Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 196 posts

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#101

Post by Osmium »

nathan_long wrote: post #6

>> They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans. I don't have a problem with extending legal protection to dolphins, but I do think that "intelligence" as the criteria is morally problematic, at least if it's the sole criteria. For instance, could a person with Down's Syndrome be denied protection from murder? The Christian worldview holds that hum…

We need a metric by which to make these decisions, and intelligence is a good start. But note the logic only works in one direction: if you're intelligent enough, you get these ethical considerations, but if you're not intelligent enough that doesn't mean you don't get these considerations. The Down's Syndrome comment is not relevant to the discussion.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#102

Post by rudiger »

dharmach wrote: post #26
nathan_long wrote: post #6

>> They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans. I don't have a problem with extending legal protection to dolphins, but I do think that "intelligence" as the criteria is morally problematic, at least if it's the sole criteria. For instance, could a person with Down's Syndrome be denied protection from murder? The Christian worldview holds that hum…

Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values.

Do you realize the irony of telling others what to think or say?

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#103

Post by Osmium »

brudgers wrote: post #71
njl wrote: post #27

I'm very comfortable with this in the general case; I feel guilty eating bacon because pigs seem pretty smart. Still, rights always come paired up with responsibilities. Do we then try dolphins for rape or murder? Rather than saying certain categories of animals should have the same rights as humans, maybe we'd be better off saying certain categories of animals deserve a higher level of ethical and legal consideratio…

Western legal systems tend to only recognizes two types of entities, persons and property. Those entities to which personhood is extended have rights, all else does not. We punish those who are cruel to animals, not because we attribute personhood to them, but because of the impact animal cruelty has upon persons collectively (society at large). Criminalization of animal cruelty is no more based on the rights of anim…

> We punish those who are cruel to animals, not because we attribute personhood to them, but because of the impact animal cruelty has upon persons collectively (society at large).

Are you sure this is correct? I'm fairly sure cruelty to animals is punished purely because of ethical considerations for the animal's well being.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#104

Post by nandemo »

jawns wrote: post #15

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the cause of treating dolphins as if they had human rights if we first agreed to treat all humans as if they had human rights.

Indeed. These are some other headlines on the BBC sidebar at the moment:

    Deadly car bombings rock Syria
    S Korea shuts nuclear reactors
    Two killed in Bahrain explosions

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#105

Post by Osmium »

Jach wrote: post #49
swombat wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it could easily be argued that the dolphins' way of life is more sustainable than ours... Probably not the best line of argument!

In the long term? No way. Only humans have the potential to spread themselves off this rock and throughout the solar system and beyond. Dolphins are limited to where we take them.

Conversely, only humans have the ability to wipe all forms of intelligent life off this planet and hasten their own destruction.

Furthermore, you could've made the same comment about us [humans] just a few thousand years ago. And considering the rate of evolution compared to the length of time this planet is going to be around for, it's probably a bad idea to extrapolate the fate of dolphins in the future based on their current capabilities.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#107

Post by analog »

Alex3917 wrote: post #40
njl wrote: post #27

I'm very comfortable with this in the general case; I feel guilty eating bacon because pigs seem pretty smart. Still, rights always come paired up with responsibilities. Do we then try dolphins for rape or murder? Rather than saying certain categories of animals should have the same rights as humans, maybe we'd be better off saying certain categories of animals deserve a higher level of ethical and legal consideratio…

"Maybe we'd be better off saying certain categories of animals deserve a higher level of ethical and legal consideration." Ethicists use the term animal welfare (as opposed to animal rights) for this reason. No one at least at this point thinks that animals should be allowed to vote, which is what equal rights for animals would imply.

Surely this is mainly due to the language barriers though? If we could fully communicate, what then?

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#108

Post by crusso »

jlgreco wrote: post #92
crusso wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure where to start. How about if you imagine that a member of Society defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society Participates in one.

What you are suggesting basically just amounts to "dolphins cannot be a part of society because currently society only includes humans, and dolphins are different than humans." We are proposing a re-definition .

What you are suggesting ...

That's not in the least what I'm suggesting.

Dolphins cannot participate in our society by agreement. They don't understand what participating is. They're captured or born in captivity and then trained to perform a few tricks. They are beautiful and fascinating, but they have no contributions to make to the fiber of our society that can't be made by other animals, machines, or even simple objects.

They are able to do nothing further. Giving them a new status is just semantics. They are fundamentally not functioning members of our society. Not individually. Not as a species.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#109

Post by dharmach »

nathan_long wrote: post #91
dharmach wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values.

>> Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values. I understand your sentiment, but 1) you're making an "ad hominem" against Christianity, which I could argue is not justified but in any case is not pertinent, and 2) what you're asking ultimately doesn't make sense. We're having a discussion about w…

I do not deny the (apparent)link between morality and religions but morality, specially non-violence, neither exist/ed only in Christianity, nor it was introduced by Christianity, nor Christianity was/is the largest proponent of it, so what warrants special mention?

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#110

Post by jlgreco »

nathan_long wrote: post #91
dharmach wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values.

>> Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values. I understand your sentiment, but 1) you're making an "ad hominem" against Christianity, which I could argue is not justified but in any case is not pertinent, and 2) what you're asking ultimately doesn't make sense. We're having a discussion about w…

Religious arguments or justifications would be laughed out of any ethics class. Regardless of what the other merits of religion may or may not be (not relevant to this discussion), they do not aid these types of discussions.

Any relevant principles can be talked about without a religious carrier signal; including it only serves to alienate those who do not share the same beliefs.

Post reply on HN