Does this article add anything new to the animal-sentience discussion?
Are killer whales persons?
31–40 of 65 posts
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#32I don't think that capturing killer whales is a thing we should do, but I don't like this line of reasoning: "They have big brains, complex social structures, rich emotional lives -- how can we still hold them captive?"
That line of argument is based on the idea that the rights of an individual are based on the intelligence or capability of the individual. That shouldn't be the case -- if a human being has a impaired intellectual capacity, or no social relationships, that's not grounds for abridging their rights.
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#33> and mind-boggling sixth sense
Uhm... Usually that implies something paranormal. I assume what the author meant was sonar, which is somewhat less bogglesome.
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#34Re: Are killer whales persons?
#35That 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.
That is the question basically, is being human a necessary precondition to being a person? And assuming that it is, which humans are not persons ( otherwise human and person would just be synonymous).
That doesn't really follow. Just because human may not be a necessary precondition doesn't mean being human can't be a sufficient precondition.
Consider the hypothetical definition that a person is any being that is either a human or a dolphin. Now all humans are people, but not all people are humans.
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#36It 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 a…
Well, it's clear from reading the article that Lori Marino thinks that actually using the word "person" -- in acknowledging that it might not be the right word -- is secondary to granting killer whales and other animals some of the rights and privileges associated with personhood on the basis of their capacity for emotion, intelligence and empathy. In that sense, the idea isn't pointless but actually would have practical implications, as much as the abolition of slavery wasn't simply a matter of definition.
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#37It 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 a…
Changing the definitions of words is just part of how human language fulfills its goals of communicating any idea to anyone at any time. Think about how intractable some of these refactorings would be if you were trying to code them formally in computer programming language.
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#38[deleted]
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#39Can we arrest killer whales then? Or can Orca on Orca crime be allowed?
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#40If animals are persons, and deserve some or all of the rights that humans persons enjoy, then they should also bear some or all of the responsibilities that human persons usually bear.
Oh, you just ate another sentient animal? Locked up in a zoo for the rest of your life.
So although I believe that we should treat certain animals as if they had certain rights, I don't think we should approach the topic in the same way we think of human rights. If animal have rights, they will be very different kinds of rights than what we are used to. There may also be equally large differences between different species. Orcas are just as different from dogs, if not more, as dogs are from us.
Even the right to life, possibly the most fundamental of human rights, takes on a completely different meaning when another animal claims the right to eat you. And perhaps if we think hard enough along these lines, we might also get some fresh insights about the ethics of human meat-eating.