Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

mrjonno · **#61** by **mrjonno** » Feb 22, 2012 2:23 pm

No rights are natural they are a product of the civilization you live in and are conditional on responsibilities.

Dolphins have no responsibilities therefore have no rights (dolphins eat fish where no fishing is allowed going to arrest them for it?)

However human beings do have responsibilites towards animals and lose their own rights is they fail in this duty (kick your cat go to jail or at least get a fine I hope. It would be quite reasonable to increase this responsibilites for humans when dolphins or other intelligent animals are involved)

Acetone · **#62** by **Acetone** » Feb 22, 2012 4:39 pm

Why should intelligence be the qualification for personhood rights? Does a mentally challenged person not deserve these rights?

Even if personhood were based on intelligence, humans are vastly superior to any animal in that regard. Dolphins are not even remotely close to being as intelligent as your average human.

There are certain rights which we should only give to humans and I think that those rights would be encompassed by the word personhood. I do not think those rights should be given to non-human animals. Instead we should just accept that they are beings and give them rights and freedoms specific to their species/situation which would best suit them and their specific needs.

To be clear my understanding of personhood encompasses legal rights AND legal liability, citizenship, equality and responsibilities. A dolphin or any other intelligent animal excluding humans would not be able to be held legally liable for any crimes it broke. Right there that breaks 'equality'. If a dolphin can do it legally under the definition of personhood then so should a human. So if a dolphin kills another person and does not face any penalty then a human must have that same right. Giving dolphins citizenship? Come on... Equal as a human being? Really? I mean really?

I assume everyone posting in this thread is pro-abortion... why do you dismiss anti-abortion claims of personhood on a fetus?

ScholasticSpastic · **#63** by **ScholasticSpastic** » Feb 22, 2012 7:15 pm

To have rights requires the ability to understand that one has rights. An animal incapable of understanding this concept may have protections, but may not have rights. This applies to all such animals, including mentally challenged adult humans and juvenile humans.

So I disagree with scientists who say cetaceans should have rights. They should have protections. Like our children do.

j.mills · **#64** by **j.mills** » Feb 22, 2012 9:24 pm

Beggin' yer puddin', but children have rights. Perhaps you're saying they shouldn't have, but under the law they certainly do. Indeed, there's a whole UN Convention on the Rights of the Child with "near-universal ratification". And contrary to what Acetone is saying, they have them regardless of the fact that (under a threshold, YMMV) they are not legally liable for criminal acts.

mrjonno wrote:No rights are natural they are a product of the civilization you live in and are conditional on responsibilities.

Your only responsibility is to obey the law. Even when you break it, we suspend no more rights than are necessary, and for no longer than is necessary. Your right to freedom of religion, for instance, is unaffected by your being imprisoned, as is your right to fair trial or asylum. You don't have to earn your rights by any action: they are accorded you by virtue of your being human. They aren't a reward for good deeds, but a recognition and declaration of your individual freedom, a patch of territory around you into which government may not trespass.

mrjonno · **#65** by **mrjonno** » Feb 22, 2012 10:00 pm

Your only responsibility is to obey the law. Even when you break it, we suspend no more rights than are necessary, and for no longer than is necessary. Your right to freedom of religion, for instance, is unaffected by your being imprisoned, as is your right to fair trial or asylum. You don't have to earn your rights by any action: they are accorded you by virtue of your being human. They aren't a reward for good deeds, but a recognition and declaration of your individual freedom, a patch of territory around you into which government may not trespass.

Obey the law which include paying taxes is quite a responsibility. Children are considered not to be able to understand the concept of the law and hence don't get the same level of rights as adults do nor are they punished for breaking it (exact age varies).

Disagree you get rights by being human you get rights by being born into a civilized society, a human alone on a desert island with no others around has no rights.

Even basics like a right to life are not absolute , in the UK you lose the right to live if you are immediately threatening serious harm or the life of others but don't lose it if you have already killed someone (unlike in countries with the death penalty).

Freedom of religion is bollocks and has no place in any civilized country, freedom of belief is entirely different. No one should be punished for believing anything but don't expect to put any wacko belief into practice and not get punished.

There is no creator, there is no god and there certainly arent any 'natural' rights

campermon · **#66** by **campermon** » Feb 22, 2012 10:05 pm

My tuppence worth;

We should worry more about ensuring that all humans are in receipt of their rights before thinking about other species.

:coffee:

willhud9 · **#67** by **willhud9** » Feb 22, 2012 10:07 pm

Of course I disagree. There are natural rights or else we wouldn't have discussions about dictators and tyrants. Why is someone a tyrant? Because they restrict certain rights. Well why do we object to the exploitation of those rights? Because they are natural in all humans. The right to life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness/property is fundamental to all humans.

You may argue that this caring for the suffering of individuals in countries with dictators comes from a sense of humanistic altruism, but that is not easy to show.

j.mills · **#68** by **j.mills** » Feb 22, 2012 10:14 pm

campermon wrote:My tuppence worth;

We should worry more about ensuring that all humans are in receipt of their rights before thinking about other species.

I disagree. We should worry about ensuring women's rights before we worry about the rest of humanity. Of course, we won't have time to worry about women's rights in general until we have first dealt with the rights of homosexual women. And in saying that, obviously I recognise that we won't be able to get around to that until we have first settled the question of rights for disabled homosexual women. But I'm afraid that will have to go to the back of the queue while we sort out the rights of elderly disabled homosexual women. Which, I don't have to tell you, can't possibly be addressed while the problem of rights for autistic elderly disabled homosexual women is outstanding...

Hmm. I wonder if a better approach might be for humankind to work on more than one problem at once? :ask:

j.mills · **#69** by **j.mills** » Feb 22, 2012 10:20 pm

mrjonno wrote:Disagree you get rights by being human you get rights by being born into a civilized society, a human alone on a desert island with no others around has no rights.

I said you are accorded rights: the UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (a wonderfully aspirational document) accords those rights to every human being without exception and has done so since 1949. (EDIT: Damn, 1948!) From that came the EU Convention and from that the UK's Human Rights Act. If in a particular society you cannot [safely] exercise those rights, it is not that you do not have them, it's that your national government is not respecting its obligations under international agreements. That may be of little consolation, but it's not nothing: it is, for instance, the lever that Amnesty has been usefully leaning on for decades.

Mr.Samsa · **#70** by **Mr.Samsa** » Feb 23, 2012 2:20 am

Joe09 wrote:Mr Samsa, what are you're thoughts on establishments such as Sea World?

I'm not sure if there are any egregious animal abuse issues which have gone on there recently, but as a general establishment I think it does great work by helping in breeding animals to be released into the wild, and by taking in injured and sick animals. Since their training methods don't use any kind of aversive motivations, then teaching them tricks and getting them to perform tricks is vital for the health, well-being and development of the animals. Not to mention that it creates a form of revenue that allows them to continue doing their work and helping more animals.

willhud9 wrote:Of course I disagree. There are natural rights or else we wouldn't have discussions about dictators and tyrants. Why is someone a tyrant? Because they restrict certain rights. Well why do we object to the exploitation of those rights? Because they are natural in all humans. The right to life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness/property is fundamental to all humans.

You may argue that this caring for the suffering of individuals in countries with dictators comes from a sense of humanistic altruism, but that is not easy to show.

I'm not sure how you're using "natural rights" here - are you using it in the sense that there are universal and objective rights which are bestowed upon mankind by the universe? Because that's how your argument seems to make it sound. Even without an objective or absolute form of "rights" or morals, we can still discuss the behavior of dictators and tyrants and even say that what they are doing is 'wrong'.

mrjonno · **#71** by **mrjonno** » Feb 23, 2012 9:17 am

willhud9 wrote:Of course I disagree. There are natural rights or else we wouldn't have discussions about dictators and tyrants. Why is someone a tyrant? Because they restrict certain rights. Well why do we object to the exploitation of those rights? Because they are natural in all humans. The right to life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness/property is fundamental to all humans.

You may argue that this caring for the suffering of individuals in countries with dictators comes from a sense of humanistic altruism, but that is not easy to show.

No rights exist they are created, but that doesnt mean they are natural. I think of them as the minimum a human being needs to do well and certainly include things that are mostly unnatural like antibiotics (ie medical care). Human rights are quite simular to the concept of the minimum wage no one should expect to have to exist with less. That also means minimum rights will probably change with time as human beings learn more about what makes themselves and society work better ie the social consensus changes (owning slaves used to be a human right now it isnt)

xtraordinaryevidence · **#72** by **xtraordinaryevidence** » Feb 24, 2012 9:03 am

j.mills wrote:If in a particular society you cannot [safely] exercise those rights, it is not that you do not have them, it's that your national government is not respecting its obligations under international agreements. That may be of little consolation, but it's not nothing: it is, for instance, the lever that Amnesty has been usefully leaning on for decades.

I agree. While giving extra (or at least more specific) rights to dolphins/whales wouldn't have much effect on the practices of countries like Japan initially, it wouldn't be nothing. It would be another lever for animal rights groups to use.

Not surprisingly, the headline is misleading. I don't think the scientists are saying they deserve all of the same rights as humans, just the more basic ones. At the very least, "Dolphins Are People" makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than "Corporations Are People"!

Some in this thread seem to be trying to have it both ways. If we give ourselves human rights not because we see ourselves as intelligent, or to avoid suffering, but just because we're human and elitist and it's obviously in our interest, then it's irrelevant to then argue that we shouldn't give some of those rights to other animals because "who are we as humans to know which animals are truly intelligent or suffer the most"?

We don't need to worry about a slippery-slope of descending categories of rights being given to every life form on the planet. We just give the rights we choose to the animals we think need them, for either their apparent intelligence or capacity to suffer or maybe some other reason, purely because they're "our" rights to give out as we please and it's in our (or their) interest, even if those reasons turn out to not be justified (we can always adjust them in light of further evidence).

I'm not happy with the clarity of my point. In short I agree with Joe09 and MacIver.

MacIver · **#73** by **MacIver** » Feb 24, 2012 12:36 pm

HughMcB wrote:
MacIver wrote:
HughMcB wrote:An even more annoying question is what the feck is so good about "personhood"? Why can't we just protect animals using animal rights laws?

But then why are "human rights" any different in theory to "animal rights"? After all, we are simply just another species of ape, aren't we?

Because we're human and (maybe you didn't realize it) we're extremely elitist about our humanity.

We evolved in a human society, making equality laws amongst ourselves is of pragmatic benifit (like the way being a moral society over amoral benefits all). Extended that to animals did not make the same sense. Humans are the ultimate exploiters, it is our greatest gift and curse.

Agreed, sort of.

MacIver wrote:I don't think it's a right to life as much as a right from suffering. But that's beside the point. If we we're truly going to make an impartial scale then I think it would be what species of animals are most important to the ecosystem, or to put it another way: which species are most important to most other species. In this scale things like plankton and bees would be much higher up than humans.

Agreed, but why bother make a scale at all? Why not just leave things be and interfere as little as needed? Surely that's the best solution?

Why? See bellow.

MacIver wrote:But no, we've created a human centric world. We have told ourselves that we are the most important. This is why even the craziest of crazy PETA members wouldn't advocate the introduction of manslaughter laws for stepping on ants. And what makes us different from other animals? It's not our speed. It's not our strength. Or our size. It's our smarts. Our intelligence is utterly unmatched the entirety of our Tree of Life. So that is what we judge other lifeforms by. Not only those that we share ancestry with either. Imagine you get to go to a Earth-like planet. You step off the spaceship and look around at all the amazing new animals and plants. That's great right? But then imagine you meet an intelligent alien species, they don't have to advanced, or as smart as us, but they have the capabilities of reason, of thought, or understanding the passage of time and the ability to preform complex problem solving. Things that dolphins and apes are able to do.

You assume that other animals can't do these things. That assumption is incredibly wrong.

Just because I haven't mentioned other potential species doesn't mean your assumption of my assumptions is correct. :naughty:

If we are going to do this we have to start somewhere.

MacIver wrote:How much more special would that be than just a planet full of dumb animals? I think we've become desensitised to the amazingness of our closest cousins and our sea mammal brethren.

I find this ironic given your rant beginning with the sentence "But no, we've created a human centric world.", yet the above quote shows you doing just this, displaying a human centric world.

Rant? What makes it a rant? The fact you disagree, the fact I went more than six lines without creating a new paragraph or the fact I used the slightly ridiculous (although imho not wholly worthless) example of aliens?

I never claimed I was immune to the human condition of viewing the world from a human centric pov. If I implied that I was then I was mistaken. You make very good points Hugh that have made me stop and reconsider my position on this. But after thinking about it for a few days I still support the instigation of "personhood" for some animals. Why? Because in this case the ends justify the means. IF (and yes, it is a significant "if") this new way of defining whales and dolphins leads to better treatment of them, if more pressure is put upon the countries that still hunt them because of it than a reassessment of current animal rights could or would, and if this makes it legally difficult or impossible for sea parks to keep them in captivity for monetary gain then isn't that all that matters?

HughMcB · **#74** by **HughMcB** » Feb 24, 2012 1:41 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:For animals like dolphin, orca and apes though, I'm not sure what extra rights they need as they're already well-protected. The idea that they deserve the same protection and rights as humans because of their particular encephalisation quotient or ability to complete some problem solving task, is ridiculous. Humans aren't granted rights based on their intelligence or ability to suffer, so it makes no sense to use arguments based on intelligence or suffering to justify extending these same rights to other animals.

HughMcB · **#75** by **HughMcB** » Feb 24, 2012 1:42 pm

MacIver wrote:Rant? What makes it a rant? The fact you disagree, the fact I went more than six lines without creating a new paragraph or the fact I used the slightly ridiculous (although imho not wholly worthless) example of aliens?

Sorry, consider the word rant retracted.

MacIver wrote:I never claimed I was immune to the human condition of viewing the world from a human centric pov. If I implied that I was then I was mistaken. You make very good points Hugh that have made me stop and reconsider my position on this. But after thinking about it for a few days I still support the instigation of "personhood" for some animals. Why? Because in this case the ends justify the means. IF (and yes, it is a significant "if") this new way of defining whales and dolphins leads to better treatment of them, if more pressure is put upon the countries that still hunt them because of it than a reassessment of current animal rights could or would, and if this makes it legally difficult or impossible for sea parks to keep them in captivity for monetary gain then isn't that all that matters?

I don't see how it will lead to any better treatment of them over how calling a banana a person will lead to any better treatment of it. Why don't we just concentrate on better implementation of existing animal protection laws, all this would do is tag the same problem under a different name.

epepke · **#76** by **epepke** » Feb 24, 2012 2:06 pm

willhud9 wrote:Does intelligence = ability to possess rights?

Not disagreeing, but this is a philosophy of rights question, not so much a science question.

Yup.

I'm not sure if dolphins are intelligent enough to recognize the passive voice, but it seems to be falling out of fashion amongst the beings who work at the BBC. Otherwise, how does "scientists have been told" become "say scientists"?

Corneel · **#77** by **Corneel** » Feb 24, 2012 2:41 pm

xtraordinaryevidence wrote: At the very least, "Dolphins Are People" makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than "Corporations Are People"!

Does it now? Corporations can and do things in legal terms that make them more like people than dolphins, for instance they're expected to respect the law and can conclude contracts.

j.mills · **#78** by **j.mills** » Feb 24, 2012 9:31 pm

HughMcB wrote:I don't see how it will lead to any better treatment of them over how calling a banana a person will lead to any better treatment of it. Why don't we just concentrate on better implementation of existing animal protection laws, all this would do is tag the same problem under a different name.

There's a difference in focus if we accord rights to an animal. Whereas existing law says the farmer can't do this, the dog-owner can't do that, the slaughterman can't do the other, a rights-oriented view says the animal should be free to do this, to choose that. It's a wider scope and it builds a protective wall around the individual animal. For it to translate into something workable we might need to appoint 'animal advocates', with a role somewhere between RSPCA/government inspector and public defender.

I don't know if there's merit in the idea, but I do think it's philosophically and practically different to the current approach.

z8000783 · **#79** by **z8000783** » Feb 25, 2012 9:00 am

j.mills wrote:
HughMcB wrote:I don't see how it will lead to any better treatment of them over how calling a banana a person will lead to any better treatment of it. Why don't we just concentrate on better implementation of existing animal protection laws, all this would do is tag the same problem under a different name.

There's a difference in focus if we accord rights to an animal. Whereas existing law says the farmer can't do this, the dog-owner can't do that, the slaughterman can't do the other, a rights-oriented view says the animal should be free to do this, to choose that. It's a wider scope and it builds a protective wall around the individual animal. For it to translate into something workable we might need to appoint 'animal advocates', with a role somewhere between RSPCA/government inspector and public defender.

The dolphins might be up for that job.

John

Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Re: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Who is online