Live data from Hacker News

Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

bbc.co.uk

171–180 of 196 posts

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#171
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Killing the cat would change it's ways.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#172
post #48

I applaud this. It's time we stop drawing the line of where rights begin and end at the species barrier and start taking a characteristics based approach. What are the characteristics of a human that lead us to say one should have rights? If other species share those characteristics, they too should be granted those rights.

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

We don't know if they can do that. You might say we can observe their behaviour, but would an entity as intelligent as us, but who cannot communicate with us, draw this conclusions by observing us? I doubt it. If you don't know our "reasons" to have wars, or why some humans are starving while other humans are throwing food away and so on, would you think that we have any "Social Contract" at all? I also can't really say I'm convinced that we do...

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#173
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not a requirement, that is what the discussion is about. If it were a requirement, we wouldn't be trying to decide if it should be a requirement or not. Using a sample size of one to prove a point is absurd.

I'm not saying it's a proof by statistics. It's a requirement in order for the system to maintain logical consistency. We can do whatever we want. We can give citizenship rights to gummy bears because they look like real bears and bears have two arms and two legs just like people. It would be illogical and counterproductive to any real advancement for society, though.

Reductio ad absurdum isn't helping your case. You haven't made an argument, just assertions. Why would giving some rights to a non-human animal break "logical consistency"? Just saying it does is meaningless, provide an argument.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#174
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protecting other members of the social group is also an expected consequence of natural selection. Animals form social groups for survival reasons and caring for disabled members is a natural consequence. Wolves lick each others wounds, for example. Although the behavior evidenced by cetaceans is fascinating, it just isn't societally important enough to justify the push by the AAS to recognize them as fundamentally e…

What's interesting is where it appears to go beyond what natural selection would favour - caring for individuals who won't be able to hunt and provide food again. Of course, nothing in biology is that simple. The individuals could have some other use, such as navigational memory. The carers could be gaining reputation, i.e. they'll get more benefits from other members of the group. Or it could be an evolutionary 'acc…

beyond what natural selection would favour

Not really. The Social constructs are beneficial to gene survival. If a woolly mammoth injures you, I take care of you because I have a social bond that works both ways. Prehistoric me does not necessarily understand if the injury is permanent, but our bond is there to assume that the help I'm giving you will be conferred upon me or my offspring at some point.

Love, cooperation, and compassion are (situationally) survival traits.

When you consider further that individual survival isn't as important as genetic survival, you can see that social behaviors are selected for in animals capable of exhibiting them to some degree.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#175
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a implied statement that cetaceans would somehow need to learn English to receive similar protections as people. English? Where did I say that? However, communication verbal or nonverbal that conveys agreement to participate in a society is a requirement. This kind of communication would need to happen either individually or representatives cetaceans would need to come forward who could vouch for others of t…

Why do they have to participate in our society in order to be protected from torture/murder/slavery/etc? The point of this article is that they have their own society and should not be made our playthings. I'm also not sure why they would need to agree to some kind of treaty with humans just to be spared our cruelty. There's no evidence they mean us harm, we have the ability to protect ourselves if they did, let's ju…

Why do they have to participate in our society in order to be protected from torture/murder/slavery/etc?

That's a strawman. The proposal was to give Dolphins "the same rights as humans".

Protection of the creatures from hunting and physical exploitation is sufficient and something normally agreed to through international treaties. Equating cetaceans with humans is unnecessary and illogical.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this line of thought extremely tedious. We have never improved as a society by lining up all of our concerns in a nicely organized list by priority, and then tackling everything on the agenda sequentially. I am reminded of people who scoff at giving money to bums on the grounds that it is an inefficient form of charity. In most cases, here is what happens: 1. Bum asks X for spare change. 2. X thinks "That's no…

I agree with the point you're making - we can address more than one problem at once - but I'm not sure the charity example is the best one. People have a kind of mental 'karma quota', where once they've done so much good deeds, they don't feel a need to do more. It's a problem for environmental awareness, because people get daft advice like 'unplug your phone charger' (which achieves almost nothing), and then feel th…

So there are actually some countervailing forces at work here. On the one hand, people who have social status associated with ethical behavior tend to be more likely to act unethically (I wish I could find a reference for that offhand, but no matter).

On the other hand, self-image plays a pretty big role in determining behavior. Robert Cialdini discusses this at length in Influence: Science and Practice. He discusses several studies that demonstrate that getting someone to take an action that affects their self-image makes them more likely to make decisions corresponding to that self-image in the future.

For example, researchers divided home owners into two groups. Those in Group A were initially approached and asked to place three-inch signs in their yards saying "be a safe driver", and most of them complied. Group B was not approached initially.

A few weeks after that, the researchers went back to everyone in both groups and asked them if they would be willing to place a large billboard in their yard saying "drive carefully". They were shown a picture example showing a poorly designed billboard so large that it almost entirely obscured the view of the house. Almost everyone in Group B declined. The majority in Group A accepted.

The conclusion of this, and many other experiments is fascinating: people have a powerful drive to behave consistently. We are strongly repulsed by the possibility of hypocrisy. So if you change someone's view of themselves to fit a certain pattern, they will tend to continue to conform to that pattern in the future. So to some degree at least, giving money to a homeless person will create in you an internal psychological pressure to be more altruistic in the future.

And choosing not to give money because you think giving it to charity would be more effective may inadvertently cause you to incorporate "cautious about donating" into your self-image, and cause you to have more difficulty with future altruism. After all, what if you gave money to the Red Cross instead of the homeless person, and then found out that they weren't such a great charity after all? You'd look like a hypocrite for being cautious with the bum, but not with the Red Cross. Your brain is very good at anticipating "I'll look like a hypocrite" and avoiding it, even when the end result is worse for everyone.

Incidentally, if you find this stuff fascinating (or terrifying), I highly recommend Cialdini's book. But it might make you a little paranoid about salespeople and marketers.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#177
post #49
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.

[deleted]

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#178
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it's a proof by statistics. It's a requirement in order for the system to maintain logical consistency. We can do whatever we want. We can give citizenship rights to gummy bears because they look like real bears and bears have two arms and two legs just like people. It would be illogical and counterproductive to any real advancement for society, though.

Reductio ad absurdum isn't helping your case. You haven't made an argument, just assertions. Why would giving some rights to a non-human animal break "logical consistency"? Just saying it does is meaningless, provide an argument.

Do a grep through this thread for my userid. I've made my argument in several places. Basically, acquiring human status requires interactive and consensual participation in a relationship/society.

Exhibiting some rudimentary social behaviors doesn't qualify as accepting the responsibilities along with the rights accorded with status.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#179
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they have to participate in our society in order to be protected from torture/murder/slavery/etc? The point of this article is that they have their own society and should not be made our playthings. I'm also not sure why they would need to agree to some kind of treaty with humans just to be spared our cruelty. There's no evidence they mean us harm, we have the ability to protect ourselves if they did, let's ju…

Why do they have to participate in our society in order to be protected from torture/murder/slavery/etc? That's a strawman. The proposal was to give Dolphins "the same rights as humans". Protection of the creatures from hunting and physical exploitation is sufficient and something normally agreed to through international treaties. Equating cetaceans with humans is unnecessary and illogical.

No, the proposal is to give cetaceans the rights of life and liberty. Humans have quite a few other rights. Animals have no rights whatsoever.

The proposal is not equating humans and cetaceans. It is stating that cetaceans are close enough to humans that we should respect their life and not treat them a property. One hopes that an alien species landing on Earth would feel the same about humans...

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#180

We need to be very careful here. There are those (not myself) who would contend that a fetus is a "person", thereby implying that abortion is "murder". I disagree with that, but if we say cetaceans are "persons" than is whaling then "murder"? Are we calling the Eskimo tribes who to this day hunt whales as part of their cultural tradition "murderers"? I am all for conservation, don't get me wrong, but willy-nilly thro…

Are we calling the Eskimo tribes who to this day hunt whales as part of their cultural tradition "murderers"?

Would you call the cannibalistic tribes who hunt neighbouring tribes and eat them in holy rituals murderers?

Post reply on HN