It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Human Rights for Dolphins(98 posts)(98 posts)
(98 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted March 02, 2012
Does anyone know what kind of rights a penguin have?
Posted March 02, 2012
avatar
Atropels: Does anyone know what kind of rights a penguin have?
Not to be stepped upon maybe?
Posted March 02, 2012
avatar
Tantrix: And you forget the elephants and parrots

HOW COOOOULD YOUUUU?!
Elephants are ugly and the parrot's plumage implies homosexuality, so no rights for either of them since they'll burn in the fiery depths of hell anyways.
Posted March 03, 2012
avatar
Leroux: You guys aren't seriously discussing human rights for dolphins over several thread pages, just because the journalists and Darling Jimmy chose a misleading headline? Nowhere in the article it says that the scientists were talking about "human rights" or accepting dolphins as fellow humans, that's just stupid. :D
Um, what is the distinction you're trying to make?

Here are some quotes from the article:

QUOTE 1:
"A person needs to be an individual. If individuals count, then the deliberate killing of individuals of this sort is ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being."

QUOTE 2:
""every individual cetacean has the right to life", "no cetacean should be held in captivity or servitude, be subject to cruel treatment, or be removed from their natural environment", and "no cetacean is the property of any state, corporation, human group or individual"."

I'm not really interested in taking part in the discussion and I'm not sure what to think about it, but it makes me smirk at what a weird species we are, talking about granting other species rights and reasoning in which cases we are allowed to take them away from them. :/
The way the word "rights" is used by most people, IMO, it means something to the effect of, "here's a set of rules we designed, the breaking of which is a moral wrong."

Thus in that sense, it's not so much a matter of whether "rights" "exist" (as moral facts), but rather what are the moral facts that are *recognized*.

So for example - when someone says the right to life "doesn't exist" because it can be broken by killing someone would be missing the point. The right to life term isn't there to alter the nature of reality, but to serve as a marker to remind us when a wrong has been committed.
Posted March 03, 2012
avatar
stoicsentry: Um, what is the distinction you're trying to make?

Here are some quotes from the article:

QUOTE 1:
"A person needs to be an individual. If individuals count, then the deliberate killing of individuals of this sort is ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being."

QUOTE 2:
""every individual cetacean has the right to life", "no cetacean should be held in captivity or servitude, be subject to cruel treatment, or be removed from their natural environment", and "no cetacean is the property of any state, corporation, human group or individual"."
A "person" does not automatically mean a "human", and "human rights" means a lot more than the "right to life" or not to be held in "servitude". (Humans, btw, can be held in captivity, if they break human law.)


avatar
stoicsentry: The way the word "rights" is used by most people, IMO, it means something to the effect of, "here's a set of rules we designed, the breaking of which is a moral wrong."

Thus in that sense, it's not so much a matter of whether "rights" "exist" (as moral facts), but rather what are the moral facts that are *recognized*.

So for example - when someone says the right to life "doesn't exist" because it can be broken by killing someone would be missing the point. The right to life term isn't there to alter the nature of reality, but to serve as a marker to remind us when a wrong has been committed.
So? I never claimed rights "exists", as you try to imply. Of course they are a human construct. And I never said we could do without this construct either. I'm just observing that no other species has to create rules to morally justify killing, just so they can feel better about themselves when they do it. Of course it's trivial, but it wasn't me who chose to further discuss this statement of mine. Would be interesting to find out, if dolphins have a moral compass, too. :P
Post edited March 03, 2012 by Leroux
Posted March 03, 2012
Did anybody bothered to ask dolphins if they want human rights? No? THAT'S RACIST.
Posted March 05, 2012
avatar
Aaron86: I was sort of taking the angle that, should we meet an extra terrestrial civilization, I don't want it to be guaranteed that we'll be total assholes.

Also, did the article mention cuttlefish?
If we meet them I don't doubt our first instinct will be to kill and eat them, followed closely by trying to fuck them.
Posted March 05, 2012
LOL, there are places where sasquatch have human rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot_in_popular_culture#Law
Posted March 07, 2012
KZ 1945: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dILcvY9H1Vk
KZ 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCKqFGtK4RQ

We've got to a point where we can determine animals based on genetics now. The nazis still had to determine on beliefs.
Genetics have shown a general relation of humans to all animals. The nazis did not even see a relationship of humans to jews.

And we still kill those we deem inferior.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Human Rights for Dolphins(98 posts)(98 posts)
(98 posts)