Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 12:16:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Scientists and philosophers have come together and drafted a Declaration of Right for Cetaceans, asserting the personhood of animals such as whales and dolphins, as naturally following from a scientific understanding of these animals and the values we support as a progressive society.

4 countries have listened the ideas expressed in this declaration and implemented them in law, Hungary, Costa Rica, Chile and India.

What are your thoughts on this? What is a "person"?

http://www.tandfonline.com...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 7:39:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My threads have sure been ignored a lot lately. I should kick out something more interesting.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 7:49:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not too keen on the use of the word "cultures," to be honest.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 7:53:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that since the whales and dolphins can't come to my home, kidnap and torture me, or get anywhere close to that, I don't care.

I do care though, that some people want to do that for them. And I will fight as much as I can (which is not a lot since I care so little) to give myself and humankind more freedom.
0x5f3759df
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 7:55:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 7:53:22 PM, Bullish wrote:
I think that since the whales and dolphins can't come to my home, kidnap and torture me, or get anywhere close to that, I don't care.

I do care though, that some people want to do that for them. And I will fight as much as I can (which is not a lot since I care so little) to give myself and humankind more freedom.

Well, that's boring.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 7:55:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 7:53:22 PM, Bullish wrote:
I think that since the whales and dolphins can't come to my home, kidnap and torture me, or get anywhere close to that, I don't care.

I do care though, that some people want to do that for them. And I will fight as much as I can (which is not a lot since I care so little) to give myself and humankind more freedom.

Well, that's boring.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 7:57:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In a similar vein to Bullsh, I also think there's something a bit disconcerting about people rallying for the rights of creatures like dolphins/whales when an exorbitant number of HUMAN BEINGS are starving, dying of thirst, becoming casualties of a chaotic third world consumed in famine, drought and deluge, and war.

I personally argue that it's much more important to try and secure a basic living standard for PEOPLE.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 7:59:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 7:55:58 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/5/2013 7:53:22 PM, Bullish wrote:
I think that since the whales and dolphins can't come to my home, kidnap and torture me, or get anywhere close to that, I don't care.

I do care though, that some people want to do that for them. And I will fight as much as I can (which is not a lot since I care so little) to give myself and humankind more freedom.

Well, that's boring.

For someone to claim that my argument is "boring" is flattering, because it usually means I am correct or that there isn't a coherent argument against it.

Now please say ^this^ is also boring.
0x5f3759df
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:03:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 7:57:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
In a similar vein to Bullsh, I also think there's something a bit disconcerting about people rallying for the rights of creatures like dolphins/whales when an exorbitant number of HUMAN BEINGS are starving, dying of thirst, becoming casualties of a chaotic third world consumed in famine, drought and deluge, and war.

I personally argue that it's much more important to try and secure a basic living standard for PEOPLE.

Would you, then, extend your logic and say that we should put aside all other issues until whatever specific issue you arbitrarily declare to be most important is fulfilled first?

Example: put aside all civil rights issues and focus on lowering taxes.

If yes, why, exactly, do you see this as being more strategic than diversified action?

If not, why does your standard apply in the former scenario but not this one?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:15:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 8:03:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/5/2013 7:57:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
In a similar vein to Bullsh, I also think there's something a bit disconcerting about people rallying for the rights of creatures like dolphins/whales when an exorbitant number of HUMAN BEINGS are starving, dying of thirst, becoming casualties of a chaotic third world consumed in famine, drought and deluge, and war.

I personally argue that it's much more important to try and secure a basic living standard for PEOPLE.

Would you, then, extend your logic and say that we should put aside all other issues until whatever specific issue you arbitrarily declare to be most important is fulfilled first?

Example: put aside all civil rights issues and focus on lowering taxes.

If yes, why, exactly, do you see this as being more strategic than diversified action?

If not, why does your standard apply in the former scenario but not this one?

I think that your example is a bit of a strawman of what I was suggesting. With the cetaceans issue, it is an issue of living standards and rights, the exact same thing that is an issue for humans. Taxes and civil rights are apples and oranges.

My point was not necessarily that we need a single-track-minded society, but with that particular issue I personally find it disconcerting that people would rather have resources go to protecting the living standards of dolphins, whales, etc. than to help the huge proportion of mankind that doesn't know whether it's going to eat today, or survive until tomorrow.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:16:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 7:59:12 PM, Bullish wrote:
Now please say ^this^ is also boring.

It actually makes it more interesting. The point, after all, is not actually coherence, whether or not it has it. The point is to feel proud of feeling coherent.

The typical way to do this, for people who are more politically interested than average, is to result to puritanism in an attempt to feel non-contradictory.

But I, personally, too, feel that non-dogmatism is a more efficient way of stimulating the feeling. But this is also an illusion, as it, too, is a form of dogmatism.

The more self-analyzing a view is, the more efficiently I think it stimulates the feeling. One must keep stripping away new layers, reforming to become more coherent. Which is simply another way of ultimately becoming more confused.

Your linguistic construct is so formed that you will take pride whether I say something negative or positive about your views. This is a strength and a weakness. Like most other things.

Suffice to say, in an extension of the attitude behind my prior post, I don't really care what your views are. But I care about the spirit behind it. The same spirit can lead to many different views. So it's tricky to recognizing it through dissecting them. I'm never one to think I know who someone really is, especially across the internet.

But I usually have an initial reaction of boredom when one cites their view as "meh".
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:29:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Very interesting. My first thought is that this list puts cetaceans above humans in some respects. Do I have the freedom to move about my natural habitat without a corporation restricting me at some juncture? Certainly not!

My second thought is that my first point nullifies the validity of this list; however your desire for a definition of personhood leads me to justify such an attempt to give cetaceans even more freedom than humans. My definition of a person is a being which is capable of achieving artificiality. Artificiality is defined as the application of intelligence to the environment to achieve systems that are beyond the natural. Animals use natural means; they produce raw materials internally or else use minimal manipulation of external substances (i.e., moving some rocks or sticks to create a nest or den).

So in my framework, cetaceans fail the personhood qualifications. We can philosophize about the essence of their minds, but they clearly do not have abilities beyond the natural.

Beings that are capable of artificiality have a much greater benefit/responsibility framework to operate under. After all, we could probably, at this point in our technological state, destroy most of the face of this planet through either of two psychological reasons: ineptitude or vice (i.e., anger). Natural beings do not have such a prerogative; their actions are by nature only beneficial to the environment, while ours, as beings of artificiality, are by nature damaging to it (unless we control ineptitude and vice, which has, as of yet, never really been done).

So, in conclusion, I actually agree with the ends of the authors of this list, but for the very opposite of reasons: cetaceans are certainly not people, and therefore should be allowed greater latitude by us because we are prone to the errors of artificiality while they are not.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:33:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 8:15:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I think that your example is a bit of a strawman of what I was suggesting.

I only meant it as an example. I'm questioning, not asserting.

With the cetaceans issue, it is an issue of living standards and rights, the exact same thing that is an issue for humans. Taxes and civil rights are apples and oranges.

I thought about this answer. A common Libertarian critique of the political system is that social freedoms and economic freedoms are the same thing.

However, I think that's overlooking that, if Cetaceans are indeed humans, that their rights are also our rights, by the same reasoning.

Of course, this is just all just a logical fallacy. It doesn't address the issue. The issue is that humans do and, indeed, must endless arbitrarily separate things to make sense of them and, relating to our scenario, prioritize them.

Let us assume that all rights, for the Libertarian, are the same battle. But there will still be arbitrary divisions that we value more. Perhaps Libertarians support the right to cut their toenails. But it's not quite as important to them as aggressive ending wars. So we intentionally make the division for the sake of priority.

Then there are two directions one can take:

1. We should focus on Libertarian issues in all their forms. Thus it is also necessary to protect the rights cetaceans and other non-human persons.

2. Libertarians should all focus on the single most important issue, however arbitrary it may be.

But, of course, this is a false dichotomy. Perhaps you don't believe cetaceans as non-human persons or perhaps you don't believe in non-human persons at all. Which is why I presented that as the primary question in the OP.

There is, in fact, even more wiggle room. Perhaps you reject the literalism by which I am describing Libertarian strategy. Perhaps cetaceans are only "a little bit" human. The correct strategy becomes muddy.

So I'm really just probing for clarification.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:33:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 8:29:36 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Very interesting. My first thought is that this list puts cetaceans above humans in some respects. Do I have the freedom to move about my natural habitat without a corporation restricting me at some juncture? Certainly not!

My second thought is that my first point nullifies the validity of this list; however your desire for a definition of personhood leads me to justify such an attempt to give cetaceans even more freedom than humans. My definition of a person is a being which is capable of achieving artificiality. Artificiality is defined as the application of intelligence to the environment to achieve systems that are beyond the natural. Animals use natural means; they produce raw materials internally or else use minimal manipulation of external substances (i.e., moving some rocks or sticks to create a nest or den).

So in my framework, cetaceans fail the personhood qualifications. We can philosophize about the essence of their minds, but they clearly do not have abilities beyond the natural.

Beings that are capable of artificiality have a much greater benefit/responsibility framework to operate under. After all, we could probably, at this point in our technological state, destroy most of the face of this planet through either of two psychological reasons: ineptitude or vice (i.e., anger). Natural beings do not have such a prerogative; their actions are by nature only beneficial to the environment, while ours, as beings of artificiality, are by nature damaging to it (unless we control ineptitude and vice, which has, as of yet, never really been done).

So, in conclusion, I actually agree with the ends of the authors of this list, but for the very opposite of reasons: cetaceans are certainly not people, and therefore should be allowed greater latitude by us because we are prone to the errors of artificiality while they are not.

Dolphins have sex for fun. That's more "human" than some conservatives.
0x5f3759df
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:36:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dolphins have sex for fun. That's more "human" than some conservatives.

So having sex for fun is what makes something a person. Care to back that up at all? I kind of like my definition better...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:38:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 8:29:36 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Very interesting. My first thought is that this list puts cetaceans above humans in some respects. Do I have the freedom to move about my natural habitat without a corporation restricting me at some juncture? Certainly not!

That's a good point.

Perhaps advancing animal rights can help us to understanding what human rights really are?

So in my framework, cetaceans fail the personhood qualifications. We can philosophize about the essence of their minds, but they clearly do not have abilities beyond the natural.

Could that be because they don't have hands? And not because of their intelligence level.

Suppose that a being existed which was even more intelligent than a human. But it wasn't capable of moving. Yet, can still feel pain. Should this being have rights? Or is the fact that they are no use to us good enough reason to ignore them?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:39:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 7:57:48 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
In a similar vein to Bullsh, I also think there's something a bit disconcerting about people rallying for the rights of creatures like dolphins/whales when an exorbitant number of HUMAN BEINGS are starving, dying of thirst, becoming casualties of a chaotic third world consumed in famine, drought and deluge, and war.

I personally argue that it's much more important to try and secure a basic living standard for PEOPLE.

I truly abhor this argument. I remember some woman on TV one time complaining that breast cancer is a lot more important than finding water on Mars, so we should can the space program. So, as long as there is some human being suffering somehow somewhere, we can use that to justify selfishness and inaction. Yikes.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:40:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My irrationalization of morality does not allow me to make sense of a logical extension to non-humans. How can that which is fundamentally illogical have logical extensions? Morality is bound to the intuitive but voluntary interest in the well being of others. If I don't feel the same about a whale's life as I do a humans, there's no reason why I should - and no logical argument can provide such.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:41:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 7:53:22 PM, Bullish wrote:
I think that since the whales and dolphins can't come to my home, kidnap and torture me, or get anywhere close to that, I don't care.

I do care though, that some people want to do that for them. And I will fight as much as I can (which is not a lot since I care so little) to give myself and humankind more freedom.

It's hard to argue with somebody that doesn't find immorality in pure selfishness. Good luck in life with that attitude, chap.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:42:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Among reasons that dolphin can may be considered human is that they:

1. Have developed complex language complete with regional dialect and refer to each other by names.

2. Have defended humans from shark attacks. They've always raped humans.
(This opens the question: Can dolphins be punished as humans?)

3. Have been witnessed committing suicide under captivity.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:42:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 8:40:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
My irrationalization of morality does not allow me to make sense of a logical extension to non-humans. How can that which is fundamentally illogical have logical extensions? Morality is bound to the intuitive but voluntary interest in the well being of others. If I don't feel the same about a whale's life as I do a humans, there's no reason why I should - and no logical argument can provide such.

LOL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:47:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 8:40:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
My irrationalization of morality does not allow me to make sense of a logical extension to non-humans. How can that which is fundamentally illogical have logical extensions? Morality is bound to the intuitive but voluntary interest in the well being of others. If I don't feel the same about a whale's life as I do a humans, there's no reason why I should - and no logical argument can provide such.

I propose that there is personal utility in expanding one's empathy, even if it means exhausting resources to protect sentient creatures that do us no physical benefit.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:49:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 8:47:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/5/2013 8:40:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
My irrationalization of morality does not allow me to make sense of a logical extension to non-humans. How can that which is fundamentally illogical have logical extensions? Morality is bound to the intuitive but voluntary interest in the well being of others. If I don't feel the same about a whale's life as I do a humans, there's no reason why I should - and no logical argument can provide such.

I propose that there is personal utility in expanding one's empathy, even if it means exhausting resources to protect sentient creatures that do us no physical benefit.

I propose that there isn't.

Now what?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:52:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 8:38:35 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/5/2013 8:29:36 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Very interesting. My first thought is that this list puts cetaceans above humans in some respects. Do I have the freedom to move about my natural habitat without a corporation restricting me at some juncture? Certainly not!

That's a good point.

Perhaps advancing animal rights can help us to understanding what human rights really are?

Definitely.

So in my framework, cetaceans fail the personhood qualifications. We can philosophize about the essence of their minds, but they clearly do not have abilities beyond the natural.

Could that be because they don't have hands? And not because of their intelligence level.

Hands aren't so much a function of limbs as they are of a brain that is powerful enough to operate them. If dolphins were to evolve a mind of such power, they would necessarily evolve limbs that this mind could operate.

Suppose that a being existed which was even more intelligent than a human. But it wasn't capable of moving. Yet, can still feel pain. Should this being have rights? Or is the fact that they are no use to us good enough reason to ignore them?

Such a being would be capable of artificiality; I think you are describing Stephen Hawking, actually...;)
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2013 8:53:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/5/2013 8:49:26 PM, 000ike wrote:

I propose that there isn't.

Now what?

Come at me bro!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.