"Dolphins should be considered people"

[Xanikk999]

(I realize this is an old article but its not too old.)

Dolphins have been declared the world’s second most intelligent creatures after humans, with scientists suggesting they are so bright that they should be treated as “non-human persons”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6973994.ece

Well the article states that scientists have deduced that dolphins are the second most intelligent animals after humans, even more so then apes/chimps. I dont beileve this is from the same article, but i have read various articles detailing reports of dolphins masturbating, and groping humans, which would make them one of the few animals known to do that. They also apparently have a sense of self and can think about whats next according to the article.

The studies show how dolphins have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self and can think about the future.

It also states dolphins have some behaviors that could be considered culture, such as learning behaviors from other dolphins which might mean they have fads.

Advanced tool use has been observed among dolphins as well:

There are many similar examples, such as the way dolphins living off Western Australia learnt to hold sponges over their snouts to protect themselves when searching for spiny fish on the ocean floor.

Other various things stated by the article:

- They can recognize themselves in the mirror
- Captive animals can learn a rudimentary sign language.
- Can solve difficult problems like puzzles.
- Dolphins that learned tricks such as tail walking in captivity tought it to other dolphins when released into the wild.

Basically to sum it up the article states:

The scientific research . . . suggests that dolphins are ‘non-human persons’ who qualify for moral standing as individuals,” he said.

Read the article if you will and explain your thoughts if you want.

 

[Communisto]

I hope they really are that smart so that they can fully be bathed in appropriate fear when they are being hunted down like the delicious animals they are.

 

[warpus]

People are people, dolphins are dolphins. It makes as much sense to call a dolphin a person as it would to call a penguin an orangutan.

Sure, they should be protected in some way - but to call them 'people' is just silly.

And if we're talking legalese here, if we give them the same rights as persons - that means that they should be able to become citizens of countries, vote, immigrate, emigrate, etc.. right? And that's even more silly..

 

[_random_]

No they shouldn't.

 

[Traitorfish]

People are people, dolphins are dolphins. It makes as much sense to call a dolphin a person as it would to call a penguin an orangutan.

"Person" has never been synonymous with "human"- in ancient times, for example, the concept of "person" included various spiritual entities, unusually intelligent animals, various mythical creatures, etc., while more contemporarily, "personhood" could be extended to a sufficiently intelligent AI. It's about .extending a recognition of sapience, rather than simply conflating human and inhuman creatures.

Incidentally, "Orangutan" means "man of the forest", a remark on his human-like appearance and behaviour. How about that.

 

[SG-17]

People are people, dolphins are dolphins. It makes as much sense to call a dolphin a person as it would to call a penguin an orangutan.

Sure, they should be protected in some way - but to call them 'people' is just silly.

And if we're talking legalese here, if we give them the same rights as persons - that means that they should be able to become citizens of countries, vote, immigrate, emigrate, etc.. right? And that's even more silly..

Well technically yes, but they would also gain all human rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Mango Elephant]

I want to MARRY a dolphin!

 

[Babbler]

"People" has never been synonymous with "human"- in ancient times, for example, the concept of "people" included various spiritual entities, unusually intelligent animals, various mythical creatures, and so on and so forth. It's about extending a certain recognition of "personhood", a recognition of sapience, rather than simply conflating them with humans.

Incidentally, "Orangutan" means "man of the forest", a remark on his human-like appearance and behaviour. How about that.

So what would non-human "personhood" entail?

 

[warpus]

"People" has never been synonymous with "human"- in ancient times, for example, the concept of "people" included various spiritual entities, unusually intelligent animals, etc. It's about extending a certain recognition of "personhood", rather than simply conflating them with humans.

Screw those ancients, in these modern times a person is a human being.

Wikipedia also tells me that

In philosophy, "person" may apply to any human or non-human actor who is regarded as self-conscious and capable of certain kinds of higher-level thought; for example, individuals who have the power to reflect upon and choose their actions

So the term has a different meaning in the context of philosophy, which is never assumed here on CFC, cause we don't have any philosophers, only a bunch of wanna-bes.

Also,

In the fields of law, philosophy, medicine, and others, the term has specialised context-specific meanings. In many jurisdictions, for example, a corporation is considered a legal person with standing to sue or be sued in court. In sociology, "person" is an abstract concept, to study individuals as they exist as functioning or non-functioning components within a society. In a legal context, a "person" is designated either a "citizen" or "non-citizen" and as such the individual person has certain designated rights and responsibilities under the law.

Seems to me that, if a context is not specified, we are to assume that by "person" you mean "human being", which is basically what would happen if you walked up to a random person on the street and said: "have you seen any people around?". He would not say: "Are you talking about dolphins?"

But anyway, yes, I get what the OP is asking, and I disagree. Dolphins should not have the same rights as Canadians.

Incidentally, "Orangutan" means "man of the forest", a remark on his human-like appearance and behaviour. How about that.

That is interesting, but I have nothing amusing to add to it!

Well technically yes, but they would also gain all human rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe you do mean, "the right to a hockey stick, bacon, and the pursuit of even more bacon". Your American values are not applicable to all of humanity.

 

[Traitorfish]

So what would non-human "personhood" entail?

It depends. "Personhood" lacks a universally agreed upon definition, and the rights which it implies are similarly debated. However, a good rough guide would be the principle of the Great Ape Project, which recognises personhood as extending to any creature capable of sapience- the ability to exercise "wisdom" and make sound judgements- and seeks to extend legal personhood to all great apes (i.e. gorillas, orangutans and chimps), advocating their rights to life and to freedom from exploitation and cruelty- "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.", as SG-17 so appropriately put it.

Screw those ancients, in these modern times a person is a human being.

I'm just saying that personhood is not and has never been a concept philosophically interchangeable with "human being". If it was, we wouldn't entertain the concept as distinct.

I don't think this is a radical concept, either- it is quite usual for human beings to treat brighter animals- dogs, horses, cats, etc.- as particularly stupid, hairy people, rather than as animate objects, even if they may be cautious about framing it in such language. Equally, humans have sought to deprive each other of personhood, through slavery, institutionalised repression, and the like.

So the term has a different meaning in the context of philosophy, which is never assumed here on CFC, cause we don't have any philosophers, only a bunch of wanna-bes.

The issue is one of philosophy; if you refuse to acknowledge the nuances of the field, then don't involve yourself in an argument. You may as well answer the question "Can we truly know that we exist?" by nipping somebody on the arm.

Seems to me that, if a context is not specified, we are to assume that by "person" you mean "human being", which is basically what would happen if you walked up to a random person on the street and said: "have you seen any people around?". He would not say: "Are you talking about dolphins?"

All that proves is that we only extend personhood to humans, or, at least, that humans are the only recognised "persons" seen regularly ambling the streets. In a more colourful universe, I doubt either of us would have much trouble extending the term "person" to orcs, androids and weird alien squid-folk, so there's clearly a limit to the biological restrictions placed on the term.

Also, I didn't notice this before, but...

And if we're talking legalese here, if we give them the same rights as persons - that means that they should be able to become citizens of countries, vote, immigrate, emigrate, etc.. right? And that's even more silly..

Was once an argument made about blacks, Native Americans, the Irish, Jews, poor people and women. I'm just saying...

 

[amadeus]

Are dolphins capable of reason?

 

[Dachs]

My biology teacher in high school reportedly attempted to copulate with a dolphin.

 

[Xanikk999]

I believe you do mean, "the right to a hockey stick, bacon, and the pursuit of even more bacon". Your American values are not applicable to all of humanity.

I think you are confusing Canadians with Americans. We arent crazy about hockey down here. If i missed the joke im sorry.

 

[Cynovolans]

Does this include porpoises and killer whales?

 

[SG-17]

I think you are confusing Canadians with Americans. We arent crazy about hockey down here. If i missed the joke im sorry.

Indeed, but I have to agree with the bacon part.


I am sure dolphins would love bacon too.


@Cynovolans:
"Killer Whales", Orcas are dolphins. Porpoises, I am not sure. They are considered distinct from dolphins.

Porpoises may be the Neanderthal to our Cro-Magnon.

 

[Luckymoose]

Well if they are people then they must join the UN for each dolphin nation.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well if they are people then they must join the UN for each dolphin nation.

Are suggesting that a lack of legal nationality implies a lack of personhood? I guess the Confederacy was right after all, then.

 

[Joecoolyo]

If Dolphins are so intelligent, then why haven't they landed on the moon yet?

And yes, I'm going to bring this up in every dolphin thread.

 

[Xanikk999]

Indeed, but I have to agree with the bacon part.


I am sure dolphins would love bacon too.


@Cynovolans:
"Killer Whales", Orcas are dolphins. Porpoises, I am not sure.

Porpoises may be the Neanderthal to our Cro-Magnon.

Who doesnt love bacon? If you say you dont like bacon you are likely either a militant vegan/vegetarian or insane.

But ive heard people say im insane for hating cheese so maybe i have something in common with these people who honestly hate bacon.

 

[Communisto]

You hate cheese!?