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

121–130 of 196 posts

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#121

Post by brudgers »

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.

I suspect that "We" have agreed. That doesn't mean everyone has. It is unlikely that everyone will, unless of course we exclude some people from our definition of everyone. Shirley, this is not your intent.

Philosophically, placing human rights first is inherently inconsistent with the foundation of extending "equal" rights to other species.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#122

Post by littlegiantcap »

icebraining wrote: post #73
littlegiantcap wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this was one of those negative rights, i.e. it doesn't have to be given to you, it just can't be taken from you.

Not given, but “Each state should thus develop a concrete and effective policy to make the Internet widely available, accessible, and affordable to all segments of population.” This can imply more than negative rights, in certain cases, but certainly not "free internet for everyone".

Interesting. It's always important when talking about "rights" to distinguish between negative and positive rights. Thanks for giving me a more fleshed out version there.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#123

Post by Osmium »

brudgers wrote: post #112
Osmium wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If this was the case, then we would be as tolerant toward the house cat who plays with the bird before killing it without eating it as we would be toward a human who acted likewise. The well being of an animal is no better after a slow cruel death than a quick painless one. When well being comes into play we tend to prohibit killing specifically and instrumental uses in general, as is the case with humans. The free r…

>If this was the case, then we would be as tolerant toward the house cat who plays with the bird before killing it without eating it as we would be toward a human who acted likewise.

I don't think that's fair. It's more that we recognise the futility in punishing a house cat, which is incapable of changing its ways nor of comprehending the pain it inflicts.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#125

Post by sageikosa »

analog wrote: post #107
Alex3917 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Not sure what fully communicate would mean? Do you suppose that dolphins have some untapped literary and rhetoric ability that once man figures out how to decode, we will be exposed to the a whole host of new great works?

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#126

Post by crusso »

jlgreco wrote: post #76
crusso wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a species, humans agree to basic rules of conduct that form an implied Social Contract. Can any non-human species do that?

Certainly a potential example from the past could perhaps be found in the social relations humans had with our close relatives. The relationships between Neanderthal and Cro-Magon is contested and ultimately largely unknown, however it seems likely there was some recognition of each other involved as something other than mere beasts.

Certainly a potential example from the past

Sorry, my question was rhetorical in reference to existing species, not a search for prior art.

If Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon did recognize each other with special status, that would be more of an example of the level of equality that would need to functionally exist between two species in order for there to be a real "understanding".

That level of relative equality in no way exists between humans and cetaceans, so proposals to pretend that they deserve equal status seems illogical to me. What's next, chickens have eyes like humans so we can't eat them? Green beans react to stimulii, humans do too, no eating green beans?

Slippery slopes, thy name is PETA.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#127

Post by crusso »

jlgreco wrote: post #76
crusso wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a species, humans agree to basic rules of conduct that form an implied Social Contract. Can any non-human species do that?

Certainly a potential example from the past could perhaps be found in the social relations humans had with our close relatives. The relationships between Neanderthal and Cro-Magon is contested and ultimately largely unknown, however it seems likely there was some recognition of each other involved as something other than mere beasts.

Certainly a potential example from the past

Sorry, my question was rhetorical in reference to existing species, not a search for prior art.

If Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon did recognize each other with special status, that would be more of an example of the level of equality that would need to functionally exist between two species in order for there to be a real "understanding".

That level of relative equality in no way exists between humans and cetaceans, so proposals to pretend that they deserve equal status seems illogical to me. What's next, chickens have eyes like humans so we can't eat them? Green beans react to stimulii, humans do too, no eating green beans?

Slippery slopes, thy name is PETA.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#128

Post by DanBC »

brudgers wrote: post #112
Osmium wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If this was the case, then we would be as tolerant toward the house cat who plays with the bird before killing it without eating it as we would be toward a human who acted likewise. The well being of an animal is no better after a slow cruel death than a quick painless one. When well being comes into play we tend to prohibit killing specifically and instrumental uses in general, as is the case with humans. The free r…

Slight tangent:

> the house cat who plays with the bird before killing it without eating it

Small birds have sharp beaks and claws. Mice have sharp teeth and claws.

Cats have a hunting instinct. Wild cats survive by hunting. To hunt and eat prey a cat needs working jaws.

The sharp teeth / beak / claws of prey only needs to puncture the skin of a cat's jaw once to cause infection which would leave that cat at serious risk of death, if not from infection then from lack of food because of reduced hunting.

"Playing" with the prey is a good way to weaken the prey before the killing bite is inflicted.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#129

Post by natex »

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.

"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."

This wasn't always the case, and may not be true in a million years.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#130

Post by JoeAltmaier »

I'd like to reference an argument presented here before when this same issue came up.

Japanese harvest ships slaughter thousands of dolphins each year, in a certain bay. Some escape. Next year, more olphins return to the bay and are caught, seemingly by surprise?

SO either, the escaped dolphins did not communicate the danger, were unable to communicate, or just didn't care what happened to other dolphins.

In any of those cases, do we have the duty to protect the lives of dolphins? Either they are not intelligent, not communicative, or have no racial ethic that values dolphin life. Why would we?

Post reply on HN