11 Feb 10
4 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59"Should" and "rights" are not scientific concepts. The link between rights philosophy and science is that people have rights, and science can help us determine if something is a person...assuming we have a rigorous definition of "person" which is necessary for scientific work.
Contining from Sonhouses initial thread:
http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html
These scientists think so. What do you guys think?
"These scientists"? There are no scientists referring to whether dolphins "should" have rights. Only the journalist who summarized the article is using that language. The ethicist and scientists he is trying to paraphrase (badly) did not. The ethicist, who the original quote about non-human persons was from, is not a scientist anyway. Ethics is not science.
This is a relevant quote:
Reiss and Marino say their behavioral and anatomical findings and our new understanding of dolphin intelligence mean it may not be ethical to keep dolphins in aquatic amusement parks for our entertainment, or to kill them for food.
Nothing about "should" it be unethical to do these things. No, it's about whether it IS unethical.
Here's another:
Thomas White, who said the new research adds weight to his ideas that dolphins should be regarded as "non-human persons" with the right to be treated as individuals.
They should be REGARDED as persons, not they should be "granted" personhood.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDear ATY
"Should" and "rights" are not scientific concepts. The link between rights philosophy and science is that people have rights, and science can help us determine if something is a person...assuming we have a rigorous definition of "person" which is necessary for scientific work.
"These scientists"? There are no scientists referring to whether dolphi ...[text shortened]...
They should be REGARDED as persons, not they should be "granted" personhood.
a number of posters have stated that they are not interested in your babble and I started this thread so as we may have a discussion without it.
I respect your right to have an opinion on the matter but I am not interested in it at the moment. Please start a parallel thread if you wish to discuss further.
11 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59You know, there are PMs, Clubs, etc for your private conversations. This insistence you have on asserting that others' rights are something you choose to grant or take away is very dangerous and I don't want you spreading it in public without challenge. In any case you are LYING. I won't let you get away with that simply because you're annoyed that I keep pointing it out.
Dear ATY
a number of posters have stated that they are not interested in your babble and I started this thread so as we may have a discussion without it.
I respect your right to have an opinion on the matter but I am not interested in it at the moment. Please start a parallel thread if you wish to discuss further.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Personally I don't think ATY is babbling. I think he is bringing up valid points but we are not trying to anthropomorphize dolphins. We are totally aware they are not human. The question bears on our culpability if it turns out dolphin and other ocean mammals have something approaching human intelligence, which would be the same issue if a few hundred years from now we find intelligent life on one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. Of course there we may have had the wisdom of experience with dolphins to curb our natural tendency to make over the universe in human terms, to the detriment of all other life forms on the planet.
Dear ATY
a number of posters have stated that they are not interested in your babble and I started this thread so as we may have a discussion without it.
I respect your right to have an opinion on the matter but I am not interested in it at the moment. Please start a parallel thread if you wish to discuss further.
Why do we rail against cannibalism? Isn't it because of the idea of intelligent life eating fellow intelligence?
How far from cannibalism is it to eat possibly intelligent dolphins or enslave them into doing stupid pet tricks in aquatic zoo's?
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by sonhouseThis is what I wanted the thread to be about. (As I thought you did?)
Personally I don't think ATY is babbling. I think he is bringing up valid points but we are not trying to anthropomorphize dolphins. We are totally aware they are not human. The question bears on our culpability if it turns out dolphin and other ocean mammals have something approaching human intelligence, which would be the same issue if a few hundred years ...[text shortened]... possibly intelligent dolphins or enslave them into doing stupid pet tricks in aquatic zoo's?
At what point is it immoral/unethical to cause pain to an animal?
At what point is it immoral/unethical to kill an animal?
The answers to the above are subjective BUTthe reasoning behind the answer will surely have to be built on science.
So for instance I eat meat but only humanely reared and slaughtered meat.
I have eaten snails. I am less concerned about how these have been reared/killed than I am about a pig. Can I justify this scientifically? What are the parameters for another ape (if I chose to farm them)? Or dolphins? Or tuna?
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59The snail has a far less developed nervous system, so is less capable of suffering. The brain is the most advanced organ of the nervous system, and leads to sentience and intelligence. Therefore, we can correlate the morality of what we kill and eat to the level of development of their nervous system.
This is what I wanted the thread to be about. (As I thought you did?)
At what point is it immoral/unethical to cause pain to an animal?
At what point is it immoral/unethical to kill an animal?
The answers to the above are subjective [b]BUTthe reasoning behind the answer will surely have to be built on science.
So for instance I eat meat but ...[text shortened]... ically? What are the parameters for another ape (if I chose to farm them)? Or dolphins? Or tuna?[/b]
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPrecisely! So we are basing our morality on scientific evidence.
The snail has a far less developed nervous system, so is less capable of suffering. The brain is the most advanced organ of the nervous system, and leads to sentience and intelligence. Therefore, we can correlate the morality of what we kill and eat to the level of development of their nervous system.
As we gain new evidence we should adapt our morality. Any evidence supporting higher sentience in dolphins and/or other animals should be examined closely and the ramifications examined.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Yes! 🙂
Precisely! So we are basing our morality on scientific evidence.
As we gain new evidence we should adapt our morality. Any evidence supporting higher sentience in dolphins and/or other animals should be examined closely and the ramifications examined.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungLying?
You know, there are PMs, Clubs, etc for your private conversations. This insistence you have on asserting that others' rights are something you choose to grant or take away is very dangerous and I don't want you spreading it in public without challenge. In any case you are LYING. I won't let you get away with that simply because you're annoyed that I keep pointing it out.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Look, I find it self-evident that dolphins, like chimpanzees and children, ought not to be harmed. In my view, these findings merely corroborate what is self-evident. That said, they are useful since if intelligence is the criterion for assigning a limited personhood to non human creatures (a wholly unnecessary and spurious line of argument from an ethical standpoint, in my opinion, but so what), then surely dolphins must be accorded the same dignity as human children. That might very well be condescending towards dolphins, but at least it would be a start.
Contining from Sonhouses initial thread:
http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html
These scientists think so. What do you guys think?
12 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou made your point after his opening statement, then accused him of lying. Is this a case of preemptive lying? Don't be a dick.
"These scientists think so" after I pointed out that they actually didn't.
That said, you are correct in pointing out that the scientists did not say 'dolphins should be granted rights', although one of them seems to think so -- since to regard someone as a person is clearly to regard them as a person invested with rights, if you believe in such things.
12 Feb 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis is the third thread on the topic. He made the last two as some sort of attack aimed at me. He refuses to acknowledge my comments and instead keeps making new threads with the same mistruths I've already pointed out and asking me not to participate.
You made your point after his opening statement, then accused him of lying. Is this a case of preemptive lying? Don't be a dick.
That said, you are correct in pointing out that the scientists did not say 'dolphins should be granted rights', although one of them seems to think so -- since to regard someone as a person is clearly to regard them as a person invested with rights, if you believe in such things.
It's some kind of childish attempt to avoid having to deal with my point because he doesn't like my point.
When you say things that aren't true, and it's pointed out to you that it's not true, and you continue to say it, it's a lie.
Wolfgang started the dickishness. You seem to have a habit of being highly critical of me when I'm defending myself from some other jerk. This is the second time now. Do you have a problem with me personally? This is getting kind of weird. You're been very aggressive toward me lately it seems.