Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists • Hacker News Board

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#71

Post by brudgers » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 3:37 PM UTC

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 animals than the criminalization of throwing litter from a car is based on the rights of curbs.

On the other hand, ethical considerations are not dependent upon legislation. One may choose to forgo killing a cockroach based upon inherent respect for it as a living creature.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#72

Post by pyre » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 3:38 PM UTC

lumberjack wrote: post #63

monsterix wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While theorizing tests of animal psyche and self-awareness might be helpful to the purpose, but what we humans forget is the preciseness of agent Smith's evaluation of us: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with th…

>There is no chance any animal/fish is going to survive the brunt of us 9 billion in next fifty years. I won't be so sure considering that unlike a Virus we are aware of the damage we are causing and are already trying to mitigate it.

We can see a 100 ft. wave coming at our rowboat, and some of us are trying to paddle with our hands, and some of us are trying to design a better rowboat (predicting that there is enough time to design/build this before the wave hits), while others are arguing that the wave doesn't exist or will dissipate before it reaches us. I don't have a whole lot of faith.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#73

Post by icebraining » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 3:40 PM UTC

littlegiantcap wrote: post #54

swalberg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UN has said that broadband Internet is a basic human right. This is starting to get difficult.

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".

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#74

Post by crusso » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 3:41 PM UTC

takluyver wrote: post #58

crusso wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Christian worldview holds that human life has value intrinsically because God values it. Protecting helpless/non-contributing life was happening long before Christianity. Protecting helpless/non-contributing life is seen in almost all vertebrate+ life forms and seems to be a requirement for species advancement. The alligator mother allows its spawn to swim in and out of its mouth for protection, it doesn't eat th…

> The alligator mother allows its spawn to swim in and out of its mouth for protection Protecting offspring, and relatives more generally, is an expected consequence of natural selection. It doesn't require any kind of intelligence, compassion, or even consciousness. Witness the many ways plants invest in protecting their seeds, for example. What's interesting in this context is caring for the elderly, disabled or in…

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 equivalent to people.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#75

Post by pyre » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 3:43 PM UTC

johnnyg wrote: post #9

Sorry, but I'm going to need a Dolphin declaration of independence, armed revolution and ability to self sustain through value creation first.

A baby can't self-sustain, is it ok if I kill it?

Someone that is brain-dead can't self-sustain, are there no legal/ethical qualms if I pull the plug?

Are disabled people open season for abuse because they are 'lesser' than the rest of us?

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#76

Post by jlgreco » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 3:46 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #48

sethbannon wrote: post #35

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?

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.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#77

Post by jlgreco » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 3:48 PM UTC

mistercow wrote: post #69

crusso wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short of new mutations, no dolphin has ever, is, or will ever be a fully functioning member of society. Rules of thumb regarding treatment of immature or disabled humans is not at all appropriate.

>a fully functioning member of society What does that even mean?

I don't know, but I do know that if we all accepted that as a standard we would be in a much worse off place as a society since most times I hear the phrase "fully functioning member of society" the implied alternative is usually "penniless hippy".

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#78

Post by jcarreiro » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 3:49 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #14

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…

Their view is not that intelligence makes your life more worthwhile, but that there is a threshold of species intelligence which makes that species "persons". Note the focus on a species, rather than individuals.

I believe their argument stems not so much from the intelligence of cetaceans -- as others have pointed out, intelligence is hard to define -- but from evidence that they are self-aware, conscious beings.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#79

Post by crusso » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 3:50 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #70

crusso wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short of new mutations, no dolphin has ever, is, or will ever be a fully functioning member of society. Rules of thumb regarding treatment of immature or disabled humans is not at all appropriate.

Fully functioning in society seems to be setting the bar too high; we don't consider that a prerequisite for rights in humans by any reasonable interpretation. Now, will dolphins ever communicate their desire to achieve greater legal consideration? Not unless we put some more effort into researching communication with dolphins (and even then, I strongly suspect not). Not really a problem though I think.

we don't consider that a prerequisite for rights in humans by any reasonable interpretation.

You miss my point. It's not a requirement for any individual, but it IS a requirement for members of a species in general. Most humans are functioning members of society. The ones that aren't, whether it's temporary or permanent are protected implicitly and explicitly through social contract and the laws we've created.

No dolphin will ever be a functioning member of our society, thus dolphins are not part of society, thus dolphins do not take on the responsibilities of being in a relationship with humans, thus dolphins are not entitled to parallel status.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#80

Post by Goosey » Mon, Nov 05, 2012, 3:50 PM UTC

monsterix wrote: post #57

sethbannon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 10 month old has no responsibilities. Certainly, though, she has rights.

While theorizing tests of animal psyche and self-awareness might be helpful to the purpose, but what we humans forget is the preciseness of agent Smith's evaluation of us: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with th…

So tired of this meme. Humans are like a virus in the way that every species on the planet is like a virus. Look no further than invasive species to see that any form of life given the ability to expand it's population will do exactly that. The majority of species reach what we view as 'an equilibrium' because they run into the constraints of their environment on a scale small enough for us to make note of, but humans do the exact same thing; only our scale is the entire planet and we haven't run into the constraints yet. The moment humans were intelligent enough to form agriculture is the moment humans inherited this planet.