"Dolphins should be considered people"

[Solace]

No they shouldn't.

I lol'd when I saw that picture.

At any rate, dolphins should be considered people, yes.

 

[Traitorfish]

So basically when I think "person" I think "natural person" and most people probably do too.. (right? no? what?)

Yes and no- as I've said, on a day-to-day basis, it's certainly true of the majority, but human culture has consistently shown itself to be entirely open to the idea of non-human personhood, in religion, folklore and fiction. We may not hold that there are any non-human persons existent- if only because we haven't yet created a sufficiently advanced AI- but we self-evidently do not hold personhood to be an exclusively human trait.

 

[El_Machinae]

I find the distinction "non-human" person to be very useful. It's a trigger word, so that we immediately switch mindsets. It would be useful when discussing scientific or legal matters to include "Human and non-human persons ... " in preamble

 

[Communisto]

This is just becoming trivial. If you guys want to protect them then make laws, don't get bogged down in stupid semantics. Theyre effing dolphins.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is just becoming trivial. If you guys want to protect them then make laws, don't get bogged down in stupid semantics. Theyre effing dolphins.

I wouldn't think of it as "stupid semantics"; the concept of personhood is pretty important in ethical and political philosophy. It's certainly a more complex issue than you acknowledge- how can the assertion that "they're effing dolphins" be of much use when you refuse to discuss what "dolphin", in this context, actually means?

 

[Communisto]

"Shut up, shut up, shut up" is not, as you appear to believe, the dramatic and dynamic cutting of our philosophical Gordian Knot, but, rather, you be simplistic and boorish.

Cool.

Now, back in reality the fact remains that making up some new super nice word to call dolphins doesn't change anything and is just a waste of time. Changing fishing laws however, is not. If you want to, call them "really smart animals" but using the word 'people' is just silly and bordering on offensive.

 

[Traitorfish]

Cool.

The fact remains that making up some new super nice word to call dolphins doesn't change anything and is just a waste of time. Changing fishing laws however, is not. If you want to, call them "really smart animals" but using the word people is just silly and bordering on offensive.

Well, as you can now see I edited the above, because it was, as I'm sure we're both aware, more than a little bell-endy, and my edit and your post apparently went through at the same time...

Anyway... I don't think you understand the concept of "personhood". It's not "just a label", but a recognition of sapience, and, as such, is crucial to all forms of political and moral philosophy. As I said, our culture readily acknowledges personhood as a trait that is both relevant and distinct from humanity, so why do choose to dismiss it simply because it is being applied in a manner which you dislike?

Also, "bordering on offensive"? How so?

 

[Communisto]

Well, as you can now see I edited the above, because it was, as I'm sure we're both aware, more than a little bell-endy, and my edit and your post apparently went through at the same time...

Anyway... I don't think you understand the concept of "personhood". It's not "just a label", but a recognition of sapience, and, as such, is crucial to all forms of political and moral philosophy.

They're dolphins. We call them dolphins. If they are indeed sentient, then they are sentient dolphins. "Personhood" as a term is not used in the way you described it here and now in the modern world, amongst the average... uhh, person.

I get the feeling that the proposition of re-labeling has more to do with an inherent guilt felt by the more animal-sensitive members of CFC than it has with grounds in reality. It seems to me to just be an off-hand gesture that means nothing. What would be the difference if we just called them sentient animals? (assuming they are indeed sentient)

As I said, our culture readily acknowledges personhood as a trait that is both relevant and distinct from humanity, so why do choose to dismiss it simply because it is being applied in a manner which you dislike?

I dispute this. I just dont see how our current culture "readily" acknowledges it

Also, "bordering on offensive"? How so?

Because it infers that a dolphin is as much a person as I, and that, good sir, is simply not so.

 

[DroopyTofu]

The idea of all this seems ridiculous now, but it once was ridiculous to consider women, african americans, or poor people and many other groups people. (This has already been stated) If dolphins do somehow get granted personhood (and we can figure out a way to communicate with them), imagine the impacts on society. Dolphins would be a very important group in election and politicians would be fighting over who could get the most dolphin voters. One day we may even have a dolphin as president. Of course, we would have to make sure everything is equal and provide a dolphin equivalent of handicap access ramps to everything. We also would need to come up with something less offensive than dolphins. Aqua-Ameircans, maybe. Of course Aqua-Americans should be given personhood.

(This started out of a serious post of "It might not be so crazy", but I realized that it was, in fact, that crazy when I typed "first dolphin president.)

 

[Abaddon]

A fun post to read all the same.

No, they shouldn't, but they should be respected and given better treatment than they do.

 

[LiquidCommander]

Oh, that's nice. Dolphins are considered non-human people but gorillas aren't?

What sick, twisted world do I live in?

 

[Communisto]

but.. but they look like theyre smiling!

 

[SG-17]

Oh, that's nice. Dolphins are considered non-human people but gorillas aren't?

What sick, twisted world do I live in?

There is a push to grant Great Apes human rights as well.

 

[Xanikk999]

Oh, that's nice. Dolphins are considered non-human people but gorillas aren't?

What sick, twisted world do I live in?

Well most scientists who have studied animal intellegence agree that dolphins are more intellegent then apes. Its in the article somewhere..

 

[Cynovolans]

Well most scientists who have studied animal intellegence agree that dolphins are more intellegent then apes. Its in the article somewhere..

I'm pretty sure that's just a team of scientists studying a group of dolphins. Because I've heard a team of scientists studying a group of Orangutans say they were the second smartest living species on the planet. And the exact same thing from a group of scientists studying chimpanzees.

 

[Abaddon]

Oh, that's nice. Dolphins are considered non-human people but gorillas aren't?

What sick, twisted world do I live in?

You have the power to change things around you. Be the change you want to see!

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, that's nice. Dolphins are considered non-human people but gorillas aren't?

What sick, twisted world do I live in?

It's widely acknowledged that chimps qualify as non-human persons. I wouldn't be surprised if gorillas were too.

 

[Traitorfish]

They're dolphins. We call them dolphins. If they are indeed sentient, then they are sentient dolphins. "Personhood" as a term is not used in the way you described it here and now in the modern world, amongst the average... uhh, person.

Perhaps not in colloquial speech- although, even then, I would suggest that the issue is not the conflation of personhood and humanity, but a more strictly limited notion of personhood- but colloquial speech has never dictated technical usage.

I get the feeling that the proposition of re-labeling has more to do with an inherent guilt felt by the more animal-sensitive members of CFC than it has with grounds in reality. It seems to me to just be an off-hand gesture that means nothing. What would be the difference if we just called them sentient animals? (assuming they are indeed sentient)

Because personhood recognises both sapience, rather than mere sentience, and a certain set of rights that go along with that, specifically the rights to life, freedom from cruelty, and freedom from ownership (noting that this does not dismiss stewardship- children are persons, and, as such, are not owned, but stewarded).
Noting, of course, that "animal personhood" is viewed by some as a concept of temporary necessity, a stepping stone to a greater recognition of animal rights, and that it is too anthrocentic to be objectively valuable... But that's probably another discussion.

I dispute this. I just dont see how our current culture "readily" acknowledges it

Need I go on?

Because it infers that a dolphin is as much a person as I, and that, good sir, is simply not so.

"As much a person"? Is personhood a variable quantity?

It's widely acknowledged that chimps qualify as non-human persons. I wouldn't be surprised if gorillas were too.

The Great Ape Project certainly agrees, and actively campaigns for legal recognition of the great apes- chimps, gorillas and orangutans- as non-human people.

 

[GoodGame]

This is just becoming trivial. If you guys want to protect them then make laws, don't get bogged down in stupid semantics. Theyre effing dolphins.

Are laws anything without semantics?