Live data from Hacker News

Are killer whales persons?

salon.com

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Are killer whales persons?

#21

"Can an animal be a person?" According to the definition, a "person" refers to a human [0][1]. Perhaps the better question is should we treat the whales better or differently based on what we learned rather than shoe-horn them into a word that literally means human. [0] Oxford English: "A human being regarded as an individual" [1] Merriam-Webster: "a human being"

Under United States law companies are persons as well, so these definitions are a bit out of date. It's perfectly reasonable to expand the term "person" to apply to non humans, companies and orcas alike.

[deleted]

Re: Are killer whales persons?

#22

I think the real caution behind giving the status of person to a non-human has nothing to do with animals, but with removing the status of person from certain classes of humans. The atrocities of the last century should probably suffice to establish a measure of caution when redefining personhood.

can you provide an example where expanding the definition of personhood was abused as an excuse to commit atrocities?

Re: Are killer whales persons?

#23

That clickbait title though. Of course an orca is not a person; an orca is not human, which is most peoples' understanding of "person". I understand if articles might have clickbait titles, but can we give a more reasonable title on HN? Even the second part of the article title, "The more we learn about orcas, the more our assumption of innate superiority looks like a presumption" would've been more effective.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/RNHP

Re: Are killer whales persons?

#24

Here are a few things that would help humans begin to consider animals as their equals: Seeing animals behaving as traders as in "this is mine, this is yours, I'll trade you mine for yours." Seeing an animal contemplate art. Seeing animals having a conversation. Perhaps all of these have been observed, but if so we need to be more aware of them. Edit One more: Saving and passing on records of previous events

Few things animals did that had me sitting:

# Instant group work, two monkeys having to analyse a situation to pull ropes (all rigged by researchers of course) with the right choreography to free some food. One came, saw that pulling either end alone wouldn't cut it, call his buddy, they look at each other and the rig for a second, then split each to its own end, synchronize then pull, profit. The 'no brainer' attiude killed me.

# Crows 'reverse engineering' and social hacking: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ted+talk+crows

# Pity bargaining, a puppy lab trying to guilt trip us into letting her go outside after being reprimanded

# An octopuss mother heating its eggs until near death, saving her last forces to swim as far away as possible so her dead body wouldn't attract predators. The sacrifice got me emotional.

# The 'lion hugging its savior' video on youtube. That lion looked overwhelmed... More human than a Disney antropomorphic lion character. Just thinking about it warms my heart.

None of this is abstract enough for us to stop thinking we're not above. I'll agree that I've never seen an animal contemplating the world the way humans do. But maybe there's no point in doing it and we're just full of ourselves :)

Re: Are killer whales persons?

#25
I've skimmed through this a couple of times, and I think the answer is: it doesn't matter, because this article is actually about ending orca captivity by the Sea Worlds of the world. The personhood premise is just a macguffin.

Re: Are killer whales persons?

#26
It always seems weird when people are talking about whether x is a "word", and at the same time changing the definition of the "word" to mean "x".

Of course if we redefine the word "person" to mean something else, orcas can be considered "persons". We can even redefine it in such a way that a chair will be considered a "person" - but should we?

And if, as it currently stands, we have many different definitions, and are not even sure what the word means - of course we will not be sure whether orca is or is not it.

It's the same as with the debate of whether computers can be "conscious". A word is just a label, if nobody clearly understands what it means - conversation about whether or not something can be described by it is pointless.

Having said that, aside from the clickbaity title, article is pretty cool and interesting.

Edit:

Haha, I can't help but imagine that in 30 years human ethics will take another leap, orcas will be deemed sentient, and I will be denied some high status job for such an ignorant and speciest comment. And I'll have to give some apologetic speech "I deeply regret that I held such unenlightened beliefs, I profoundly apologize to the orca rights community, but I'd like to state for the record that I had a horrible day, and did not mean at all to offend the feelings of this oppressed minority by comparing them to furniture." And then the orca judge will sentence me to 10 years of eating algae of shame or something(a proper punishment as their sophisticated culture requires).

Re: Are killer whales persons?

#27

I have wondered about this often with cetaceans. I feel like personhood is such a human concept and completely depends on who is defining it. It calls into question, "What is personhood to begin with?" There have many documented cases of dolphins rescuing drowning human swimmers or protecting surfers from sharks. I feel like it takes a good amount of intelligence and empathy-like qualities for dolphins to be able to…

There's also documented cases of dolphins killing humans.

Re: Are killer whales persons?

#28

I think the real caution behind giving the status of person to a non-human has nothing to do with animals, but with removing the status of person from certain classes of humans. The atrocities of the last century should probably suffice to establish a measure of caution when redefining personhood.

can you provide an example where expanding the definition of personhood was abused as an excuse to commit atrocities?

Mentally Disabled People, Hitler.

Re: Are killer whales persons?

#29

I think the real caution behind giving the status of person to a non-human has nothing to do with animals, but with removing the status of person from certain classes of humans. The atrocities of the last century should probably suffice to establish a measure of caution when redefining personhood.

can you provide an example where expanding the definition of personhood was abused as an excuse to commit atrocities?

I'd consider telling an autonomous citizen what they can and cannot do with their bodies in the absence of disparate impact to the rest of the social community at large to be pretty abhorrent, and the definition of "personhood" was used to do exactly that in US abortion debates.
Post reply on HN