Whales & dolphins are so intelligent they deserve same rights as humans, say experts

[Traitorfish]

Once they evolve to the point where they can organize a society that can oppose humanity they should have equal rights. Until then they should have NO rights.

 

[GhostWriter16]

As of so far, aren't these the same thing? Are any other organisms that aren't human given the rights of an individual?

And no, corporations don't count.

Believe it or not, the "Corporations are people" bit doesn't fly with me, just like the "Dolphins are people" bit doesn't. They're both not true. Individual humans are people.

I do think in some cases Corporations may happen to have the rights as a person, and in other cases not, just like, perhaps, an intelligent animal might (Both animals and people have the right to not be tortured, and both people and corporations have the right not to have money stolen from them, for instance) but the animal's right not to be tortured isn't "Human rights." Its an animal right. And human beings' rights trump everything else.

@Traitorfish- I think its established, at least on here, that white people and black people are not two distinct species. Black people and white people have the same rights, that's a given. For an animal, its not a given.

 

[Mise]

As of so far, aren't these the same thing?

Individual rights are a subset of human rights. I mean, nobody's saying that the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies... Indeed, animal rights in general are a subset of human rights, and nobody seems to make a fuss over that. We have to treat animals humanely, don't we? Animal rights mean that we have to treat animals in accordance with their status as animals (as opposed to plants, for example); individual rights mean that we have to treat dolphins in accordance with their status as individuals; human rights means that we have to treat humans in accordance with their status as humans. I'm not sure why this is so problematic to be honest?

 

[Traitorfish]

@Traitorfish- I think its established, at least on here, that white people and black people are not two distinct species. Black people and white people have the same rights, that's a given. For an animal, its not a given.

That wasn't his criteria. His criteria was that a given collection of living beings must demonstrate their ability to organise in such a fashion as to resist domination before being accorded any sort of "rights", something which aboriginal Australians entirely failed to do. His logic, therefore, dictates that they be accorded no rights until they demonstrate their ability to organise as such, and this was indeed was the position of the British Empire and its successor states until well into the 20th century.

 

[asbestos]

Quite simple. God disagrees.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Whales and dolphins are mammals bro.

 

[Dachs]

Well, the fish were made before the land animals. Whales were made after land animals. Ergo, not fish.

You know, that's the kind of weird stuff you'd see the likes of Berzerker saying seriously.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, what exactly constitutes a fish can't have changed over the years and the original writers can't have mistakenly thought that whales were fish, as that would mean that the Bible is not immutable and perfect.

 

[Antilogic]

Individual rights are a subset of human rights. I mean, nobody's saying that the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies... Indeed, animal rights in general are a subset of human rights, and nobody seems to make a fuss over that. We have to treat animals humanely, don't we? Animal rights mean that we have to treat animals in accordance with their status as animals (as opposed to plants, for example); individual rights mean that we have to treat dolphins in accordance with their status as individuals; human rights means that we have to treat humans in accordance with their status as humans. I'm not sure why this is so problematic to be honest?

The reason why it's problematic, at least for me (I'm not one of the moon-people in this thread, for the record), is that it is completely vague and ill-defined (check out the recent Daily Show interview for a funny reason why). How do we treat the dolphin as an individual that is different from how we treat, say, a dog as an animal? I don't think the linked article in the OP spelled out the differences well, and the discussion here hasn't helped.

Also, I'd point you to the thread title which simultaneously makes the push for same rights as humans (which it seems we both disagree with).

Finally, I'm never inclined to take a semantic argument like the one you posted seriously.

 

[Traitorfish]

Here's a spanner in the works question: do children have the same set of "human rights" as adults do? Do people with impaired mental functioning (disability, senility, etc.) have the same rights as people of sound mind do? If we're going to talk about the distinction between human and animal rights, we should begin with a clear definition of "human rights", and those examples would seem to show that it's not something that can simply be assumed.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, what exactly constitutes a fish can't have changed over the years and the original writers can't have mistakenly thought that whales were fish, as that would mean that the Bible is not immutable and perfect.

Not necessarily. Yes, a whale is a mammal, but people back then would probably have thought of them as fish. In any case, saying "The Bible is completely true" doesn't require defending it down to the minute detail. That particular bit just isn't important.

Interestingly, the story commonly known as "Jonah and the Whale" refers to a "Big Fish." While literally there could not have been a whale involved since that's a mammal, this is what "Bible isn't a Science textbook" means. People back then would have thought of a whale as a fish, so that's likely how it would have been described. God knew of course that we would later discover the exact biology that makes it a mammal, but why exactly does it matter? It might well have been described to make sense as people understood it.

 

[peter grimes]

In any case, saying "The Bible is completely true" doesn't require defending it down to the minute detail. That particular bit just isn't important.

It matters because according to many evangelical christians the bible is the literal inerrant word of god. There have been a few threads on this

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Seems like we don't need to exploit them anyway. No lifesaving cures are being found from research on cetaceans, and we have better sources of food. Keeping them in captivity is useful only for entertainment. No objections here to what they are proposing, on practical rather than philosophical grounds.

 

[Narz]

Those guys put the abs in Aborigine (well the three on the right anyway)!

 

[uppi]

So do the dolphins get the right to bear arms? And what about marriage? Will dolphins be able to marry? What about human-dolphin marriages, will those ever be legal?

The preparations for the great legal battles of the 22nd century can begin.

 

[bhsup]

Agentman, I came here to post this response. In fact, I think that Genesis is very clear in how cetaceans are NOT in that assignment. And later on, I think Jesus clarifies how to interpret that verse



I think that mistreating intelligent cetaceans obviously violate the Golden Rule.

Golden Rule > Imprecise Genesis Commandment

Are dolphins and whales covered by this? They are neither fish nor birds. They are living things of course, but I think whether that clause covers them depends on whether "moves on the earth" means "moves, and is on planet earth" or "moves about on land". The second one seems more likely to me given the structure of the sentence.

Well, the fish were made before the land animals. Whales were made after land animals. Ergo, not fish.

You know, that's the kind of weird stuff you'd see the likes of Berzerker saying seriously.

Well, what exactly constitutes a fish can't have changed over the years and the original writers can't have mistakenly thought that whales were fish, as that would mean that the Bible is not immutable and perfect.

It matters because according to many evangelical christians the bible is the literal inerrant word of god. There have been a few threads on this

It also doesn't specifically say sea snakes, algae, and so forth. If you guys want to try to split hairs with modern species classification, go ahead, it means nothing to me. I know what the passage means and that's quite sufficient for me. Disagree if you like.

 

[innonimatu]

This is pathetic. Really. I'll agree with not eating dolphins, but only because their meat tastes like fish, and who wants meat tasting like fish anyway?

If dolphins are intelligent let them proclaim a declaration of dolphin rights. And tell us about it. Until that happens they're fit for prey to any human who fancies eating them.

 

[El_Machinae]

It also doesn't specifically say sea snakes, algae, and so forth. If you guys want to try to split hairs with modern species classification, go ahead, it means nothing to me. I know what the passage means and that's quite sufficient for me. Disagree if you like.

I don't think there's a compelling reason why the Golden Rule should be applied to algae and sea snakes

 

[Arakhor]

Not necessarily. Yes, a whale is a mammal, but people back then would probably have thought of them as fish. In any case, saying "The Bible is completely true" doesn't require defending it down to the minute detail. That particular bit just isn't important. ... It might well have been described to make sense as people understood it.

Which means you're then straight back in "what's literal and what's figurative" territory, which is an inconsistent place to be if you believe that the Bible is the absolute, unchanging and inerrant Word of God.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Here's a spanner in the works question: do children have the same set of "human rights" as adults do? Do people with impaired mental functioning (disability, senility, etc.) have the same rights as people of sound mind do? If we're going to talk about the distinction between human and animal rights, we should begin with a clear definition of "human rights", and those examples would seem to show that it's not something that can simply be assumed.

Yes and yes. Our own species comes first.

Dolphins clearly aren't as smart as us anyway, since if they were they could defend their own rights.

Our species, as a whole, through intelligence, has the right to rights. With this comes the responsibility to defend the younger and less fortunate of us.

It matters because according to many evangelical christians the bible is the literal inerrant word of god. There have been a few threads on this

It also doesn't specifically say sea snakes, algae, and so forth. If you guys want to try to split hairs with modern species classification, go ahead, it means nothing to me. I know what the passage means and that's quite sufficient for me. Disagree if you like.

This.

Which means you're then straight back in "what's literal and what's figurative" territory, which is an inconsistent place to be if you believe that the Bible is the absolute, unchanging and inerrant Word of God.

Yes, but modern species classification doesn't fit into that. Not needed.

 

[Arwon]

The declaration in the OP sounds entirely reasonable and should also extend to great apes and any other creatures that might have a comparable level of cognition (I understand this will probably turn out to mean some species of parrot, ferrinstance).