Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Ranging God · **Posted:** February 21st, 2012, 9:12 am

Saw a BBC tweet this morning and read the article. As some of you know, I am a huge pro rights for animals, so this was really relevant to myself. What do you guys think? I am happy that some time has been spent investigating these animals. It my eyes, killing dolphins is almost like killing severely mentally retarded children. I hope that after these scientific findings are more widely know, non-human "persons" rights will be applied to them.

Link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17116882#TWEET81955

Here is the article if you don't want to go to the site.

Quote:

Dolphins should be treated as non-human "persons", with their rights to life and liberty respected, scientists meeting in Canada have been told.

Experts in philosophy, conservation and animal behaviour want support for a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans.

They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans.

Recognising their rights would mean an end to whaling and their captivity, or their use in entertainment.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

Science has shown that individuality - consciousness, self-awareness - is no longer a unique human property. That poses all kinds of challenges.”

Ethics Professor Tom White Loyola Marymount University of Los Angeles

The move was made at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, Canada, the world's biggest science conference.

It is based on years of research that has shown dolphins and whales have large, complex brains and a human-like level of self-awareness.

This has led the experts to conclude that although non-human, dolphins and whales are "people" in a philosophical sense, which has far-reaching implications.
'Self-aware'

Ethics expert Prof Tom White, from Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, author of In Defence of Dolphins: The New Moral Frontier, said dolphins were "non-human persons".

"A person needs to be an individual. If individuals count, then the deliberate killing of individuals of this sort is ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being.

Adbot · **Posted:** February 21st, 2012, 9:12 am

Jason · **Posted:** February 21st, 2012, 11:08 am

Why does this apply to just dolphins and not more animals?

Not saying I don't support the protection of animals, but I think using the justification that they are "smarter than the average bear" per say, is a good reason for it. If we are going to start saving them because they have some level of intelligence, why not start killing humans with an IQ under some standardized level?

Warren · **Posted:** February 21st, 2012, 2:13 pm

I have to take this stupid computers class that they combined with ethics to make it more relevant or something and it was like "we don't allow each other to kill each other because we have a feeling that it's wrong based on how we don't want to be killed and we don't want our friends or family to be killed either and that's how it becomes morally wrong to kill people" and I was thinking how inconsistent our morals are then because I'm not sure many animals want to be killed nor do they want their offspring killed either. Although I guess people like to spout "THEY DON'T FEAR DEATH!!" to make themselves feel better or something, but I don't fear death either, just how it will come, so I'm not sure if that makes me fair game...
And we discussed how to do "bad things" to each other we have to dehumanize the victim in our minds. Which I think gets into what makes us "human", and if it is our intelligence, what about people who don't develop to that point, wouldn't that not make them human? So inconstant .. Personally I don't think intelligence level dictates any right to life or right to live free of mental and physical torment anyways.
KILL EVERYTHING

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

So basically if something is intelligent (or at least deemed intelligent by experts), that means it should be treated equally as a human?

Quote:

Experts in philosophy, conservation and animal behaviour want support for a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans.

That's an interesting group of people advocating this. Of all those, philosophers are probably the least biased and most logical of the group. That's not to say I agree with them at all. I don't. A higher capacity for intelligence does not dictate ethical equality. I believe that while animals shouldn't be treated inhumanely, they certainly are not deserving of greater rights.

Let me pose this question to you Ranging God. You have a mentally retarded kid on the one hand and a dolphin on the other. Both their lives are in danger and you can pick one to save. The other will die. Are you going to pick the dolphin or the child? You did say "...killing dolphins is almost like killing severely mentally retarded children." I'm assuming you would save the child, but why? What reason can you give to save the child over the dolphin if the dolphin has a higher capacity of intelligence? Just something to consider in this whole debate.

trekkie · **Posted:** February 21st, 2012, 9:17 pm

o god... next thing you know people will want to marry dolphins. when that day comes, i will destroy seaworld if somebody did not beat me to it.

Shane · **Posted:** February 22nd, 2012, 5:50 pm

Until a dolphin creates a nuclear bomb or builds a rocket to go into space or even has the capability to do such things they should continue to be treated as animals.

They might have the compute power to do interesting things but does that mean they can apply that the same way we can? No. If they could apply their intelligence then that would be a different story.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Author,_Author <- A dolphin is far off from being a hologram.

Adbot · **Posted:** February 22nd, 2012, 5:50 pm

Sunset Fish · **Posted:** February 28th, 2012, 5:44 pm

I'm huge pro animals right also, but not to the point where I won't eat meat, slaughtering animals for food is cruel but can't change that.
I care more about animals then most humans.

No doubt in my mind that dolphins are smarter then myself, but does that give them a privilege for other animals that are meaninglessly killed?
Whaling it one of the things that anger me both, maybe because they are just so **** cute.
Bating aswell, but I'm against all hunting.

Honestly, if it servers zero jail time, I would save the dolphin over the child.
Just like I'd push you into a hoard of zombies to save my kitty.

Thomas · **Posted:** February 28th, 2012, 9:01 pm

Ranging God wrote:

Science has shown that individuality - consciousness, self-awareness - is no longer a unique human property. That poses all kinds of challenges.”

Ethics Professor Tom White Loyola Marymount University of Los Angeles

>Professor at a private Catholic University with crosses over the door frame of every room on campus (I've been there before) agreeing with scientists that other creatures can be sentient even though his bible says that animals have no souls
>wat

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Thomas wrote:

Ranging God wrote:

Science has shown that individuality - consciousness, self-awareness - is no longer a unique human property. That poses all kinds of challenges.”

Ethics Professor Tom White Loyola Marymount University of Los Angeles

>Professor at a private Catholic University with crosses over the door frame of every room on campus (I've been there before) agreeing with scientists that other creatures can be sentient even though his bible says that animals have no souls
>wat

Thing is, Thomas, we are talking only one professor out of many. Of course, you are bound to find at least one professor who won't agree with something the Catholic church says. Does that mean he's speaking for the entire faith or the university? No...not at all.

It would be equivalent to me making a horrible remark about something, and then conjecturing that Shane, Mike, the rest of the staff, and all the members are behind me 100% just because I'm part of the staff.

Also, the fact he leaves out any mention of religion and focuses purely on science compels me to believe he's not making any statement about religion at all.

Warren · **Posted:** February 29th, 2012, 2:41 pm

Don't remember Thomas saying he was making any remark about religion. Seems more he's saying that the prof has opposite views of his supposed faith. Religion and science aren't compatible if you want to be objective anyways. When you go into a lab leave behind religion, and when you go to church, leave behind science.

And the bit of speaking for all the staff, that's impossible anyways since Newspaper isn't real staff. JK!! But it would be more like you saying that RuneScape doesn't exist or something but writing articles for a RuneScape fansite. Something weird like that.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

Warren wrote:

Don't remember Thomas saying he was making any remark about religion. Seems more he's saying that the prof has opposite views of his supposed faith. Religion and science aren't compatible if you want to be objective anyways. When you go into a lab leave behind religion, and when you go to church, leave behind science.

And the bit of speaking for all the staff, that's impossible anyways since Newspaper isn't real staff. JK!! But it would be more like you saying that RuneScape doesn't exist or something but writing articles for a RuneScape fansite. Something weird like that.

You forgot to color your text.

On the contrary, science and religion are quite compatible. It's just that some like to think it is not...and I'm assuming you are one. You can find people who argue that science proves religion rather than denies it and people who refer to science to back up their religious beliefs, but that's a whole different topic.

I was more stating for the record to make it clear that just because a professor teaches at a religious university doesn't mean that any remarks he makes represents the faith or university necessarily. Individuals are individuals and can hold seperate beliefs different from their own religion.

As for my analogy, it does make sense. All I'm trying to say and prove is that just because you are associated with a certain group doesn't mean you necessarily ascribe to all of it's views. Nor does it mean that any remark made by an individual represents the group the individual works for.

Warren · **Posted:** February 29th, 2012, 9:31 pm

the site forgot to colour my text...
You can be religious and scientist but you can't be both at the same time. You can manipulate things to make them prove something but that doesn't mean you're being objective. You can't go in with something set out that you have no say in and refuse to deviate from.

And of what you were saying, I know and agree. But Thomas wasn't saying that he was representing the school or a branch of religion.
Personally I find it hypocritical if you subscribe to a religion that uses something like a Bible but decide that you don't like some things it says so you ignore them. But I don't get religion anyhow.

I don't get why people even enjoy causing harm to anything either. Whether it's torturing animals or other people or shooting things etc it doesn't matter what rights you extend there are going to be people who do it and I am never going to understand it.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

You can be both, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. One thing to point out is that sometimes in science, you go into a test or experiment trying to prove a hypothesis (held belief) and try to prove its validity. Religion is no different in the way science can be used to validate it.

The problem with religion is that a lot of the doctrine of a sect or denomination differs quite a bit. The basic beliefs are the same, but the little details are not. In this case, this is more of a little detail imo. Hence, a professor could share the same basic beliefs with and faith of the university, but not necessarily agree on the little things.

Thomas · **Posted:** March 2nd, 2012, 5:36 pm

Duke Juker wrote:

You can be both, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. One thing to point out is that sometimes in science, you go into a test or experiment trying to prove a hypothesis (held belief) and try to prove its validity. Religion is no different in the way science can be used to validate it.

The problem with religion is that a lot of the doctrine of a sect or denomination differs quite a bit. The basic beliefs are the same, but the little details are not. In this case, this is more of a little detail imo. Hence, a professor could share the same basic beliefs with and faith of the university, but not necessarily agree on the little things.

The different faiths are based on different interpretations of vague passages. We don't know how heaven and hell and judgement day work, because there is a bit of vagueness there. We don't know if Jesus was really a son of god or just a Jewish Prophet. We don't know if we should follow the Kosher laws or the way the laws were after they were modified. We don't know if God is against sodomy as in gay-sex, or sodomy as in using *** solely for pleasure. The different faiths are based on these variables. AFAIK, there are no Christian faiths that tell you your dog goes to heaven.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** March 5th, 2012, 11:18 am

What exactly do you have to do to call yourself a scientist? Can i wake up tomorrow and declare myself a scientist? Can i go around calling myself a scientist?

I'm just asking cause if i could I'd probably go around saying ******* crazy stuff like Dolphins deserve human rights as well. While I'm at it i think we need to exterminate apes as i watched the new planet of the apes film the other day...it's not that I'm scared of them taking over it's more i never want a film like that made ever again. God it was bad. Do yourself a favour and smash your face against the wall instead of watching it.