recognizing that they have rights does not put them within the jurisdiction of the US legal system. Animals have their own societies, their own rules, and their own means of discipline. In this sense, we should view other species as their own separate societies, responsible for their own internal issues, which are none of our business. Just as how a human from Bhutan, for example, has full human rights, but is not subject to US laws for matters occurring in Bhutan.

    Domesticated populations are a different matter, however. Clearly, these individuals are a part of our society, and we have both a moral responsibility and a practical necessity to have a just system for dealing with them. Equally clearly, non humans generally are not capable of bearing the full rights and responsibilities that we generally give to humans. But we already have systems in place for dealing with people with differing abilities. Human infants are not treated the same as children, who are not treated the same as adults. Humans with severe mental disabilities are also treated differently then other adults. I think that we need a system that both recognizes the rights of non human members of society and takes into account their different abilities.

    When it comes to dogs that have attacked humans - I do not think that summary execution is just. I think there should be some sort of review process where the circumstances of the incident are examined before judgement is passed.
     
  12. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I don't think they ever based their arguments on the idea that Africans lacked free will and, if so, they were wrong.

    This is just your way of saying you don't like the fact that I try to base my views of principles that I derive through deductive logic and then follow consistently, regardless of my emotions. You prefer to base your views on your emotions; thus, you lack any coherent philosophy and all your arguments are riddled with contradictions that you must doublethink away.
    Animals act on instinct, not through reasoned choice. If this were not the case, they would be morally responsible for their actions. Yet not even the smartest dolphin who ever lived, so far as I know, achieved even half the intelligence of a human seven-year-old, the traditional age of reason.

    Find me an animal with moral agency, and I will say that animal has rights.

    You would have to examine the creature directly to see if it appears to be a moral agent that is intelligent and competent enough to accept moral responsibility for its actions.

    I've already dealt with this issue. Infanthood and mental disability are a transient state or condition rather than an identity. The universal and innate mental incapability of species cannot be judged in the same light as the transient, individual, and conditional mental incapability of an infant, which is more similar to that of a sleeping man.
     
  13. skeptic-f

    skeptic-f New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    7,929
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is a question we may have to confront. The whole problem with non-human sapience is it is by its very definition alien. If dolphins are in fact sapient in an alien way (since they are a completely different species of mammal), our treatment of our resident aliens (as an E.T., not wetbacks) is going to reflect on us if we ever meet real E.T.s. Let's hope they don't have a "reap as you sow" philosophy!
     
  14. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Aristotle on slavery:

    "Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature."

    Tsk, tsk, getting a little testy, are we? If my arguments are riddled with contradictions, please point them out. I greatly value honest and intelligent feedback about the strengths and weaknesses of my arguments - after all, being shown where we're wrong is how we learn.

    It is impossible to derive first principles with deductive reasoning - deduction begins with first principles and then uses logic to reach conclusions about specific instances. Induction takes observations of specific instances of something and seeks to derive general principles from them. Personally, I place greater weight on inductive logic then on deductive, since our notions of what those first principles are is always imperfect and flawed. I feel that the closer your reasoning sticks to observable, testable reality, the less likely you are to make huge mistakes.

    Incidentally, I would point out that you are starting with the assumption that the universe is logical - ie, that it is entirely self consistent. That is a very large assumption that may or may not be justified. As far as I can see, the universe is under no obligation to be consistent.

    "Emotion without logic is foolish. Logic without emotion is blind."

    Animals act on instinct, and so do humans. The human sex drive, for example, is as instinctive as you can get. Our tendency to form groups and look on outsiders with suspicion is also instinctive. Curiosity, compassion, fear, friendship, love, a desire for stability - all are instinctive.

    Actually, as far as that goes, where exactly is the line between instinct and reason? How do you define the difference? And how would you test to see if a particular action is taken out of instinct or out of reason?

    I agree that you must judge on a case by case basis. But what standard is to be used? What test can be applied?

    There is a huge difference between the neural activity of a waking infant and a sleeping adult. Comparing the two seems rather silly to me, to be honest.

    And I would point out that the "innate capabilities" of a species is not static. Modern humans have quite different capabilities then our Australopithecine ancestors. Who in turn had quite different capabilities then the first vertebrates swimming in the Cambrian sea, and so on back to the first primordial living cell that is the ancestor of all life on Earth, including humans. My point is that you have to look at what individuals are, not some abstract notion of what they ought to be.

    And how is a human with a severe mental disability due to a hereditary genetic disorder any different from a non human with similar mental capacities? So what if it's a particular individual? Species are made up of individuals. And it is variations in individuals which leads to the evolution of new species. It is clearly repugnant to say that humans with mental disabilities should be treated as property. How is it not repugnant to treat non human individuals as property?
     
  15. Gator Monroe

    Gator Monroe Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    bUT mANNING FROM THE cOLTS ? Don't think so:phonecall:
     
  16. TheHat

    TheHat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    20,931
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    63
  17. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good lord...between this and Global Warming, Science and Scientists are quite the knee-slappers these days.

    Let me know when the first Dolphin pays his share of taxes.
     
  18. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed. The USDA and FDA protect corporate dairy production, while going after the raw milk producers who generally take great care of their cows and give them wide space and healthy food. But most of my fellow animal lovers are enamored with government and are therefore blind to the suffering created by the people they elect and those appointed by the people elected.
     
  19. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why not bugs and spiders? They dont' have rights? What about fish? What about those animals that are made into the food served at the restaurant at which you work?

    You are very selective in the rights you want to recognize. If it's cute, prosecution for anyone that looks at it funny. If it produces your meat and eggs, then it can live a short, miserable life being fattened up by your government protected corporations with all sorts of hormones and GMO feed.
     
  20. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're saying that black people are no better than a fish?

    Hum.
     
  21. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In bold: human egocentrism at its worst.

    Dolphins and whales are not resources, they are living breathing creatures, just like you are.

    You clearly have no respect for life.
     
  22. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In other words, if it is not in a creature's nature to have a will, it is in its nature to be under the rule of a creature that has a will. However, it is the nature of all humans to have a will. So much for that.

    It always goes back to empiricism. The problem is that you can't know if it's logical to trust your sense at all without, you know, logic. First principles are derived from irrefutable axioms such as a = a. You can't refute it because, in the very attempt to do so, you must assume the truth of it: if your argument is not your argument, your argument makes no sense. And, of course, similarly everything that exists must be logically consistent with everything else; otherwise the law of non-contradiction would be violated.

    The line is between instinct and will. Humans choose. The test is whether or not the creature is intelligent and reasoning enough to take moral responsibility for its own actions. I have yet to here you or anyone else argue that a dog is morally responsible when it mauls a human.

    Again, there is a difference between a condition and a nature. Mental disability is a condition. The universal capacity of a species is the nature of that species. Yes, a mental disability is akin to being asleep or otherwise mentally incapacitated (would you prefer drunk?) in that it is a transient and conditional quality caused by an injury or other extraneous factor.

    In other words, although some particular humans may be incapable of expressing their wills at the moment due to maturity, injury, intoxication, etc, it is still in their nature to have wills. Not so with snails.
     
  23. AbsoluteVoluntarist

    AbsoluteVoluntarist New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,364
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, I am indeed a humanist. Humans are vastly superior creatures to all other species. The stupidest human has orders of magnitude more value than the smartest dolphin. Only human have sapience and will. Therefore, only humans have the ability to subscribe subjective values to things. Therefore, all other things have value on in relation to the value subscribed to them by humans. A world without intelligent life has no value per se because there is no one around to subscribe value to it.
     
  24. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes the argument is well worth putting forward, where the two situations can be compared, and the circumstances to be shown as incomparable. It was not "exactly" the same argument, since the natural rights arguments actually led to the end of slavery as it showed humans as property to be a legal fiction that could not hold up in the light of reason. After thousands of years of slavery, it's not surprising that it took some 100 years to get from natural rights theory to an end of slavery in the west. Now that legal positivism is taking hold again, we are seeing a return to slavery, only now it's those innocent people who are punished for being disobedient to the state.

    Natural law is easily applied to all humans. it is not easily applied to other members of the animal kingdom, and the reasons become obvious when one looks at the capability of humans and animals to recognize the self-ownership of other humans and animals. It is not difficult to demonstrate that people of other races can recognize rights. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that animals other than humans can recognize rights.


    What you argue, then, is that criminal justice should be based on populist sentiment, and that populist sentiment is superior to objectivity and reason within law, regardless of what that populist sentiment may lead to. This is the basis of positivist legal principles. If it's law, it's good. If it feels good, it should be law. If it's offensive, it should be prohibited. All law is legitimate because it's law.

    Legal objectivists aren't arguing that moral be based on ideology, they argue that law should be based on objective, consistent principles and that personal morality should be left out of the realm of criminal and civil justice.

    What you believe is moral or immoral is a different matter than what should necessarily be protected by law. I like to use the analogy of adultery. Adultery is, simply, sex outside of marriage. Some consider it immoral at all times, some consider immoral at some times, and some consider it perfectly acceptable no matter how the parties might be affected. I happen to fall into the moderate camp. I deem adultery to be immoral when one of the parties is left feeling cheated on. However, I would not see prohibitions on adultery being codified into law. That people choose to associate with some, but not others, is their choice, their right as individuals who own themselves. I do not associate with adulters. if my friends cheat on their spouses, I no longer consider them to be friends. Were I to consider it right that there be a law against such cheating, then I'd have to concede that it's legitimate for laws to be against any form of sex outside of marriage because some consider that to be immoral.

    I love the latest youtube video of the dog playing along with his DJ owner. However, that dog is not a rational moral actor. He cannot recognize your rights. If you try to grab his food bowl or a choice bone away from him, he will bite you, perhaps even if the food bowl is not his but the property of another. Would you see the dog criminally punished for taking the food of another dog or another human? It's their natural behavior. it can be corrected, somewhat, through training, but it is not a matter of right and wrong that they can learn and be expected to respect that obligation toward the rights of others.
    Unlike the people of old who where considered subhuman, but clearly are not, it is easy to determine that the dog is not a rational moral actor whereas any human can be and usually is. No legal fiction is required.

    If, and when, they have the capacity to recognize and respect rights, then they should be accorded the same. The use of tools, or fire, or even advanced tools has nothing to do with it.

    Many people believe that the US should interfere in the laws of other nations. Given that you hold that populist sentiment should determine the basis of law, how can you objectively describe the interventionist view as illegitimate? Their view is just as valid as yours, according to your positivist principles.

    It's just because it's the law.
     
  25. Tettsuo

    Tettsuo Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Question.... how intelligent must a species be before we treat them with the same respect we afford other humans?

    Would you approve of an alien species, with greater intelligence, treating humans as we treat other mammals of "lesser intelligence"?
     
    rstones199 and (deleted member) like this.

Share This Page