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

91–100 of 196 posts

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#91

Post by nathan_long »

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.

>> 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 what is or is not moral. Any answer you can give necessarily depends on views which can only be classified as religious, even if you are a purely a materialist; they involve the purpose of existence, what it means to be human, etc.

Consider this exchange:

A: "We should not commit genocide." B: "Why?" A: "Because protecting life is a universal human value." B: "It's not universal if I don't agree with it. Why should I care?" A: "Because we can't survive as a species unless we protect one another." B: "What if I don't care about the species, but only about myself?" A: "Genocide is still wrong. You shouldn't do it." B: "Says who?"

Ultimately A has to answer "there is a larger moral principle outside of you which, whether you agree with it or not, you are obligated to obey", which is a religious statement.

The only other option is "many of us prefer that you don't do this and we will use force to stop you." That's pragmatic, but it's not about morality at all; it could just as well be applied to playing the bagpipes.

You can't exclude religion from moral debates because morality is inherently about religion.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#92

Post by jlgreco »

crusso wrote: post #84
mistercow wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#93

Post by philwelch »

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.

Well, we interbred.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#94

Post by analog »

crusso wrote: post #41
swombat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When cetaceans let us know that they will mutually honor some sort of Interspecies Protective Treaty, I will be the first in line to support the move that they should have similar protections to people. Until then, I don't want to see such beautiful intelligent creatures harmed -- but murder/manslaughter charges would be inappropriate if one were inadvertently killed. The current animal protection/endangered species…

A quick google search provides plenty of examples of dolphins rescuing humans.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#95

Post by mistercow »

crusso wrote: post #84
mistercow wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

If "participates" in society is sufficient for "fully functioning member of society", then at a minimum, trained dolphins who perform in shows are fully functioning members of society. They have complex interactions with their trainers, including fairly high level communication, and they perform work in exchange for goods (fish).

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#96

Post by nathan_long »

crusso wrote: post #33
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…

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…

>> As thinking, social beings, we've extended the umbrella of protecting life to members of our species that are functionally disabled, even to the point where they can't take care of themselves.

You say that as though the matter has been completely and definitively decided. In fact, humans often disregard that protection and hurt harmless people. Which is why moral debates are still being had, and why it's worth asking about the philosophical underpinnings of a moral position.

I suggested that Christianity offers such underpinnings. You may suggest alternate ones, but I think it would be naive to say that no such moral arguments are necessary because Nature Takes Care Of It.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#97

Post by jlgreco »

philwelch wrote: post #93
jlgreco wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, we interbred.

Which admittedly does not necessarily suggest any form of mutual recognition. Instances of cultural exchange I think are more suggestive.

Perhaps the better question is, if Neanderthals were to somehow come back and enter the modern world, would we accept extending some sort of ethical consideration to them? I think we undoubtedly would.

The current deficient of other species that we all accept as special in some way in no way suggests that inter-species relationships of that sort are impossible.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#98

Post by takluyver »

crusso wrote: post #74
takluyver wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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 'accident': the injured or weak individual triggers a response that evolved to restore a productive member of the group, even if it won't work in that case.

You can make similar arguments about human altruism. But in some cases, the most simple explanation is a personal relationship between individuals and a sense of compassion.

I don't have strong feelings either way about the initiative in the linked article. But I'm fascinated by the questions of consciousness and how we assess it.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#99

Post by njharman »

crusso wrote: post #41
swombat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When cetaceans let us know that they will mutually honor some sort of Interspecies Protective Treaty, I will be the first in line to support the move that they should have similar protections to people. Until then, I don't want to see such beautiful intelligent creatures harmed -- but murder/manslaughter charges would be inappropriate if one were inadvertently killed. The current animal protection/endangered species…

> The current animal protection/endangered species protection rules are sufficient.

The recently and soon to be extinct species would disagree with you.

Also, if homo sapiens had the same levels of "protection" I'd be able to cull yuppies when too many of them moved into my neighborhood.

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

#100

Post by jlgreco »

mistercow wrote: post #95
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.

If "participates" in society is sufficient for "fully functioning member of society", then at a minimum, trained dolphins who perform in shows are fully functioning members of society. They have complex interactions with their trainers, including fairly high level communication, and they perform work in exchange for goods (fish).

For that matter, you could make a strong case for dogs as well. How many thousands work for us?
Post reply on HN