Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

In India, Dolphins are Non-Human Persons

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 4:45:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In India, dolphin shows have been banned, because dolphins are now seen as "Non-human persons."

"Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphin should be seen as "non-human persons" and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose,"

Animal rights groups see this as a huge step in the right direction.

"This is a huge win for dolphins," says Ric O"Barry of the Earth Island Institute"s Dolphin Project. "Not only has the Indian government spoken out against cruelty, they have contributed to an emerging and vital dialogue about the ways we think about dolphins " as thinking, feeling beings rather than pieces of property to make money off of."

Thoughts?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 4:46:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The article I referenced.

http://www.treehugger.com...
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 5:18:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 4:45:46 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
In India, dolphin shows have been banned, because dolphins are now seen as "Non-human persons."

"Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphin should be seen as "non-human persons" and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose,"

Animal rights groups see this as a huge step in the right direction.

"This is a huge win for dolphins," says Ric O"Barry of the Earth Island Institute"s Dolphin Project. "Not only has the Indian government spoken out against cruelty, they have contributed to an emerging and vital dialogue about the ways we think about dolphins " as thinking, feeling beings rather than pieces of property to make money off of."

Thoughts?

India is showing some progress in this area. For example, they are also phasing out animal dissection in universities.

http://www.nature.com...

The argument that the scientists and government is using - that dolphines are intelligent and therefore deserve protection from exploiters - is flawed, however. Moral worth isn't correlated with intelligence in any ethical system. If it were, we would expect to see people treted more morally as they age and gain in intellegence. And babies, infants and mentally incapacitated humans would have no rights/legal protection.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 2:01:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 5:11:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
STAHP THE DOLPHIN RAPE!

nac
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 2:02:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 5:18:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:45:46 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
In India, dolphin shows have been banned, because dolphins are now seen as "Non-human persons."

"Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphin should be seen as "non-human persons" and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose,"

Animal rights groups see this as a huge step in the right direction.

"This is a huge win for dolphins," says Ric O"Barry of the Earth Island Institute"s Dolphin Project. "Not only has the Indian government spoken out against cruelty, they have contributed to an emerging and vital dialogue about the ways we think about dolphins " as thinking, feeling beings rather than pieces of property to make money off of."

Thoughts?

India is showing some progress in this area. For example, they are also phasing out animal dissection in universities.

http://www.nature.com...

The argument that the scientists and government is using - that dolphines are intelligent and therefore deserve protection from exploiters - is flawed, however. Moral worth isn't correlated with intelligence in any ethical system. If it were, we would expect to see people treted more morally as they age and gain in intellegence. And babies, infants and mentally incapacitated humans would have no rights/legal protection.

You're awfully inconsistent on what you think "rights" are, or maybe you just can't fix stupid.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 3:30:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 2:02:39 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/16/2013 5:18:31 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/16/2013 4:45:46 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
In India, dolphin shows have been banned, because dolphins are now seen as "Non-human persons."

"Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphin should be seen as "non-human persons" and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose,"

Animal rights groups see this as a huge step in the right direction.

"This is a huge win for dolphins," says Ric O"Barry of the Earth Island Institute"s Dolphin Project. "Not only has the Indian government spoken out against cruelty, they have contributed to an emerging and vital dialogue about the ways we think about dolphins " as thinking, feeling beings rather than pieces of property to make money off of."

Thoughts?

India is showing some progress in this area. For example, they are also phasing out animal dissection in universities.

http://www.nature.com...

The argument that the scientists and government is using - that dolphines are intelligent and therefore deserve protection from exploiters - is flawed, however. Moral worth isn't correlated with intelligence in any ethical system. If it were, we would expect to see people treted more morally as they age and gain in intellegence. And babies, infants and mentally incapacitated humans would have no rights/legal protection.

You're awfully inconsistent on what you think "rights" are, or maybe you just can't fix stupid.

I only used the word "rights" once in this post. I wish you had pointed to another place where I had used the word "rights" in a manner you deemed inconsistent with this post.

Anyway, when I use the word "rights", I almost always refer to an existing legal entitlement or legal protection (for example: women have the right to vote in American; women use to not have the right to vote in America).

Despite being a moral realist, I never say things like: animals have inherent rights to this or that. I think that type of language is ambiguous, not to mention a little flaky.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 3:55:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 3:30:16 PM, vbaculum wrote:
I only used the word "rights" once in this post. I wish you had pointed to another place where I had used the word "rights" in a manner you deemed inconsistent with this post.

Anyway, when I use the word "rights", I almost always refer to an existing legal entitlement or legal protection (for example: women have the right to vote in American; women use to not have the right to vote in America).

Despite being a moral realist, I never say things like: animals have inherent rights to this or that. I think that type of language is ambiguous, not to mention a little flaky.

No, it isn't. It's perfectly clear what natural rights are whether you believe in them or not. What I'm talking about is your equivocation between "ethical value" (which certainly is ambiguous), and legal rights or protection. Which are mutually exclusive.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:56:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 3:55:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 3:30:16 PM, vbaculum wrote:
I only used the word "rights" once in this post. I wish you had pointed to another place where I had used the word "rights" in a manner you deemed inconsistent with this post.

Anyway, when I use the word "rights", I almost always refer to an existing legal entitlement or legal protection (for example: women have the right to vote in American; women use to not have the right to vote in America).

Despite being a moral realist, I never say things like: animals have inherent rights to this or that. I think that type of language is ambiguous, not to mention a little flaky.

No, it isn't. It's perfectly clear what natural rights are whether you believe in them or not. What I'm talking about is your equivocation between "ethical value" (which certainly is ambiguous), and legal rights or protection. Which are mutually exclusive.

If an entity has moral worth, then it would be immoral to deny that entity legal protection/ legal rights. What's unclear about that?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 9:12:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Makes sense.

However, I do think extrapolating this to banning dissection in medical institutes is going too far. The cost of churning out poor biologists isn't worth the benefit of recognizing their rights.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 3:19:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:56:19 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/17/2013 3:55:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 3:30:16 PM, vbaculum wrote:
I only used the word "rights" once in this post. I wish you had pointed to another place where I had used the word "rights" in a manner you deemed inconsistent with this post.

Anyway, when I use the word "rights", I almost always refer to an existing legal entitlement or legal protection (for example: women have the right to vote in American; women use to not have the right to vote in America).

Despite being a moral realist, I never say things like: animals have inherent rights to this or that. I think that type of language is ambiguous, not to mention a little flaky.

No, it isn't. It's perfectly clear what natural rights are whether you believe in them or not. What I'm talking about is your equivocation between "ethical value" (which certainly is ambiguous), and legal rights or protection. Which are mutually exclusive.

If an entity has moral worth, then it would be immoral to deny that entity legal protection/ legal rights. What's unclear about that?

I was referring to your attempt to establish that intelligence wasn't correlated with ethical value "because older people aren't worth more." The reason all humans are valued the same under the law is completely due to the fact that we can't GIVE people rights based on "moral worth" and still retain our functioning society; i.e. rights by definition are a buffer that prevents the collapse of the human race into an IQ based caste system or whatever would follow as a result of giving people higher status based on their intelligence.

To be honest, proponents of animal rights tend to be incredibly ignorant of issues like these, but I guess I'm just allergic to stupidity. Something snaps in me whenever I hear someone butcher the concept of rights in order to establish some ad hoc basic for moral worth, all the while prancing around, dripping self-righteousness in the assurance of their own intellectual prowess and service to humanity. So I apologize if I come off as rude.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 3:27:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 4:45:46 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
In India, dolphin shows have been banned, because dolphins are now seen as "Non-human persons."

"Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphin should be seen as "non-human persons" and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose,"

Animal rights groups see this as a huge step in the right direction.

"This is a huge win for dolphins," says Ric O"Barry of the Earth Island Institute"s Dolphin Project. "Not only has the Indian government spoken out against cruelty, they have contributed to an emerging and vital dialogue about the ways we think about dolphins " as thinking, feeling beings rather than pieces of property to make money off of."

Thoughts?

Well, I don't have much of an issue with banning dolphin shows, but what do you do with the dolphins that are currently in captivity?

What I ultimately want is the ability to communicate with dolphins, which isn't totally ridiculous. Then, they'd be treated like any other person. If they want to live with humans, fine, if they want to perform, fine; they'll be paid like any other actor.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 3:34:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 3:19:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I was referring to your attempt to establish that intelligence wasn't correlated with ethical value "because older people aren't worth more." The reason all humans are valued the same under the law is completely due to the fact that we can't GIVE people rights based on "moral worth" and still retain our functioning society; i.e. rights by definition are a buffer that prevents the collapse of the human race into an IQ based caste system or whatever would follow as a result of giving people higher status based on their intelligence.

True. However, I would argue that rights are nothing but generalized rules of thumb that we've observed that it's a good idea to follow. For instance, you have the right to a fair and impartial trial if you are guilty of a crime. In certain, extremely rare circumstances (if you get shot while being arrested because you're in a shootout), rights can be abridged, so they aren't absolute.

So the question is, really, "Do we--beings on this planet--get more utility out of recognizing dolphins as having specific rights under the law?"
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 3:43:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 3:34:13 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 7/18/2013 3:19:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I was referring to your attempt to establish that intelligence wasn't correlated with ethical value "because older people aren't worth more." The reason all humans are valued the same under the law is completely due to the fact that we can't GIVE people rights based on "moral worth" and still retain our functioning society; i.e. rights by definition are a buffer that prevents the collapse of the human race into an IQ based caste system or whatever would follow as a result of giving people higher status based on their intelligence.

True. However, I would argue that rights are nothing but generalized rules of thumb that we've observed that it's a good idea to follow. For instance, you have the right to a fair and impartial trial if you are guilty of a crime. In certain, extremely rare circumstances (if you get shot while being arrested because you're in a shootout), rights can be abridged, so they aren't absolute.

So the question is, really, "Do we--beings on this planet--get more utility out of recognizing dolphins as having specific rights under the law?"

That's exactly what I meant.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 4:11:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 3:43:02 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/18/2013 3:34:13 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 7/18/2013 3:19:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I was referring to your attempt to establish that intelligence wasn't correlated with ethical value "because older people aren't worth more." The reason all humans are valued the same under the law is completely due to the fact that we can't GIVE people rights based on "moral worth" and still retain our functioning society; i.e. rights by definition are a buffer that prevents the collapse of the human race into an IQ based caste system or whatever would follow as a result of giving people higher status based on their intelligence.

True. However, I would argue that rights are nothing but generalized rules of thumb that we've observed that it's a good idea to follow. For instance, you have the right to a fair and impartial trial if you are guilty of a crime. In certain, extremely rare circumstances (if you get shot while being arrested because you're in a shootout), rights can be abridged, so they aren't absolute.

So the question is, really, "Do we--beings on this planet--get more utility out of recognizing dolphins as having specific rights under the law?"

That's exactly what I meant.

You realize that most animal rights activists take this philosophical position?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 5:15:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 4:11:42 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 7/18/2013 3:43:02 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/18/2013 3:34:13 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 7/18/2013 3:19:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I was referring to your attempt to establish that intelligence wasn't correlated with ethical value "because older people aren't worth more." The reason all humans are valued the same under the law is completely due to the fact that we can't GIVE people rights based on "moral worth" and still retain our functioning society; i.e. rights by definition are a buffer that prevents the collapse of the human race into an IQ based caste system or whatever would follow as a result of giving people higher status based on their intelligence.

True. However, I would argue that rights are nothing but generalized rules of thumb that we've observed that it's a good idea to follow. For instance, you have the right to a fair and impartial trial if you are guilty of a crime. In certain, extremely rare circumstances (if you get shot while being arrested because you're in a shootout), rights can be abridged, so they aren't absolute.

So the question is, really, "Do we--beings on this planet--get more utility out of recognizing dolphins as having specific rights under the law?"

That's exactly what I meant.

You realize that most animal rights activists take this philosophical position?

Not from what I've seen. And I reject several of their assumptions; mainly being that most higher animals, not just the ones like chimps or dolphins, have inherent ethical worth, that pain is in itself bad, and that they rightfully deserve "freedom," despite the fact that human freedom, once again, is an inherently pragmatic way of creating natural decentralization in society to prevent exploitation and allow humans to coordinate themselves without the need of an impossibly large universal state to do it for them.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 5:50:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not sure that being intelligent necessarily makes keeping dolphins in captivity cruel. We feed them, give them company, both in the form of other dolphins and lots of people both viewing and training them, and something to do with the shows. So unless the smaller space makes them unhappy, or if their brains work in such a way that lack of challenges makes them unhappy, I honestly don't think dolphin shows are inherently wrong.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 6:23:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 5:50:19 PM, natoast wrote:
I'm not sure that being intelligent necessarily makes keeping slaves in captivity cruel. We feed them, give them company, both in the form of other slaves and lots of people both viewing and training them, and something to do with the shows. So unless the smaller space makes them unhappy, or if their brains work in such a way that lack of challenges makes them unhappy, I honestly don't think slave shows are inherently wrong.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 9:33:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 3:19:09 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:56:19 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/17/2013 3:55:03 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/17/2013 3:30:16 PM, vbaculum wrote:
I only used the word "rights" once in this post. I wish you had pointed to another place where I had used the word "rights" in a manner you deemed inconsistent with this post.

Anyway, when I use the word "rights", I almost always refer to an existing legal entitlement or legal protection (for example: women have the right to vote in American; women use to not have the right to vote in America).

Despite being a moral realist, I never say things like: animals have inherent rights to this or that. I think that type of language is ambiguous, not to mention a little flaky.

No, it isn't. It's perfectly clear what natural rights are whether you believe in them or not. What I'm talking about is your equivocation between "ethical value" (which certainly is ambiguous), and legal rights or protection. Which are mutually exclusive.

If an entity has moral worth, then it would be immoral to deny that entity legal protection/ legal rights. What's unclear about that?

I was referring to your attempt to establish that intelligence wasn't correlated with ethical value "because older people aren't worth more." The reason all humans are valued the same under the law is completely due to the fact that we can't GIVE people rights based on "moral worth" and still retain our functioning society; i.e. rights by definition are a buffer that prevents the collapse of the human race into an IQ based caste system or whatever would follow as a result of giving people higher status based on their intelligence.

I think that without legal rights, humanity would descend into a might-makes-right world, like it was before the introduction of legitimate legal rights - and like it still is regarding non-human species.

However, what you said doesn't negate my thesis, which is that intelligence is irrelevant to moral worth.

To be honest, proponents of animal rights tend to be incredibly ignorant of issues like these, but I guess I'm just allergic to stupidity. Something snaps in me whenever I hear someone butcher the concept of rights in order to establish some ad hoc basic for moral worth, all the while prancing around, dripping self-righteousness in the assurance of their own intellectual prowess and service to humanity. So I apologize if I come off as rude.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 10:11:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 6:23:15 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/18/2013 5:50:19 PM, natoast wrote:
I'm not sure that being intelligent necessarily makes keeping slaves in captivity cruel. We feed them, give them company, both in the form of other slaves and lots of people both viewing and training them, and something to do with the shows. So unless the smaller space makes them unhappy, or if their brains work in such a way that lack of challenges makes them unhappy, I honestly don't think slave shows are inherently wrong.

Right. So I think that the situation with slaves is actually a good parallel to that of the dolphins, to some degree. Slaves can and do derive unhappiness from lack of freedom. Freedom is probably a better term to use than lack of challenges. Slaves can consider the future and be unhappy if they know they have no choice in it, especially if that future is unpleasant. I doubt that dolphins have this same ability, and even if they did, I doubt that they have the ability to feel a sadness despite their future inevitably being comfortable.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:16:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 9:12:22 AM, Cermank wrote:
Makes sense.

However, I do think extrapolating this to banning dissection in medical institutes is going too far. The cost of churning out poor biologists isn't worth the benefit of recognizing their rights.

This, as well as your defense of genocide, makes me think that you don't know what rights are.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 8:29:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 6:25:01 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I'm cool with this.

Same.

I really want to know if a dolphin is capable of communicating with a human on a rational lever. Perhaps create some interspecieal sign language. I wonder if they are able to ask questions; chimps are not.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac