Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious; can you point to any references?
just google "dolphin killing humans." here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ti%C3%A3o
Wow, what a sad story. :(
Are killer whales persons?
61–65 of 65 posts
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#62It 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…
Haha, i for one welcome our orca overlords and would rather be on the right side of history! All hail orcas!
But all kidding aside, i do have appreciation for arguments against anthropocentrism, or at least suppositions of human superiority. Sure, there's a spectrum regarding to how “intelligent” (read: advanced faculties of empathy, planning, language, etc.) different species seem to be in general, but i definitely believe we as humans are very much on the bad side of the spectrum regarding how we treat non-humans. We have a long way to go yet. Locking up animals in zoos, through to slaughtering them for food after a life of misery, all don't seem to me behaviours befitting a species which calls itself empathic and intelligent. As somebody wise once said, a society should be judged on how it deals with its weakest members.
But yeah, i guess the article is preaching to the choir in my case, since i would be in favour of more protection of non-human rights, not only for orcas (presumably rather high on the intelligence scale) but also for most non-humans we use for food, medical trials, etc. Whether that means they should be granted personhood, however, seems a tricky question, which i assume is best fought out by lawyers. The thing is, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that probably entails many responsibilities and prohibitions (e.g., no killing each other) which would simply be impractical/absurd (having said that, i like the idea lower down in the thread, that inter-species violence could be considered in a similar fashion to crimes outside of a given jurisdiction). Still, if not personhood, i would at the very least be in favour of universal rights for all sentient beings (ha, i hear you now, what is the cut-off for sentience? Mice? Flies? Earthworms? Bacteria? This is a hypothetical and hand-wavy argument)—they should not be kept in zoos against their will, and (more pertinently) not be killed for our sustenance/experiments/gratification. Basically, they should not be property.
...but none of that seems to be very broadly underwritten by society at large. One can dream, i guess.
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#63I'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.
According to this article, there's evidence to suggest that keeping orcas in captivity is detrimental to their well being. Why does having that evidence suddenly mean having an opinion on what to do with it is off limits?
I didn't say that. Of course it's detrimental to their well-being: Orcas are wild animals not bred for captivity. This is not new news.
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but the legal definition of a person and the dictionary definition don't have to agree, so it's important which personhood we're trying to redefine. Should orcas be legal persons? Probably not. They can't give consent and will never be able to, in principle. This is different from a mentally underdeveloped human or a human child because an orca will neither grow up to be able to give consent nor could they reac…
> because an orca will neither grow up to be able to give consent Conjecture that I do not agree with. Orcas can definitely give consent, it depends on the situation. > nor could they reach that capacity as a species (within human timeframes). More conjecture with which I disagree. Orcas can talk and they can indicate consent already. > there isn't any selection pressure guiding them in that direction. Conjecture. St…
I'm talking about informed, legal consent.
A child isn't able to give that, much less any non-human animal.
Re: Are killer whales persons?
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because an orca will neither grow up to be able to give consent Conjecture that I do not agree with. Orcas can definitely give consent, it depends on the situation. > nor could they reach that capacity as a species (within human timeframes). More conjecture with which I disagree. Orcas can talk and they can indicate consent already. > there isn't any selection pressure guiding them in that direction. Conjecture. St…
I'm talking about informed, legal consent. A child isn't able to give that, much less any non-human animal.
Here's an example of a grizzly expressing non-consent to being caged up:
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-zoo-bear-slams-rock-int...
That is sufficient for me and it should be sufficient for any decent human being.
If you require a grizzly or an orca to "sign on the dotted line for informed legal consent", you are a monster, and you are the one who should be caged up.