Scientists say dolphins should be treated as non-human persons

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChainBreaker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GEddie said:
Nice try, but hydrogen is not an energy source. You have to make it.

And the energy to make it comes from fossil fuel.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Hydrogen can also be produced from water by electrolysis or by chemical reduction using chemical hydrides or aluminum

Integrated “wind-to-hydrogen” (power to gas) plants, using electrolysis of water, are exploring technologies to deliver costs low enough, and quantities great enough, to compete with traditional energy sources.[63]
 
I think the consistency argument is particularly powerful in regards to animal rights. Giving rights to anything at all needs to have a reason, or a grounding principle. Generally that thing is rationality, autonomy, the ability to feel pain, having interests, etc. etc. If we say "This is why we grant humans moral consideration, for X, Y, and Z, if X Y and Z holds for an animal I don’t see how we can consistently argue the point without granting said rights to said animal. Intelligence or rationality can’t be the ground as far as I can tell - human beings often lack these things.

I don’t know how we can define the criteria in such a way to avoid at least accepting some non-human animals into our higher moral group.
 
Rhubarb said:
I think the consistency argument is particularly powerful in regards to animal rights. Giving rights to anything at all needs to have a reason, or a grounding principle. Generally that thing is rationality, autonomy, the ability to feel pain, having interests, etc. etc. If we say "This is why we grant humans moral consideration, for X, Y, and Z, if X Y and Z holds for an animal I don’t see how we can consistently argue the point without granting said rights to said animal. Intelligence or rationality can’t be the ground as far as I can tell - human beings often lack these things.

I don’t know how we can define the criteria in such a way to avoid at least accepting some non-human animals into our higher moral group.
Click to expand...
Precisely why it is safest to limit rights to the physical human species, unless and until any other species can demand rights from us in our terms.

The physical/genotypical human race is easily defined and requires no word gaming about intelligence, etc. And in the absence of hard evidence otherwise, no one is bothered except the animal-rights crowd.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Precisely why it is safest to limit rights to the physical human species, unless and until any other species can demand rights from us in our terms.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Why do they have to demand things on our terms?. They live in the ocean.

I am bothered by eating a dolphin, because it is showing signs of a personal nature. I do not have to be in the animal rights crowd in order to know when wrong is wrong.
 
ChainBreaker said:
Why do they have to demand things on our terms?. They live in the ocean.

I am bothered by eating a dolphin, because it is showing signs of a personal nature. I do not have to be in the animal rights crowd in order to know when wrong is wrong.
Click to expand...
Fine. No one is urging you to eat dolphin. No one will. Breathe; relax.

I am against extending rights to animals, period. If they have a mind comparable to ours they can figure out how to persuade us to recognize such (although my remark last night about tapping morse code on the GIUK line was meant mostly in jest).

If personal rights are extended to Dolphins tomorrow, next week it will be whales, next year it will be apes (everywhere but Spain where they are already there); in five years, pigs; etc. By 2050, everybody will be forced to be vegan and kids will be taught to humble themselves before the beasties and Mother Earth.

I’d rather the snowball not get pushed to begin with.

ICXC NIKA.
 
GEddie said:
If they have a mind comparable to ours they can figure out how to persuade us to recognize such.

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they do. Hence the scientists saying that dolphins are non-human persons.

But if you really don’t care, then why are you taking such a hard-line against dolphins entering our circle of legal privileges? Have you been eating dolphins?!!:mad:
 
ChainBreaker said:
Perhaps they do. Hence the scientists saying that dolphins are non-human persons.

But if you really don’t care, then why are you taking such a hard-line against dolphins entering our circle of legal privileges? Have you been eating dolphins?!!:mad:
Click to expand...
No.

But if someone else were doing so, I wouldn’t presume to stop them, either.

I also oppose extending “personhood” to apes, but do not live where that issue has ever surfaced.

I oppose the drive to glorify nature, whether the species involved inhabit land or sea.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
 
You know that dolphins are carnivores. Should they be tried for murder? If convicted, should they be executed?

I am just following your line of reasoning.
 
Bradski said:
Well, that’s quite true. I read something similar recently. Along the lines of: the planet will be just fine whatever we do to it. It just might not be entirely suitable for us.
Click to expand...
I read that same article. Spoiler alert- the planet earth will remain in spite of our sheer wanton ravaging of it.
No assurance about the life forms on it whether they be animal, human or plant. Water is so overrated anyway.
Darn.
 
GEddie said:
No.

But if someone else were doing so, I wouldn’t presume to stop them, either.

I also oppose extending “personhood” to apes, but do not live where that issue has ever surfaced.

I oppose the drive to glorify nature, whether the species involved inhabit land or sea.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
So nature does not give glory to God, it has no value?

While i understand that we cannot idolize nature, i think treating animals with respect, even the animals we use as a food source, is a moral responsibility. I don’t imagine and neither do i dare to presume that we can treat animals anyway we want.

Its my position that the more an animal is like us, the more moral value they have.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
You know that dolphins are carnivores. Should they be tried for murder? If convicted, should they be executed?

I am just following your line of reasoning.
Click to expand...
This is impractical, so no. Like the dolphin, If an extraterrestrial biological entity kills another alien it is not our jurisdiction to judge them. I think we should leave them to their own government. I think they should be treated like a nation on to themselves.
 
Rhubarb said:
I think the consistency argument is particularly powerful in regards to animal rights. Giving rights to anything at all needs to have a reason, or a grounding principle. Generally that thing is rationality, autonomy, the ability to feel pain, having interests, etc. etc. If we say "This is why we grant humans moral consideration, for X, Y, and Z, if X Y and Z holds for an animal I don’t see how we can consistently argue the point without granting said rights to said animal. Intelligence or rationality can’t be the ground as far as I can tell - human beings often lack these things.

I don’t know how we can define the criteria in such a way to avoid at least accepting some non-human animals into our higher moral group.
Click to expand...
Morality concerns human conduct not animal conduct for the simple fact that humans are spiritually rational and intelligent. Animal have sense knowledge, not intellectual, rational knowledge as man. Morality concerns the rightness or wrongness of human acts, judged by the natural and moral laws. Animal do not have the ability or power to make moral judgement. Animals act on instinct and sense knowledge based on the senses and sense memory, no matter how sophisticated it may appear. They are biologically programed, we do not have to teach them what they do. Knowing their nature and program, we can train them to do what we want.

Human because they are rational,and intelligent must be good stewards to the animal kingdom. We must treat them humanely, we possess a higher dignity then they, not because the animal has a claim on the moral rights of man, or it has a moral right. After all we eat animals to sustain life We have a strong tendency to humanize animals.

Poor humanity, some humans worry about the rights of animals but neglect the right to life of a human baby, we got our priorities screwed up. We have a very serious problem in our society, and why, it is what people choose, not worrying about what is right or wrong, and what does that say about society?
 
ynotzap said:
Morality concerns human conduct not animal conduct for the simple fact that humans are spiritually rational and intelligent.
Click to expand...
Well, “spiritual” has no basis when it comes to legal definitions of person-hood. A things has an intellect or it does not.
 
GEddie said:
Precisely why it is safest to limit rights to the physical human species, unless and until any other species can demand rights from us in our terms.

The physical/genotypical human race is easily defined and requires no word gaming about intelligence, etc. And in the absence of hard evidence otherwise, no one is bothered except the animal-rights crowd.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
There are lots of people bothered by it beyond the animal-rights crowd. Ethicists grapple with these issues, even the ones that aren’t the PETA pounding lefties. Precisely because when you look at an anthropocentric theory of ethics it can lead to problems if one is willing to critically examine their intuitions on “animal rights.” A few simple thought experiments are enough to show that. They could be rattled off for pages, problems that aren’t even as controversial as considering animals persons.
ynotzap said:
Morality concerns human conduct not animal conduct for the simple fact that humans are spiritually rational and intelligent. Animal have sense knowledge, not intellectual, rational knowledge as man. Morality concerns the rightness or wrongness of human acts, judged by the natural and moral laws. Animal do not have the ability or power to make moral judgement. Animals act on instinct and sense knowledge based on the senses and sense memory, no matter how sophisticated it may appear. They are biologically programed, we do not have to teach them what they do. Knowing their nature and program, we can train them to do what we want.

Human because they are rational,and intelligent must be good stewards to the animal kingdom. We must treat them humanely, we possess a higher dignity then they, not because the animal has a claim on the moral rights of man, or it has a moral right. After all we eat animals to sustain life We have a strong tendency to humanize animals.

Poor humanity, some humans worry about the rights of animals but neglect the right to life of a human baby, we got our priorities screwed up. We have a very serious problem in our society, and why, it is what people choose, not worrying about what is right or wrong, and what does that say about society?
Click to expand...
When I say “moral” I mean it academically. Interpersonal ethics may be for people but there are legitimate moral claims that affect animals and even inanimate objects. There’s reasons why if someone was stomping puppies to death in the streets we’d stop them - because there’s some moral issue at play. It’s true that animals aren’t moral agents in the way people are - but that’s not the point. If we restrict moral consideration to moral agents than children, the mentally disabled, the infirm, and many other groups of humans would not qualify for moral consideration. Of course we could add caveats, but it’s very difficult to come up with an ethic that restricts moral consideration to humans without biting some serious bullets.
 
Rhubarb said:
There are lots of people bothered by it beyond the animal-rights crowd. Ethicists grapple with these issues, even the ones that aren’t the PETA pounding lefties. Precisely because when you look at an anthropocentric theory of ethics it can lead to problems if one is willing to critically examine their intuitions on “animal rights.” A few simple thought experiments are enough to show that. They could be rattled off for pages, problems that aren’t even as controversial as considering animals persons.

When I say “moral” I mean it academically. Interpersonal ethics may be for people but there are legitimate moral claims that affect animals and even inanimate objects. There’s reasons why if someone was stomping puppies to death in the streets we’d stop them - because there’s some moral issue at play. It’s true that animals aren’t moral agents in the way people are - but that’s not the point. If we restrict moral consideration to moral agents than children, the mentally disabled, the infirm, and many other groups of humans would not qualify for moral consideration. Of course we could add caveats, but it’s very difficult to come up with an ethic that restricts moral consideration to humans without biting some serious bullets.
Click to expand...
One can admit of moral responsibility toward animals without calling them “people” or claiming that they have rights.

ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top