Should Dolphins Be Treated As Non-Human Persons? 785
Hugh Pickens writes "Dolphins have long been recognized as among the most intelligent of animals, but now the Times reports that a series of behavioral studies suggest that dolphins, especially species such as the bottlenose, have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self, can think about the future and are so bright that they should be treated as 'non-human persons.' 'Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,' says Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory University. 'The neuroanatomy suggests psychological continuity between humans and dolphins and has profound implications for the ethics of human-dolphin interactions.' For example, one study found that dolphins can recognize their image in a mirror as a reflection of themselves — a finding that indicates self-awareness similar to that seen in higher primates and elephants. Other studies have found that dolphins are capable of advanced cognitive abilities such as problem-solving, artificial language comprehension, and complex social behavior, indicating that dolphins are far more intellectually and emotionally sophisticated than previously thought. Thomas White, professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University, has written a series of academic studies suggesting dolphins should have rights, claiming that the current relationship between humans and dolphins is, in effect, equivalent to the relationship between whites and black slaves two centuries ago."
Non-human intelligences (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we should have standards for how we treat them, but I think that comparing the situation to slavery is somewhat over-the-top. Though it's really hard to think of some objective way of deciding just what rights they should have.
I think, maybe, we should just ask, if we can figure out how. Of course, then there's the morass of objectively identifying and interpreting communication. :-)
I have a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Why just dolphins? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of creatures exhibit some form of intelligence. Should they have rights too? And why is intelligence the only factor? Should a stupid person have less rights than a dolphin? What about faster? or stronger? Should animals which have those traits be given rights too?
Why do we have the right to give other creatures rights?
And do you think tuna fishermen are going to stop using nets because they might catch something which has rights?
False equivalence (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, because everybody knows that humans and dolphins can interbreed.
So they are smart ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... but they don't appear to develop* at all? I haven't seen any dolphin civilizations or "dolphin science" or "dolphin inventions" lately...
* Develop not referring evolutionary development or something like that, but developing things to help them survive better, live better, enjoy life better.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Wish I had mod points. Dolphins are at least as smart as corporations and not as evil.
Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity. (Score:5, Insightful)
My experiences is that most people studying dolphins are quick to rely on confirmation bias.
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:5, Insightful)
If you grant dolphins "personhood" (whatever that means), then you've got to do the same thing with chimps. And probably orang-utans. And then maybe whales and elephants too.
My suggestion is that we grant them this personhood when they ask for it. When they're able to ask for it, then it's obvious they deserve it. Until then, there's a huge gap between what humans are capable of and what various smart animals are capable of.
Re:What about pigs? (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't do this! (Score:4, Insightful)
If dolphins have rights, we won't be able to use them in genetic experiments to make them smarter.
And if we can't make them smarter, then who is going to pilot our starships?
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an easy solution! When dolphins (and dolphins alone) can create tools and devices such that they are able to wage war for their freedom, it should be granted. Until then, they're screwed.
an animal is not a human (Score:2, Insightful)
it just isn't
you can talk about cruelty and you can talk about standards for how animals are to be interacted with, but when you start talking about animals having comparable rights as our treatment of our fellow human beings, you completely lose any logical coherence
go ahead and make vociferous passionate arguments about how animals should be treated. i welcome those arguments and support a lot of them. but don't completely ruin your argument by saying animals and humans are equivalent in any way. no, they simply aren't. i'm sorry, this is a matter of simple logical coherence. the rights we afford those of our fellow species due to our shared cognition is something above and beyond the rights we afford animals out of conscience, a HUMAN conscience
By the way, sentience is not only 'intelligence' (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:5, Insightful)
Some human "persons" don't understand that they have that right until you explain it to them.
Look at the caste systems.
Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I have no problem recognizing the sentience of dolphins. I could even accept them as "non-human persons", though I'm not sure exactly what that means.
But as far as the upshot of what rights should we give dolphins, that's where I don't like the tack this is taking.
Talking about "equal rights" among people -- human people -- makes sense, as we are all human and equal and have the same essential needs when living together in our societies.
Dolphins don't live in our society. They live in dolphin societies. The only right they need is the right to live in that society without us bothering them. So, I'm against fishing them, and even keeping them in captivity outside of injured or rescued dolphins. anything else is unnecessary.
Re:Why just dolphins? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of creatures exhibit some form of intelligence. Should they have rights too? And why is intelligence the only factor? Should a stupid person have less rights than a dolphin? What about faster? or stronger? Should animals which have those traits be given rights too?
Why do we have the right to give other creatures rights?
You can grant "rights" to any species you like... Dolphins have the same intrinsic rights as humans. i.e. none.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
So, they go around beating the shit out of something and killing other animals for fun, *because they can*.
Sounds awfully like humans to me...
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:5, Insightful)
This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Also clearly dogs are human. So are chimps.
What the hell, what's NOT a human? A rabbit? A cockroach?
You can come up with whatever justifications to 'give rights' to whatever you want, but in reality 'rights' are an abstract idea defined by humans.
Do dolphins have the same 'rights' as humans? Well, it's up to humans to define. I, on my part, will always discriminate against dolphins, I promise that much.
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:5, Insightful)
I should probably preface this by stating that I am thoroughly omnivorous, fine with testing on lab rats, can't stand PETA and generally hold that most people's preconceptions about animal rights have far more to do with "cute vs ugly" than they do with "right vs wrong".
So it may sound strange that I'm all for dolphins being recognized as near-human level intelligent life, and accorded legal protection befitting said status. Actually I'd go as far as extending such status to most other cetaceans and all apes.
What is the measure of a human being? I don't believe in souls, nor should religion be invoked in temporal debates. Human genetics are no more complex than any other mammal. Human anatomy, while distinct from other apes in a few areas, is mostly unremarkable from the neck down. We're animals ourselves, vertebrate, tetrapod, primate, ape, hominid. We like to imagine ourselves as special, as evidenced by the way we write our mythologies and philosophy, but that's ego talking, not evidence.
All that distinguishes us from the other apes is brain size to body mass ratio. And even then, the gulf isn't vast. We can safely assume that any mammal with a similarly large brain in relation to body mass has the same range of emotions, capacity for complex thought, self-awareness, creativity, what-have-you. Language and communication isn't uniquely human. Nor is art. Hell, even tool use isn't unique to us.
If the only measure of value is sapience, and it can be demonstrated that a non-human of any stripe shares that characteristic with us, than damn straight we ought to treat them the way we treat humans.
Re:Rapists (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans will kill thousands and millions of their own species because the members of the other species did not share the same religion, culture, ideas or political ideals.
Humans will attempt to draw more 'wealth' for themselves by getting human children to work in their factories - in order to gain more profits on their sales.
Humans will dump dangerous materials into the air, sea or land and deny the effects of these materials. Humans will also destroy large ecosystems in order to farm non-native animals in that region to make cheap burgers.
Humans can be just as mean as other animals.
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:4, Insightful)
This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.
Indeed. So are you really surprised that someone should suggest that some other being doesn't deserve rights because of their own ignorance?
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:5, Insightful)
Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.
No. Slaves were fully human, and humans already had "personhood". Not just that, but slaves have asked for freedom. And even when they didn't speak the same language, they were still able to express their displeasure over their captivity. (Although I seem to recall a story about a circus with African elephants that were also clearly unhappy about their captivity, no matter their treatment. And yes, that means they tore the place down, and probably got shot.)
In any case, I'm all for treating animals with respect, and letting them live in their own habitats rather than captivity. But giving them human rights simply because they might be slightly smarter than some other animals is just silly.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell, what's NOT a human? A rabbit? A cockroach?
An unborn human, apparently.
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:1, Insightful)
It would seem that any chimp with decent grammar skills could teach you a thing or two...
Re:Why just dolphins? (Score:2, Insightful)
Meh. True statements are impossible. Logic is impotent. "Reason" is an 18th-century linguistic fashion.
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with limiting the definition to "like us" is that it is self-limiting, and pretty much cancels out any other form of sentience.
Re:Why just dolphins? (Score:4, Insightful)
Granting a right to one party is essentially imposing a duty on one or more other parties. For example, if we as humans grant dolphins a right to life, then we are basically saying "We (humans) will try not to kill you (dolphins) on purpose." Thus, by granting them this right, we are imposing upon ourselves the duty to not purposefully kill any dolphins. You can view it, if you wish, as a type of contract, though I'll be quick to point out that the concept of rights and duties extends beyond the legal realm into the moral one.
Why would we grant dolphins rights? Possibly because of what we feel to be a collective moral obligation. Granting rights to animals on the basis of moral obligation is not unprecedented. For instance, most animals for whom there is significant evidence that they can feel pain are granted the legal (and moral) right not to be abused. There's nothing physical stopping me from beating the ever living shit out of my dog, but I don't, because I think that inflicting unnecessary pain is immoral. Thus, I have implicitly granted my dog the right not to have the ever living shit beaten out of him.
Why would we grant dolphins a right to life specifically? This is akin to the question of why we would grant, for example, Homeless Joe with no friends or family a right to life specifically. If you approach the question from a secular viewpoint, it's kind of tricky. After all, there's no one to mourn the homeless person if I kill him, and he certainly won't care if I do it painlessly (in fact, he can't care; he's dead). Most ethicists working in this field approach the problem by appealing to the human traits of foresight and planning. Killing Homeless Joe thwarts his plans and deprives him of the possibility of making his life better in the future. (Interestingly, a very similar argument is used to justify euthanasia in terminal patients). Assuming that the scientific studies that we've done on dolphins show that they share the traits of foresight and planning with humans, denying them the right to life while granting it to Homeless Joe is simply drawing a line arbitrarily and discriminating against dolphins simply because they are a different species. The discrimination has no underlying rational basis.
I think that at least begins to explain why intelligence is an important factor in granting rights to non-human animals and why other traits are not as important. As for the stupid people comment, see the above argument. Consistency would dictate that if a human is so severely mentally handicapped that they do not exhibit foresight (nor will they ever--otherwise it would be totally cool to kill babies), then they wouldn't have a specific right to life under this reasoning (similar to the euthanasia argument above). However, I doubt they would be in much danger. After all, most people would need a reason to kill them (otherwise, why would they expend the effort), and even then, based on the discussion above about non-human animals, it would still have to be done painlessly. Remember, we grant the right not to be abused to most animals anyway, so this case would be no different.
As for your last statement, you bet your ass if a tuna fisherman caught a SCUBA diver in their net and drowned him, they'd be in deep shit. But we've also seen that, unfortunately, commercial interests often trump even well-established human rights, so there's really no telling.
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that argument conflates "personhood" with "capacity" (that is, the legal term capacity). The poster you were replying to specifically referred to the former, you responded as if they'd argued about the latter. They aren't the same thing.
A child can't sign a contract, make a will, drink, etc as they lack the legal capacity. They're still "people". The legal restrictions on capacity make that abundantly clear. What they don't have is the ability to fully understand the consequences of their actions. They have rights, but aren't mature enough to have the responsibilities that come with.
I realize this is a nit-picking distinction, but it's relevant. A person is protected under the law, irrespective of capacity. You can't go out and kill a retarded man and argue before a judge that, as the victim lacked capacity, he was not a person, and therefor fair game. Acknowledging dolphins as "persons" in a limited way extends legal protection to them, even if they aren't afforded the same legal status as a mentally sound adult human being.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
you mean other than that stuff called DNA?
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll consider accepting dolphins as persons if and only if that means I'm allowed to put them on trial for rape.
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:4, Insightful)
By your standard, a person in a coma or an infant are not to be granted rights.
Re:Non-human intelligences (Score:4, Insightful)
This. A hundred times this.
People seem to think dolphins are happy smiling human-equivalents that spend all day frolicking in the water and occasionally hunt for fish. Similarly, apes are just peaceful vegetarians who live in the trees and pick nits out of each other's hair.
In reality, both dolphins and apes (and chimpanzees) are - as they'd say in the old days - brutes and spend their days waring with each other, pillaging for spoils and that includes the females.
In short, the concept of "human rights" makes no sense in a world without law. What's law? In my best Spock voice: To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, so that the strong should not harm the weak. If you want your favorite higher mammals to have the same rights as us, then guess what, they have the same responsibilities as us too.