So here's the question, if science suggests that dolphins are incredibly smart, can discern language, have actual regional dialects, and have a degree of personal self-awareness, does killing them go from animal cruelty to actual murder? At what point does it become a more heinous crime to harm one?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It depends. How do they taste?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
It becomes a crime when we--voting citizens--make it a crime.
When does it become a sin? When God says so.
When does it become morally wrong? When you believe they are sentient.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What are your actual criteria there?
By the by, to the best of my knowledge, killing a dolphin, with some exceptions, is already illegal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (as amended). We enacted this law under the umbrella of protecting endangered species for long term survival. But when does it become something more? Functionally it's when Congress decides to, but I'm not talking about a plainly obvious function of government, I'm asking when you think Congress should do so. What are your criteria?
I didn't address whether or not it's a sin. It's not really a big issue to me. But as far as morality goes, yes, when you believe they are sentient, but when do you believe it?
You created an answer tree of different ways of looking at the issue without actually answering the question at all. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think it should ever equate to murder of a human. (I don't expect dolphins to consider killing a human as bad as killing a dolphin, either.)
But I don't know how severe we should consider the crime, short of that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Killing an average dolphin could be like killing 30% of an average human being. (And the death of a human at dolphin hands should be punished by the death of three dolphins!)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dolphins don't have hands.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As far as you know
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Killing an average dolphin could be like killing 30% of an average human being. (And the death of a human at dolphin hands should be punished by the death of three dolphins!)
Your valuation is inconveniently factored. That'd only amount to 90% retribution for the human death. To achieve parity we'd have to kill two more humans and 7 more dolphins. (Being just ain't easy. Sing it Solomon.)
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Why, did you kill one?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Doing a literature search on a different topic last January I ran across an article on Dolphins and Original Sin. I really wish I'd bookmarked it, because I haven't been able to find it again.
Doctrinal issues aside, it was dealing with the question "are dolphins people?"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: It becomes a crime when we--voting citizens--make it a crime.
When does it become a sin? When God says so.
When does it become morally wrong? When you believe they are sentient.
I prefer the word sapience, as sentience technically means able to feel. All mammals (AFAIK) are sentient. Most are not sapient.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ooh, good distinction. :: adopts ::
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
If anyone who's watched Flipper kills a dolphin, I would consider him a murderer.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm uncomfortable enough with the idea of killing fellow sapient beings that dolphins are on the short list of animals I wouldn't eat unless I were so hungry that I'd be willing to eat a human (simply because there's enough evidence that they truly are sapient that I wouldn't want to take the chance). I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable charging someone who killed a dolphin with murder, but I'm not at all sure that they wouldn't be guilty of just that.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
"I prefer the word sapience, as sentience technically means able to feel. All mammals (AFAIK) are sentient. Most are not sapient."
Question...how exactly would you define sapience, or draw the line at which animals are sapient or not? I looked it up, and it apparently indicates wisdom and the capacity for judgment. That's a bit of a vague description to use as a clear definition of what constitutes a person to me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Barring some spectacular and previously unhinted-of evidence, I don't think I could ever be persuaded that dolphins are sapient to the extent that they should be considered people.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
"Barring some spectacular and previously unhinted-of evidence, I don't think I could ever be persuaded that dolphins are sapient to the extent that they should be considered people."
Oh...okay. I was looking at dkw's post and I was assuming that the reason killing a dolphin would be considered morally wrong and the equivalent of murder (which is killing a human being) is because that would make them people.
How do you judge to what extent dolphins, or other animals, are sapient then? Would you try to estimate how often they act with judgment compared with not?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Question...how exactly would you define sapience, or draw the line at which animals are sapient or not? I looked it up, and it apparently indicates wisdom and the capacity for judgment, and those seem to be too vague to use as a clear definition of what constitutes a person (and therefore would be wrong to kill). At least to me.
I agree that it's incredibly vague. And while I don't have anything approaching a full test, there are some things (like the capacity for language) that I'd say are necessary but not sufficient.
It's vagueness is it not a drawback, I think, because the concept of personhood is at least as vague, if not more so.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm a vegetarian and believe that, in general, the amount of meat and the manner in which we cultivate it is criminal, but banning or even significantly curtailing our meat industries would likely result in black markets and other bad things without much reduction of animal suffering. Going around shouting "murder" is likewise ineffective.
For Dolphins specifically... well, rationally, I think it's more important to judge creatures based on their capacity to suffer and experience joy than on their intelligence. Otherwise we'd have separate laws for killing smart people than dumb people, and I can think of a bunch of ways that could go wrong. (Edit: my position is a lot more complicated than this but I don't feel like elaborating right now. But it'll probably be more fun if someone disagrees with me initially so I'll have an excuse to argue more).
Regardless: declaring Dolphin-killing to be murder could be useful because it helps set precedent for better treatment of animals all around. If more people are likely to care because they're smart, well, better than nothing. On top of everything, I don't think most people have a huge compulsion to kill Dolphins in the first place. Maybe some people eat them but I've never heard of it.
So... long story short: yes I think it should be made illegal now. If the bill could actually get passed as a direct equivalent to murder, then great. If it gets (more likely) passed at a reduced penalty, well, probably good enough for now.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I think that I would consider the capacity for language to be sufficient, as long as the language wasn't something that was known instinctually (if it were known instinctually, that wouldn't preclude the possibility of sapeince, but it also wouldn't prove its presence).
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
"I agree that it's incredibly vague. And while I don't have anything approaching a full test, there are some things (like the capacity for language) that I'd say are necessary but not sufficient.
It's vagueness is it not a drawback, I think, because the concept of personhood is at least as vague, if not more so. "
True, the concept of personhood is pretty vague. Using language as a test is more like a test of intelligence than of judgment/sapience specifically though, but I guess all the terms involved here are pretty vague.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What sort of legal distinction could we adopt between full-on murder and animal cruelty? Personally, I don't think killing a dolphin would be like killing a person. There's really no way to know for sure exactly how far along the developmental scale they are until we either learn to speak dolphin or they learn to speak a human language. Unlikely for them.
But I think if there is empirical evidence that tells us that dolphins really are beyond any other species on earth, and have many of the aspects of, to borrow mph's term, sapience, that we assign to humans, then lumping them in with dogs and cats isn't fair, and isn't right.
We know killing another human being is murder, but fundamentally then, what is murder? This is something that science fiction gets to explore, because dealing with alien life brings up fundamental philosophical/moral questions about other intelligent creatures that we largely ignore because humans have no obvious competitors on Earth, but fundamentally, what is murder? Is murder ONLY killing a human being, or is there a higher form of crime against killing that we recognize?
Instinctively I want to say yes, there is a higher standard of murder, and killing humans is only one aspect of it. I think in the past, we've justified horrible atrocities against fellow humans through the rationalization of dehumanizing them. Simply declare something not human, and killing it breaks no moral taboos. But if there's a higher moral code against murder that supersedes simply killing a human, then saying something isn't human wouldn't be a good enough justification.
ETA, sorry, I started this post before the last half dozen posts were posted, so I'm a bit behind now. As far as language goes, the article in the OP states that dolphins of the same species actually have regional dialects, which I think suggests (though doesn't prove) a learning component in dolphin communication.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
"For Dolphins specifically... well, rationally, I think it's more important to judge creatures based on their capacity to suffer and experience joy than on their intelligence. Otherwise we'd have separate laws for killing smart people than dumb people, and I can think of a bunch of ways that could go wrong."
I agree that there would be a problem with having murder be judged *in the law* according to the intelligence of the person killed, but what about morally? Can we make a moral distinction based on intelligence? It seems like most of us are using a sliding scale rather than a simple "yes" or "no" in defining personhood (dolphins aren't people as much as humans are, but they're more so than other animals are), so why can't we apply a sliding scale in judging the personhood of individual humans as well?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Sinflower, do you know how to use the quote blocks?
quote:They work like this, and make it much easier to read posts where you're quoting part of somebody else's post.
I highly recommend them. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
When dolphins are able to present their own defense, I'll consider giving them the same protective rights that I give people.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Sinflower, do you know how to use the quote blocks?
quote:They work like this, and make it much easier to read posts where you're quoting part of somebody else's post.
I highly recommend them.
I do now! I think... let's see if this works Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think morally, there does end up being sliding scales of human value. Killing a researcher who was about to permanently end hunger is worse than killing some random dude, but that's not because intelligence is inherently valuable but because the researcher was applying it towards something useful.
One could make the argument that Dolphins AREN'T doing anything particularly useful that we know of. However, you can also make the argument that humanity is so incredibly bad for the world that we all deserve to be wiped out, and if we all just chilled in the ocean the world would be a better place.
My current take is that humanity hasn't earned any special treatment YET, but our combination of intellect, opposable thumbs and access to fire as a gateway energy source (even with thumbs dolphins would have trouble there, although they might be able to harness thermal vents or something), means that we MIGHT produce something valuable enough (to the world as a whole) to offset the enormous damage we've done so far and maybe even go beyond that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Nice.
eta: To Sinflower.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When dolphins are able to present their own defense, I'll consider giving them the same protective rights that I give people.
Doesn't that place an undue burden upon communication? If aliens landed tomorrow, clearly we'd have to agree that they have a technological know how at least equal to our own, but what if they spoke a language that was entirely not understandable or repeatable? We've learned just recently that a lot of patients in hospitals that we believed to be in comas were in fact just unable to communicate with the outside world. We consider it legally, if not morally, okay to pull the plug on a human when they're no longer able to communicate with us, but do they actually surrender sapience/sentience just by being non-communicative, and do they get it back just by waking up?
Similarly, if we hold that there is a higher form of murder, and a higher form of sapience (whatever you want to call it) above passing the test of humanness, then shouldn't communication not be the deciding factor?
Raymond Arnold -
My thinking trends somewhere along the lines that yes, people doing important work can be valued more highly than those who aren't, but those are the kinds of considerations we only take into account when say, we're faced with the business end of a Roland Emmerich film, and we have to start deciding who to save and who to let die. Otherwise, once someone passes the threshold for sentience, we don't allow them to go back, no matter how useless they are. We only absolve them of the right to life when they deny someone else that right.
Humanity used to be full of subsistence farmers, and I'm not entirely convinced that the 21st century way of life is more proof of sentience than our way of life was then. Proof of increased knowledge, yes, but not superiority in that sense. I don't think Dolphins are hanging out in the ocean thumbing their noses at our way of life, and feeling smugly superior for living a more harmonious life, but to suggest that since they aren't hanging out in a lab doing scientific research means that they aren't sentient is putting too much emphasis on human behavior in quantifying sapience. If we came across a human like species somewhere in the galaxy that simply wanted to hang out in the forest all day and eat fruits and nuts, but otherwise had all the qualities of humanity, how should they be valued? I don't think ambition should be an ultimate factor, just as I don't think communication should be. But I would include them somewhere in the criteria.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Barring some spectacular and previously unhinted-of evidence, I don't think I could ever be persuaded that dolphins are sapient ...
Even when they thanked us for all the fish?
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: ... well, rationally, I think it's more important to judge creatures based on their capacity to suffer and experience joy than on their intelligence. Otherwise we'd have separate laws for killing smart people than dumb people ...
Theoretically, we also have people that feel suffering to different degrees and people who feel joy to different degrees so the problem is not entirely removed.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:When dolphins are able to present their own defense, I'll consider giving them the same protective rights that I give people.
That seems like a poor standard. It should pretty quickly become apparent why if you replace "dolphins" with "humans in a coma".
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Or "child" for that matter.
quote:Theoretically, we also have people that feel suffering to different degrees and people who feel joy to different degrees so the problem is not entirely removed.
As I said, it's a lot more complicated and I didn't feel like elaborating on all the caveats.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Killing an average dolphin could be like killing 30% of an average human being.
And how about we give dolphins 3/5ths of a vote?
Hobbes Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
My gut instinct is to suggest that non-human species should be granted these rights when the time comes that they themselves can understand what those rights entail.
But on only a moment's reflection, I find I'm not very satisfied with that answer. Of course there is the obvious comeback ("What about humans who are so mentally handicapped that they don't understand?") and the equally obvious response ("They're still humans and have their rights grandfathered in by their species."). But in addition to that, I find myself wondering if it's not a question of their inability to understand due to lower intelligence so much as our inability to make them understand because of communication barriers.
In short, it's a question of ramen and varelse, and which one dolphins, if they are found to be sapient, turn out to be, and whether it is moral for us to deny rights to varelse simply because we lack the means to tell them what their rights are.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:the equally obvious response ("They're still humans and have their rights grandfathered in by their species.").
The problem with this obvious answer is that it begs the question. Why should the mentally handicapped have these rights? Just for the sheer luck of being born as a member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens? That seems pretty morally shaky to me.
I think the question here is "what makes species an intrinsically better indicator of personhood than any other factor?"
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I think the question here is "what makes species an intrinsically better indicator of personhood than any other factor?"
I'm confused now, are you talking morally or legally?
Hobbes Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Morally. I think the legal question, at this point, is pretty easy to answer.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I agree.
The only answer I can come up with that doesn't rely on my religion is a rather unsatisfying 'us vs. them', evolution style answer.
Hobbes Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The answers I can come up with are similarly unsatisfying. Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
"I don't think it should ever equate to murder of a human. (I don't expect dolphins to consider killing a human as bad as killing a dolphin, either.)" (Emphasis is mine)
I do not mean to be harsh, but this is the same line of reasoning that justifies racism. It appears to me--if I am understanding you correctly--that you are claiming that a the relationship (which may, and in your case does, include the relationship of sharing the property of being of the same species) between the acting agent and the agent that is acted upon affects the moral duty of the first agent.
If this extrapolation is not correct, then please correct me.
This appears claim appears to be ethically unjustified. The reason is that the relationship between the two agents is an arbitrary feature of the moral agent. If we are to be able to universalize moral actions, pace Kant and most most contemporary ethical theorists (I am not denying that there are some exceptions, notably care ethicists), then the only feature that sould be taken into account when deciding whether killing a dolphin qualifies as murder is whether dolphins are moral agent. Once dolphins are moral agents, any other considerations of the relationship between man and dolphin are irrelevant when considering what is the morally right action. And so the question is: are dolphins moral agents?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I disagree with your premise Jon. Whether a dolphin is a moral agent or not in no way affects considerations as to how I should act towards it. Is a human with severe autism who is incapable of judging between right and wrong a moral agent? Is a child who is too young to understand right and wrong a moral agent? From the definition of moral agency that I understand you would not consider these people moral agents, and thus would change whether killing them qualifies as murder. It seems to me I can only judge *your* actions in reference to whether I believe you are a moral agent or not. I don't really understand why it is important whether the recipient of your action is a moral agent.
I agree with whoever above stated that what we should be considering is the ability of an organism to feel and experience pain. Since this seems to be a much more realizable gauge than consciousness.
[ January 07, 2010, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
You are absolutely right in your criticism. My account of moral agency and consideration was rather simplistic, because I did not want to turn this into a lecture on moral theory. I should have also included that many have argued that all agents who have the capacity or potential (depending on who you ask) to be moral agents (e.g., infants) are to be given moral consideration. (This also opens up a can of worms regarding whether fetuses are agents, but that's a different issue)
The most common requirement for something to be a moral agent is for the agent to be rational. Some, famously Peter Singer--whom I know has been discussed on this forum before, have argued that moral consideration can extend beyond both agents who have the potential to be moral agents and full moral agents. That is, to beings that lack the capacity for rational thought.
I hope this clarifies things a bit, though I know that this is still a shallow treatment of the topic.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:The most common requirement for something to be a moral agent is for the agent to be rational
This doesn't bode well for the existence of moral agents. Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Rational, not reasonable. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: So here's the question, if science suggests that dolphins are incredibly smart, can discern language, have actual regional dialects, and have a degree of personal self-awareness, does killing them go from animal cruelty to actual murder?
Would we criminally charge a dolphin for murdering another dolphin?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It depends on whether we have jurisdiction I guess
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Jon, I haven't much studied philosophy, so I'm not going to attempt to answer you in the same terms.
The short answer is that yes, I think that preferential treatment of my own species is fine. It may also be good.
If I thought that a dolphin could "ever" be the same thing as a human, I'd feel differently. But if you change a dolphin to the point where I'd feel that way, it wouldn't really be a dolphin.
"I do not mean to be harsh, but this is the same line of reasoning that justifies racism."
I don't think it's a line of reasoning at all, Jon, just to be precise. It's a statement of a conclusion I reached. I admit that I reached it hastily, and maybe I can stew on your response (maybe check out some of the philosophical references you included) and give a better response later - or maybe not - but there's certainly nothing in there that I think could be transposed into an argument to justify racism. At most:
"I don't think that a purple man should ever be considered equivalent to a green man." Yeah...not seeing an argument in there.
Now, my actual argument *might* be transferable in that way, but I haven't put it out there yet.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I agree with whoever above stated that what we should be considering is the ability of an organism to feel and experience pain. Since this seems to be a much more realizable gauge than consciousness.
That doesn't work for me. The mammals that I am fine with killing for food are quite able to feel and experience pain.
Realizable it may be, but it does not reflect my morality.
[ January 07, 2010, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The mammals that I am fine with killing for food are quite able to feel and experience pain.
How would you know that? Or are you just guessing that, based on the fact that you experience pain and react in certain ways, and you see those mammals acting in similar ways in response to things that might induce pain?
-----
But assuming dolphins ARE sentient and do experience pain/suffering.... What else distinguishes us from dolphins that makes it more okay to kill a dolphin than a fellow human? I agree with those that said lack of intelligence and wisdom is not a good reason to think its more okay to kill someone. So if not that, then what? Perhaps the same rules simply don't apply to other species, since killing other animals is almost inevitable in nature?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When dolphins are able to present their own defense, I'll consider giving them the same protective rights that I give people.
Doesn't that place an undue burden upon communication? If aliens landed tomorrow, clearly we'd have to agree that they have a technological know how at least equal to our own, but what if they spoke a language that was entirely not understandable or repeatable? We've learned just recently that a lot of patients in hospitals that we believed to be in comas were in fact just unable to communicate with the outside world. We consider it legally, if not morally, okay to pull the plug on a human when they're no longer able to communicate with us, but do they actually surrender sapience/sentience just by being non-communicative, and do they get it back just by waking up?
This Chinese thing is really killing me. I don't mean to say dolphins have to learn English. I need to read up on sapience so I can describe what sorts of things I would accept from dolphins as a means of changing my perception.
As for comatose patients, there are other things at play when we decide to pull the plug. I don't think it's a question of sapience being surrendered. We have to look at costs, the likelihood they will wake up, and the quality of life we can expect they'll enjoy if they do.
那些昏迷人的話， 我覺得別的事有意。 我不想 741;他們昏迷的時候他們也投向ｓａｐｉｅｎｃｅ。 我們必看價格， 機會又起來， 生命有怎麽樣 909;壞。
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I agree with whoever above stated that what we should be considering is the ability of an organism to feel and experience pain. Since this seems to be a much more realizable gauge than consciousness.
That doesn't work for me. The mammals that I am fine with killing for food are quite able to feel and experience pain.
Realizable it may be, but it does not reflect my morality.
Is there a criteria you use to distinguish between which animals you're okay with killing for food and which you aren't? If so, what is it? I have a hard time coming up with that distinction, though I wouldn't discount a useful distinction that someone else can come up with.
If pressed, I'll fully admit that I'd be more upset over the killing of a gorilla or a dolphin or a dog vs a chicken or a fish or a mouse. A lot of that has to do with what their perceived behavior indicates about their awareness. I mentioned "experiencing" pain. I'd like put the emphasis on experiencing. I don't think consciousness/awareness is an all or nothing thing, it's most likely a sliding scale of which we seem to be at the top of right now. Not only is there the experience of feeling pain for us, but there is the awareness and knowledge of what is going on. I touched on this above, but we just don't know enough about what brings about consciousness to make any definitive determinations as to whether other animals experience "qualia", and using behavior is a poor but currently necessary substitute. Neuroscience can hopefully answer some of these questions for us.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Is there a criteria you use to distinguish between which animals you're okay with killing for food and which you aren't? If so, what is it? I have a hard time coming up with that distinction, though I wouldn't discount a useful distinction that someone else can come up with.
If I view an animal as cute, it shouldn't be eaten. Clearly, God made those species cuter for a reason. Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
This explains the lack of babies on your dinner menu. (there was actually a study seeing if large eyes=cuteness was an evolutionary trait to limit young of some species from being eaten.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So I can eat Hello Kitty, but not Garfield. Got it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Is there a criteria you use to distinguish between which animals you're okay with killing for food and which you aren't? If so, what is it? I have a hard time coming up with that distinction, though I wouldn't discount a useful distinction that someone else can come up with.
If I view an animal as cute, it shouldn't be eaten. Clearly, God made those species cuter for a reason.
No. That's not it. Some of the animals I eat are adorable.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote: Originally posted by JonHecht I do not mean to be harsh, but this is the same line of reasoning that justifies racism. It appears to me--if I am understanding you correctly--that you are claiming that a the relationship (which may, and in your case does, include the relationship of sharing the property of being of the same species) between the acting agent and the agent that is acted upon affects the moral duty of the first agent.
If this extrapolation is not correct, then please correct me.
This appears claim appears to be ethically unjustified. The reason is that the relationship between the two agents is an arbitrary feature of the moral agent. If we are to be able to universalize moral actions, pace Kant and most most contemporary ethical theorists (I am not denying that there are some exceptions, notably care ethicists), then the only feature that sould be taken into account when deciding whether killing a dolphin qualifies as murder is whether dolphins are moral agent. Once dolphins are moral agents, any other considerations of the relationship between man and dolphin are irrelevant when considering what is the morally right action. And so the question is: are dolphins moral agents?
Let me respond a little more thoroughly.
First, let me say that I do not think dolphins are capable of abstract moral reasoning (which I assume is necessary to be a 'moral agent'). They may be intelligent enough to use language and tools (as Lyrhawn mentioned). They may empathize with other mammals (pushing drowning humans close to shore). Perhaps they bond with each other or with other mammals in meaningful ways (this I don't know, I'm just speculating). Nonetheless we haven't even come close to demonstrating that they are capable of moral reasoning. Empathy and bonding are group surival mechanisms, IMO, and don't necessarily imply an awareness of the concepts of right or wrong, or the ability to include abstract concepts and a wide range of data in any decision process motivated by those mechanisms.
So my answer to your final question would be "no." If my duty toward dolphins or their duty toward me depends on their moral agency, unless I've misunderstood what that means, then there's no duty.
However, I don't think that's the whole story. While I think dolphins are probably incapable of moral agency, I do feel a duty toward them. I tend toward the point of view that suffering is bad, pain counts as suffering, and it should be weighed against other factors when making decisions. Killing a dolphin most likely causes it pain and might cause pain to other dolphins who might depend on it or have bonds with it. I also believe that we should be careful with the ecology of the Earth and killing animals indiscriminately is likely to have harmful repercussions for humanity.
But since you called me out on a specific point, I'll acknowledge it and try to (now) provide the reasoning behind it. I do think that regardless of whether we recognize an equal intelligence - or moral agency - in another species, we should place more value on our own lives than we do on theirs. In the case of dolphins, I think human life has a MUCH higher value. If we were to encounter Pearson's Puppeteers, I'd value the difference to be smaller, but still there.
I think I can lean on OSC's ramen/varelse designations here. One of the reasons humans are justified in killing varelse if necessary is that human life is more valuable to humans than other life. (The categorization is nicely enhanced by the fact that key features that tend to make for ramen are likely to be things we would recognize as valuable qualities.)
But at root my justification is that without a will to survive - at the expense of others, if necessary - we will eventually not survive. To the extent that coexistence with other sentience is possible, it is good. It is good to recognize value in the other, if it does not pose too great a threat. It is also good to expand the definition of our tribe to the extent that makes sense - species (or interbreedable species, at least) is a good place to draw that line when/if it must be drawn. (Because there is a real shared genetic heritage. We can recognize the survival of members of humanity as in some ways our own surivival.)
"Race", now, is a bad place to draw the line. Because it's misleadingly arbitrary and because we can demonstrably transcend it. (However, if it came down to my close family or someone else, I would still value my own family's life more, although I recognize - as a matter of self interest as well as in a moral sense - that society must grant all of us the same human rights.)
Maybe someday we'll find an "other" that transcends the interbreedability line that I'm drawing here*, with whom we can share enough social identity so that future survival is as meaningful either way even if our own genetic heritage ends, but dolphins aren't even close, for me. It would have to be a kind who'd derive the same joy from reading a book, or raising a child. I doubt we'll ever find such identity with anything/one other than humans.
*Note that I'm taking for granted that the next generation has as much sapience as the current generation.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
For some reason, this discussion brings H. Beam Piper's novel Little Fuzzy to mind, as the plot revolved around developing a definition for sapience. A man was being tried for murder of an alien being, and the defense wanted to develop a definition that included all known sapient beings but exluded this alien, and the prosecution wanted to develop a definition that included the alien that was killed.
While this is long, I'll quote it because it's interesting. (Thank you Project Gutenberg!) I'll snip out sections that are overly repetitive or that deal with plot elements not directly related to the definition of sapience.
quote:"It is our opinion," he said, "that sapience may be defined as differing from nonsapience in that it is characterized by conscious thought, by ability to think in logical sequence and by ability to think in terms other than mere sense data. We--meaning every member of every sapient race--think consciously, and we know what we are thinking.
<snip>
while the nonsapient mind deals, consciously, with nothing but present sense data, there is a considerable absorption and re-emission of subconscious memories. Also, there are occasional flashes of what must be conscious mental activity, in dealing with some novel situation. Dr. van Riebeek, who is especially interested in the evolutionary aspect of the question, suggests that the introduction of novelty because of drastic environmental changes may have forced nonsapient beings into more or less sustained conscious thinking and so initiated mental habits which, in time, gave rise to true sapience.
<snip>
The sapient mind not only thinks consciously by habit, but it thinks in connected sequence. It associates one thing with another. It reasons logically, and forms conclusions, and uses those conclusions as premises from which to arrive at further conclusions. It groups associations together, and generalizes. Here we pass completely beyond any comparison with nonsapience. This is not merely more consciousness, or more thinking; it is thinking of a radically different kind. The nonsapient mind deals exclusively with crude sensory material. The sapient mind translates sense impressions into ideas, and then forms ideas of ideas, in ascending orders of abstraction, almost without limit.
"This, finally, brings us to one of the recognized overt manifestations of sapience. The sapient being is a symbol user. The nonsapient being cannot symbolize, because the nonsapient mind is incapable of concepts beyond mere sense images."
<snip>
"The sapient being," he continued, "can do one other thing. It is a combination of the three abilities already enumerated, but combining them creates something much greater than the mere sum of the parts. The sapient being can imagine. He can conceive of something which has no existence whatever in the sense-available world of reality, and then he can work and plan toward making it a part of reality. He can not only imagine, but he can also create."
He paused for a moment. "This is our definition of sapience. When we encounter any being whose mentation includes these characteristics, we may know him for a sapient brother. It is the considered opinion of all of us that the beings called Fuzzies are such beings."
It depends on how you define "murder". Current legal definitions of murder include the killing of human beings. I am a serious dog lover and realize that my dogs are quite intelligent and do in fact, have feelings. If I were to abuse or kill my dogs out of malice I should be prosecuted and thrown in jail. On the other hand, if my family were starving, I would roast my dog on a spit. In our relativistic society of acceptance of diversity, you should accept that a dolphin is food for someone else. A dolphin shouldn't be more protected than a human fetus. There is no right and wrong, only individual choice. Right?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:That doesn't work for me. The mammals that I am fine with killing for food are quite able to feel and experience pain.
I was the one originally posting that, and I noted when doing so that I am a vegetarian.
My official position when people ask is that I am okay with killing animals for food that were raised humanely, and that I am okay with hunting. I tell people this partly because it is sort of true, but mostly because it provides a position that a lot of non-vegetarians who like to think "humans are just higher on the food chain and that's that" can understand. Yes, animals do kill each other in the natural world, but factory farming is bad because it is cruel in ways beyond natural "survival of the fittest" is.
But the other thing is that, yeah, in the natural world, creatures are pretty cruel to each other on a regular basis. Asking a wolf if it is moral to kill a few more rabbits than it actually is going to eat is moot point. Neither the wolf nor the rabbit can understand. But once you start building a civilization based on a morality, I think you are obligated to start thinking morally in ways you previously were not.
Sure, you can justify slaughter of non-human species because hey, we're human and they're not and in the natural world things just kill each other, but you're not living in the natural world anymore and if you were you'd already be dead and wouldn't have the luxury of talking about this academically on the internet.
I would not judge a farmer who kills a pig (however inhumanely) the way I would judge a murderer though, because as far as "judgement" goes, I worry about how a person is acting compared to how it is reasonable to expect them to act. Two thousand years ago it was difficult even to accept other tribes as human, let alone other species. Right now we're at a point where I think it is reasonably to expect people in developed nations to start thinking about how much they eat and where it comes from and making an effort (whether or not wholly successful) to consume in a way that is as humane as possible.
As for dolphins, I did just solidify my position a little more thanks to a few other good posts. If what separates us from animals is our ability to make moral choices, then the ability to make moral choices is the criteria by which we should determine whether dolphin-killing is murder.
Scibum points out we don't know for sure dolphins CAN make moral choices, only that they're "smart." My answer is that dolphins have proven themselves in enough ways that we are obligated (given that we are the ones with an upper hand in the relationship) to try to figure out whether they can be moral. And judging them based on modern moral reasoning is silly. When humans first started forming societies, we likely did not do much more empathic bonding or abstract reasoning or rule enforcing than wolves do today.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Does Ralph Von Wau Wau in the Callahan books count as a person? Would putting him down be murder?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Just because we understand our position in the food chain doesn't eliminate us from the food chain.
My wife has a terrible internal struggle. She hates veggies but feels bad eating meat. She loves meat but feels bad eating it. She will not eat meat with a bone in it as it reminds her of the reality of what she is consuming. I have to carve, trim etc, everything for her. On the otherhand, I'll gnaw the sinew off a bone and I love veggies. To her, I'm a barbarian. The only reason I don't hunt is she won't prepare the flesh for me. I've tried to tell her the dear I killed had a better life than the cow in her burger, but it doesn't really matter.
What I wonder is, would she have these issues had she not grown up with PETA commercials. I grew up in the country on a farm and I don't have these issues. Maybe the consumer of Soylent Green is the ultimate vegan, with the smallest carbon footprint. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, she should probably learn to like veggies just because they're good for her.
I do agree with you that killing deer is more humane than the typical beef you buy from the store.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
A news article I read a few years ago stated Dolphins chose one mate for life, and is one of the only animals besides humans that engage in sexual activity for pleasure.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I'm pretty sure dolphins DO NOT mate for life, though my understanding is they DO have sex for pleasure.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Personal experience? Just had to ask.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
That smooth slippery skin just gets me every time.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Mating for life definitely isn't a characteristic of sentience. Some birds and insects mate for life and only a minority of humans (at least in this country) mate for life. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Just popping in for a second on this thread. I found an article related to research I read about years ago that suggests that radically complicates any evaluation of their intelligence using traditional assumptions about neurology in land mammals.
It turns out the brains of dolphins are "primitive" in some ways, but obviously well-developed in others.
quote: In terms of the organization of its circuitry, the dolphin brain is simple, more like a hedgehog's than a human's. Hedgehogs are among the most ''primitive'' living land mammals, and are thought to share many traits, including brain structure, with ancient mammals. Instead of being divided into many different specialized areas, as in higher land mammals, the cortex of the brain in dolphins, as in hedgehogs, is relatively uniform throughout, the researchers have established.
Despite their ''primitive'' qualities, though, the brains of dolphins and whales evolved in a rare manner. In sharp contrast with a hedgehog, the dolphin brain has a large cortex comparable in size to that in higher primates, an ''advanced'' trait normally associated with higher intelligence.
This unusual combination of simplicity and size give dolphins their own special kind of intelligence. The scientists draw an analogy with a large, simple computer that has the same internal units repeated over and over. Sheer size allows the processing of more information than would be the case with a smaller computer, but for less flexibility than a machine with more varied internal components.
Aside from the puzzle of trying to interpret the behavior of an animal that has evolved to meet the demands of a different environment, there's this additional kink. Cetacean brain development has gone down a very different path than land mammals - even if they have a high level of intelligence (or sapience and sentience), there's a question of how we can even recognize it.
OTOH, they may be really dumb biologicial sensory processing machines.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: For some reason, this discussion brings H. Beam Piper's novel Little Fuzzy to mind, as the plot revolved around developing a definition for sapience.
Little Fuzzy is public domain? Esteefee! Unca Gus!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I know! I was browsing for e-books and found it and I was thrilled. It had been years since I read it. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:How would you know that? Or are you just guessing that, based on the fact that you experience pain and react in certain ways, and you see those mammals acting in similar ways in response to things that might induce pain?
If you are making the logical leap that you can assume other humans feel pain/joy based on empathy and seeing them act similarly to how you do and having physiology similar to yours, then it's a rather unintuitive leap in the opposite direction to assume that animals do not, despite sharing those same characteristics.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:First, let me say that I do not think dolphins are capable of abstract moral reasoning (which I assume is necessary to be a 'moral agent'). They may be intelligent enough to use language and tools (as Lyrhawn mentioned). They may empathize with other mammals (pushing drowning humans close to shore). Perhaps they bond with each other or with other mammals in meaningful ways (this I don't know, I'm just speculating). Nonetheless we haven't even come close to demonstrating that they are capable of moral reasoning. Empathy and bonding are group surival mechanisms, IMO, and don't necessarily imply an awareness of the concepts of right or wrong, or the ability to include abstract concepts and a wide range of data in any decision process motivated by those mechanisms.
So my answer to your final question would be "no." If my duty toward dolphins or their duty toward me depends on their moral agency, unless I've misunderstood what that means, then there's no duty.
Question: what kind of evidence would you consider to demonstrate the capacity for moral reasoning?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
They'd pretty much have to describe it. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Belle: For some reason, this discussion brings H. Beam Piper's novel Little Fuzzy to mind, as the plot revolved around developing a definition for sapience.
Little Fuzzy is public domain? Esteefee! Unca Gus!
What a great story. Thanks for linking to it, Belle.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
To answer the question in the title of this topic, it depends on the situation. If a dolphin breaks into your house and you're afraid it might be armed, I can't see why you shouldn't be able to kill it.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Personally I would first attempt to incapacitate it, maybe take out one of its flippers, especially the one cradling the gun.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: To answer the question in the title of this topic, it depends on the situation. If a dolphin breaks into your house and you're afraid it might be armed, I can't see why you shouldn't be able to kill it.
On the whole, dolphins aren't given to this sort of behavior. If one were to do this, it would be a fluke.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:On the whole, dolphins aren't given to this sort of behavior. If one were to do this, it would be a fluke.
I agree with Noemon. It would have to be an accident due to messed up sonar or something. I can't imagine a dolphin doing this on porpoise.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Now you're all just spouting nonsense.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:On the whole, dolphins aren't given to this sort of behavior. If one were to do this, it would be a fluke.
I'll have you know that the "Fluke" is one of natures least violent fish.
I think just about anything Dolphins do involves flukes.
我覺得任何海豚所做的事都有尾。
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Violence in the animal kingdom has little do with malice. Either you have eyes on the sides of your head or in the front of your head. I've never had a dolphin break into my house but I have had a dolphin steal my property. I was reeling in a fish and a dolphin took my line. Did he know he was steeling my property? Plants have feelings too, you evil vegan.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Now you're all just spouting nonsense.
And Glenn has won the thread.
fin
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I've never trusted dolphins and I never will. I can never forgive them, for the death of my boy.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
mal, in the "golden days" of hatrack, serious threads could descend into silliness at a moments notice. It's not a bad thing. Half the time it happens when the thread is winding down anyway. The other half the thread picks right back up and continues along its merry way. Now...the third half, that's where we get into trouble.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I put a ? out of serious inquiry since sarcasm is difficult to identify in printed words. I must admit that I find it unlikely that dolphins could contribute to anyone's death but if they did, I wouln't want to be the one to mock it. I'm 99.9% sure the statement was a joke but there have been people with their hands and feet eaten off by their pet chimpanzees this year.
Dolphins are wild animals. I am more apt to believe they could kill a child than the tales of them protecting a child from shark attack. We have more experience with native americans than dolphins and I dismiss the the romanticized noble savage portrayal.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I've never trusted dolphins and I never will. I can never forgive them, for the death of my boy.
-Dolphins are sentient!
-NOOOOO!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!1 :glass smash:
-The dolphins invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. The line must be drawn HERE! This far, NO further.... and IIIIII will make them PAY for what they've done!
quote: I put a ? out of serious inquiry since sarcasm is difficult to identify in printed words.
Please don't be such an L7. He's quoting a line from Star Trek VI.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I was gonna point out that if you hadn't seen that particular movie (and to be fair, you could easily decide to stop watching Star Trek movies after number 5), it wouldn't be nearly as clear whether it was a joke or not.
Now I'm trying to think of a good line from the one about the whales.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
They like you very much, but they are not the hell "your" dolphins.
I suppose they told you that?
The hell they did.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ?
Perhaps this is time for a colorful metaphor?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Now you're all just spouting nonsense.
And Glenn has won the thread.
fin
<wince>
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: They like you very much, but they are not the hell "your" dolphins.
I suppose they told you that?
The hell they did.
Porter, maybe you've had a little too much LDS...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: They like you very much, but they are not the hell "your" dolphins.
I suppose they told you that?
The hell they did.
Porter, maybe you've had a little too much LDS...
MORE Star Trek quoting?
It's almost like this board is full of geeks.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Porter, maybe you've had a little too much LDS...
Oh my god (the vague, amorphous easily redefined kind of god an atheist can be forgiven for calling out in shock), I cannot believe I forgot to quote that line.
Posted by flyby (Member # 3630) on :
I don't really think that killing dolphins should be considered murder until the motives for killing them are similar to what constitutes murder of a human.
Like it seems to me most of the reasons for killing a dolphin would be for food or to use it for some resource, which just does not say murder to me.
Now if there were an industry built up around killing humans for resources, I may feel a bit more different about it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: (and to be fair, you could easily decide to stop watching Star Trek movies after number 5)
That would be a bit like locking the barn doors after the horse had been stolen. And eaten.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by flyby: I don't really think that killing dolphins should be considered murder until the motives for killing them are similar to what constitutes murder of a human.
Like it seems to me most of the reasons for killing a dolphin would be for food or to use it for some resource, which just does not say murder to me.
Now if there were an industry built up around killing humans for resources, I may feel a bit more different about it.
To clarify, if I kill you to eat you, that's not murder?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)