Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

I think this raises a much better question. If dolphins should count as people because of their intelligence, does that mean anything with intelligence above a certain threshold should be counted as a person?
And if so, does that mean that humans below said threshold should not count as people? Doesn't this line of logic provoke the very concerning notion that people with a severe mental disability do not count as people because they do not meet what ever standard that we set for something to count as a person?

Perhaps it would be ideal to set other standards for what we count as a person... I don't think I am wise enough to recognise what these are, but I'm sure the question of what makes us who we are has been tackled by philosophy for a while without prevail.

[Grek]

The cynical answer is that the definition of personhood is 100% political. Way back in history, slaves were not people because they had nothing to offer those in power in exchange for being considered people. Slavery only got outlawed because there was enough of a public outcry that the politicians could get votes in echange for freeing the slaves. Mentally disabled people still count as people because they have family that are people who would be very upset with you if you said their brother or whatever was a non-person. Dolphins aren't people because dolphins have nothing to offer us culturally, materially, or technologically and don't vote.

[Max White]

Ah, so a person is a person because of their political sway, be it directly or because of those that show empathy for them.
Nice work, age old argument solved! I think we can tell the philosophers they can stop being pretentious pricks now...

[Twi]

The cynical answer is that the definition of personhood is 100% political. Way back in history, slaves were not people because they had nothing to offer those in power in exchange for being considered people. Slavery only got outlawed because there was enough of a public outcry that the politicians could get votes in echange for freeing the slaves. Mentally disabled people still count as people because they have family that are people who would be very upset with you if you said their brother or whatever was a non-person. Dolphins aren't people because dolphins have nothing to offer us culturally, materially, or technologically and don't vote.

But of course, someone will attempt to argue that point somehow.

[Max White]

The Japanese already gave us sushi, and toddlers already gave us blowing bubbles. Call me culturally insensitive, but what else is there?

[kaijyuu]

Quick, someone get those dolphins to start up a band.

[DJ]

Why is self-awareness such a big deal? I though capacity for abstract thought is what sets humans apart.

[Glowcat]

It's one of those things that have for a long time in the world of philosophy been what's considered one of many markers of intelligence. Self-awareness is a necessity due to the basic concept of "ME" being vital for identity. There's also as I recall the need for recursive thinking (thinking about thinking about something) and being able to relate oneself to the world around. It's not really a winner takes all affair, so the argument for dolphin person-hood still needs a lot more going for it before we can seriously begin a discussion.

[Chaoswizkid]

Number 1 isn't backed up by much evidence. The journal article linked on this page says that dolphins can understand simple but grammatically novel instructions from their trainers. Admittedly, that is rather impressive for an animal, but parrots can also do that, as can computer programs. That's not enough to justify saying that dolphins are as smart as humans, let alone that they should be thought of as people.

Seriously? Like I said, go out and do your own research on the subject. I'm not going to supply you with all of the information on the subject just so you can draw more-educated conclusions. Stop acting like all the information that exists is what I've linked to on this thread thus far.

Number 2 is also out. Even if we assume, despite the lack of evidence, that dolphins are as smary as any human, that's not enough to call them people. As crudely as rarborman put it, being able to do things that a person can do does not a person make: There is no parity between a person and a dolphin. The dolphin cannot teach a person to communicate with it, holds no power over any human and makes no attempt to reform its behavior based on moral concerns.

I imagine it would be difficult, given a dolphin's anatomy, to teach humans other languages. While we can gesture and bring whatever object we wish to reference to the dolphin, the dolphin cannot do much back.

I don't see how "holds no power over any human" supports the dolphin being considered a 'person' or individual.

You're also assuming that any sufficiently intelligent creature has the same morality as humanity. A good portion of discussion has been about how, if dolphins were considered 'persons', then there would be a huge rights violation attitude about the whole thing. What can be said, then, about the altruistic tendencies of dolphins, such as to help drowning swimmers?

Even Number 3 is unsupported. Male dolphins gang-rape female dolphins in order to reproduce. They murder infants born to other dolphins and kill porpoises for no known reason. If we provisionally assume that dolphin are as smart as people and that dolphins should qualify as people, the correct and moral response would be to immediately imprison the entire population until such time as we can communicate with them and introduce the sort of social contract and justice system that keeps humans from acting like complete monsters.

Because we are the perfect moral compass, aren't we? I'm not trying to spread some sort of bias that "Oh, humans are so bad!" by saying that, I just think you're being pretty extreme with that viewpoint, as if it's perfectly acceptable that all of the horrors that have occurred with humanity are a-ok, but don't let any other species do that, that's just not morally right. This isn't to say that I'm trying to justify gang-rape or infanticide, it just seems like, under the assumption that dolphins can be considered 'persons', as you use in that paragraph, they are somehow so much more evil than when humanity commits it on itself.

That said, I do somewhat agree with you. If it can be determined that they qualify, then next step after establishing some sort of constant language for standard communication should probably be introducing them to the concept of individual rights and seeing how they react to that.

Because if they actually are people, and you're not using that as a backformed justification for why they should be protected (as I suspect the conference is), than dolphins should be the world's biggest 'human'-rights violation to date.

I suspect that the conference definitely has that motivation. I believe there are at least a few that genuinely have drawn the conclusion that cetaceans should be considered individuals, though. Nothing to back that up, of course, just wishful thinking. I'm not using any of this as justification for why they should be protected. I've just spent a good deal of time reading up on the cognitive abilities of dolphins and have drawn my own conclusion that they classify as highly intelligent. I'm in no real position to say whether or not they should be considered persons, but the thought and the implications are intriguing.

Why is self-awareness such a big deal? I though capacity for abstract thought is what sets humans apart.

It's far more difficult to test whether an animal has the capacity for abstract thought than it is to create thought experiments about self-awareness.

[rarborman]

Dolphins, dogs, animals, drug addicts, children, mentally deficients, gamblers, criminals, minorities; the list of non people is very long if you start fiddling with the standard of what people is defined as.

I dont consider a lot of what is considered people by others as people, I have a pet drug addict, and consider children as pets...
DF does strange things to your opinions.

[Grek]

What can be said, then, about the altruistic tendencies of dolphins, such as to help drowning swimmers?

No matter how many drowning swimmers someone saves, if they gang-rape someone or kill a baby, they're still a monster. And that sort of thing is business as usual for dolphins, so there's a pretty good chance that any given dolphin that's saved a drowning swimmer is also a child-killing rapist dolphin.

I'm in no real position to say whether or not they should be considered persons, but the thought and the implications are intriguing.

If you want intriguing, consider the notion of aphid personhood. They're born pregnant and die horridly of a ruptured abdomen shortly after giving birth.

[Chaoswizkid]

If you want intriguing, consider the notion of aphid personhood. They're born pregnant and die horridly of a ruptured abdomen shortly after giving birth.

Is there any evidence that aphids have enough intelligence to be considered on par with humans? The thought is intriguing (and by intriguing, I mean it'd probably be a sociopolitical nightmare that's difficult to imagine), but I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near as plausible.

[zchris13]

Dolphins, dogs, animals, drug addicts, children, mentally deficients, gamblers, criminals, minorities; the list of non people is very long if you start fiddling with the standard of what people is defined as.

I dont consider a lot of what is considered people by others as people, I have a pet drug addict, and consider children as pets...
DF does strange things to your opinions.

You're trolling. Congrats.

Even Number 3 is unsupported. Male dolphins gang-rape female dolphins in order to reproduce. They murder infants born to other dolphins and kill porpoises for no known reason. If we provisionally assume that dolphin are as smart as people and that dolphins should qualify as people, the correct and moral response would be to immediately imprison the entire population until such time as we can communicate with them and introduce the sort of social contract and justice system that keeps humans from acting like complete monsters.

Because we are the perfect moral compass, aren't we? I'm not trying to spread some sort of bias that "Oh, humans are so bad!" by saying that, I just think you're being pretty extreme with that viewpoint, as if it's perfectly acceptable that all of the horrors that have occurred with humanity are a-ok, but don't let any other species do that, that's just not morally right. This isn't to say that I'm trying to justify gang-rape or infanticide, it just seems like, under the assumption that dolphins can be considered 'persons', as you use in that paragraph, they are somehow so much more evil than when humanity commits it on itself.
That said, I do somewhat agree with you. If it can be determined that they qualify, then next step after establishing some sort of constant language for standard communication should probably be introducing them to the concept of individual rights and seeing how they react to that.

Are you sure he isn't using this as an argument against dolphins counting as people?

[Glowcat]

What can be said, then, about the altruistic tendencies of dolphins, such as to help drowning swimmers?

No matter how many drowning swimmers someone saves, if they gang-rape someone or kill a baby, they're still a monster. And that sort of thing is business as usual for dolphins, so there's a pretty good chance that any given dolphin that's saved a drowning swimmer is also a child-killing rapist dolphin.

So any particular dolphin is a rapist if another dolphin is? Can I be the first to call out on dolphin racism?

[rarborman]

Since when has intelligece been a requirement for personhood, lots of people are brainless tools used by other people.