Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons' • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

#11

Post by Locke1689 » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 1:44 AM UTC

grellas wrote: post #2

Marino and Reiss will present their findings at a conference in San Diego, California, next month, concluding that the new evidence about dolphin intelligence makes it morally repugnant to mistreat them. It is morally repugnant to mistreat animals regardless of the intelligence of the animal and being a scientist has nothing to do with making such a judgment, since it is not a scientific judgment but an ethical one.…

We make moral judgements to the contrary every day. Our implicit acceptance that humans are "worth more" than other animals acknowledges both an innate desire to defend one's own species over all others, but also that a heirarchy of superiority. For example, you would object to a massacre of puppies but would not over a massacre of bacteria.

The question lies in how you decide superiority. Thr religious tend to believe that we are "made in gods image" and thus superior. I am not religious, so I define my heirarchy by the ability of the species to comprehend the universe and its disruptiveness to other species. This is probably equally arbitrary, but it has at least some logic behind it. I view knowledge of the universe as humanity's ultimate goal as a species and thus judge species based on their ability to complete said goal.

When it comes to a choice between harming another species and the alternative I make a moral judgement based on the species "intelligence". I obviously never justify senseless violence and tend to abhor any purposeful torture.

The scientists' information is thus very important to my moral system.

P.s. Sorry for any typos or similar, this is posted from an iPhone.

Re: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

#12

Post by davepeck » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 1:56 AM UTC

Locke1689 wrote: post #11

grellas wrote: post #2

Marino and Reiss will present their findings at a conference in San Diego, California, next month, concluding that the new evidence about dolphin intelligence makes it morally repugnant to mistreat them. It is morally repugnant to mistreat animals regardless of the intelligence of the animal and being a scientist has nothing to do with making such a judgment, since it is not a scientific judgment but an ethical one.…

We make moral judgements to the contrary every day. Our implicit acceptance that humans are "worth more" than other animals acknowledges both an innate desire to defend one's own species over all others, but also that a heirarchy of superiority. For example, you would object to a massacre of puppies but would not over a massacre of bacteria. The question lies in how you decide superiority. Thr religious tend to belie…

> I define my heirarchy by the ability of the species to comprehend the universe and its disruptiveness to other species. This is probably equally arbitrary, but it has at least some logic behind it.

I have a very similar view of the world, and when a friend tried to get me (last night!) to put it on firm logical footing, I was unable to.

Why should our ability to comprehend the universe be the yardstick by which we measure ourselves? I feel that it is a reasonable measure, but I can't give sound reasoning for it.

Somehow, I think this property (which appears to be unique to us, at least in our own biosphere) is deep in a way that, say, the ability to swim gracefully in water is not.

Re: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

#13

Post by nudist » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 2:04 AM UTC

grellas wrote: post #2

Marino and Reiss will present their findings at a conference in San Diego, California, next month, concluding that the new evidence about dolphin intelligence makes it morally repugnant to mistreat them. It is morally repugnant to mistreat animals regardless of the intelligence of the animal and being a scientist has nothing to do with making such a judgment, since it is not a scientific judgment but an ethical one.…

It's not a scientific judgement? How can you say it's OK to kill plants but not "animals," considering they are made of essentially the same thing? Where is the line?

It's fairly easy to trace the evolution of the nervous system from simple single-celled organisms to modern animals. Moral repugnance is a purely human invention.

Re: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

#14

Post by niczar » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 2:08 AM UTC

NathanKP wrote: post #7

grellas wrote: post #2

Marino and Reiss will present their findings at a conference in San Diego, California, next month, concluding that the new evidence about dolphin intelligence makes it morally repugnant to mistreat them. It is morally repugnant to mistreat animals regardless of the intelligence of the animal and being a scientist has nothing to do with making such a judgment, since it is not a scientific judgment but an ethical one.…

I totally agree and after reading the article I was going to post this exact same comment but you beat me to it. I would say that it is just as morally repugnant or in fact more morally repugnant to mistreat an animal that is not intelligent. It is not like lack of intelligence makes it alright to mistreat an animal.

Is it morally repugnant to mistreat a plant?

Is it morally repugnant to mistreat an animal with just one (1) neuron?

Is it morally repugnant to mistreat an animal with just 100 000 neurons?

Well that's how many lobsters have. My PC has billions of transistors. Granted, that's not the same as neurons by a very long shot, but it's not unreasonable to think that we could emulate a neuron with a few tens of thousand of transistors.

Is it morally repugnant to mistreat a PC?

I'm not concluding anything here. Just asking. (Besides there's the other issue of defining "mistreat.") I'm just annoyed by empty, generic statements like this. They don't say mean much of anything, and do not make us understand the issue any better.

Re: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

#15

Post by niczar » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 2:15 AM UTC

andrewljohnson wrote: post #4

The article is interesting and has lots of actual facts about dolphin neurology that kept me reading. I could do without the political crusade though.

The "crusade" is a good way of raising awareness to the issue. I don't care much for generic animal right activists. In fact, I think most of them, and in particular Peta, are complete morons and deserve to DIAF. But proto-sapient animals are another issue altogether.

And there's not just mammals. Corvids are damn smart. Attenborough had a documentary showing Japanese crows dropping nuts on roads at traffic lights. They wait for cars to run over them and break them, and wait for the red light to go pick them up. Well, here's some original research: I've witnessed this happen in Europe, too.

There is also research showing that crows can recognize faces, AND pass the information to other crows that some particular person is bad.

Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNuQURJJBlE&feature=youtu...

Edit: this is in the 4th video, not the 5th that I linked here.

Re: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

#16

Post by CapitalistCartr » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 2:19 AM UTC

itistoday wrote: post #8

grellas wrote: post #2

Marino and Reiss will present their findings at a conference in San Diego, California, next month, concluding that the new evidence about dolphin intelligence makes it morally repugnant to mistreat them. It is morally repugnant to mistreat animals regardless of the intelligence of the animal and being a scientist has nothing to do with making such a judgment, since it is not a scientific judgment but an ethical one.…

The article is not discussing the ethical question of "mistreatment", but rather that of legal rights. This is an important distinction. Anyone can advocate for dolphin rights, but, as scientists who have done research on dolphins, they are in a position to make ethical arguments against keeping dolphins in a zoo for public entertainment. The rationale behind these arguments are grounded firmly in science. You have t…

"Anyone can advocate for dolphin rights, but, as scientists who have done research on dolphins, they are in a position to make ethical arguments against keeping dolphins in a zoo for public entertainment."

"The rationale behind these arguments are grounded firmly in science. You have to be able to show the research that proves that one animal has no sense of self, while another (a dolphin) does, etc."

We are all in a position to make ethical arguments; I often do. But its not science. They are obviously in a position to know more about dolphins than most, but whether we change our policies regarding them might be grounded in science (for a change), but it is not, in and of itself, science, and they aren't experts in that.

As for a sense of self, I don't treat animals humanely because they have a sense of self, but because I do.

Re: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

#17

Post by elblanco » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 2:24 AM UTC

Good, we should then start making them liable for violations of laws as well. Dolphin researchers know for example that some dolphins like to form gangs and go around harassing other dolphins and forcing themselves sexually on female dolphins. Should we also send out the police patrol and lock them up?

Re: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

#18

Post by JulianMorrison » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 2:35 AM UTC

I'm far from convinced. On the one hand, their shape and their environment explains why they never copied the concept of technology from us. On the other, it does nothing to prevent them having art, literature, math, or creating a pidgin and talking to us. And on the third hand, we anatomically modern humans spent our first 150,000 years doing essentially sod all, so we can hardly complain.

I would want evidence of bidirectional conversation before calling them "people". Otherwise, I think they're "almost-people". Maybe near-future science can uplift them the rest of the way.

Re: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

#19

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 2:37 AM UTC

elblanco wrote: post #17

Good, we should then start making them liable for violations of laws as well. Dolphin researchers know for example that some dolphins like to form gangs and go around harassing other dolphins and forcing themselves sexually on female dolphins. Should we also send out the police patrol and lock them up?

No, you should leave that to the Dolphin police.

To force human norms and laws on Dolphins would be to anthropomorphize (sp?) and that is exactly what the article warns against.

If you start of from the assumption they are non-human persons then you'll have to admit to their right to self govern their society.

Re: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

#20

Post by hyperbovine » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 2:38 AM UTC

nudist wrote: post #13

grellas wrote: post #2

Marino and Reiss will present their findings at a conference in San Diego, California, next month, concluding that the new evidence about dolphin intelligence makes it morally repugnant to mistreat them. It is morally repugnant to mistreat animals regardless of the intelligence of the animal and being a scientist has nothing to do with making such a judgment, since it is not a scientific judgment but an ethical one.…

It's not a scientific judgement? How can you say it's OK to kill plants but not "animals," considering they are made of essentially the same thing? Where is the line? It's fairly easy to trace the evolution of the nervous system from simple single-celled organisms to modern animals. Moral repugnance is a purely human invention.

Plants and animals are made of essentially the same thing? Plants have no nervous system and absolutely no capacity for suffering. It is impossible to inflict pain on a plant. By contrast, most animals are capable of experiencing physical and even mental anguish. Once you admit this, good luck trying to build a coherent moral argument for why human suffering should be abhorrent while all other forms of animal suffering are fair game. This is "speciesism," a term introduced by the philosopher Peter Singer in his famous book Animal Liberation. I have never read a convincing refutation of the argument therein.

There is a line. It simply requires some thought to elucidate it.