Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    08 Feb '10 22:21
    Posted on behalf of AThousandYoung
    discuss
  2. Subscriber Proper Knob
    Cornovii
    08 Feb '10 22:27
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Posted on behalf of AThousandYoung
    discuss
    If by people you mean Homo sapiens, then no.
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    09 Feb '10 01:28 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    If by people you mean Homo sapiens, then no.
    No, he means people in the same way John Locke did.

    This thread should be in Debates.
  4. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    09 Feb '10 18:33
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    If by people you mean Homo sapiens, then no.
    Agreed.
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    09 Feb '10 19:56
    OK! Looks like the participants in this thread are clear that dolphins are NOT people and do not have inalienable rights. Killing them is not murder etc.

    Glad you were able to get an answer that satisifies you so quickly!
  6. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    10 Feb '10 07:01 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    OK! Looks like the participants in this thread are clear that dolphins are NOT people and do not have inalienable rights. Killing them is not murder etc.

    Glad you were able to get an answer that satisifies you so quickly!
    That's just speciesism, not to mention a flagrant abdication of thought.

    Why is it fine for people to kill animals merely because they are not people? 'Tradition'. OK. Got anything better -- less irrational -- than that?

    Besides, we've already established that natural rights theory is irrelevant to this discussion, so this thread can just die.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Feb '10 14:55
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    That's just speciesism, not to mention a flagrant abdication of thought.

    Why is it fine for people to kill animals merely because they are not people? 'Tradition'. OK. Got anything better -- less irrational -- than that?

    Besides, we've already established that natural rights theory is irrelevant to this discussion, so this thread can just die.
    Well you can say animals kill animals, mainly for food, sometimes not.
    We are also animals, being in exactly the same environ, so we would be on exactly the same moral level if we kill animals for food and for pleasure which some animals do also, although it may be a stretch to use the word 'pleasure' in animals. Personally I think animals perceive the emotion of pleasure just as we do so it sounds to me like there is no difference between the two concepts of killing for pleasure in humans and killing for pleasure in animals.
    So in that sense, we can kill whatever we want, as reprehensible as that sounds.
  8. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    10 Feb '10 15:29
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well you can say animals kill animals, mainly for food, sometimes not.
    We are also animals, being in exactly the same environ, so we would be on exactly the same moral level if we kill animals for food and for pleasure which some animals do also, although it may be a stretch to use the word 'pleasure' in animals. Personally I think animals perceive the emo ...[text shortened]... in animals.
    So in that sense, we can kill whatever we want, as reprehensible as that sounds.
    That argument could be stretch to include murder of humans.

    The real question is that morality has very little to do with natural order. It's simply an expression of preferences. Do you prefer a world where killing animals for pleasure is accepted or not? If the former, do you prefer some or no limitations to that killing?

    There is no a-priori correct response for any of these questions. This becomes especially clear to me when I view morality as preference (my non-cognitivist view).
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Feb '10 18:06
    Originally posted by Palynka
    That argument could be stretch to include murder of humans.

    The real question is that morality has very little to do with natural order. It's simply an expression of preferences. Do you prefer a world where killing animals for pleasure is accepted or not? If the former, do you prefer some or no limitations to that killing?

    There is no a-priori correct ...[text shortened]... is becomes especially clear to me when I view morality as preference (my non-cognitivist view).
    We would have to live in a permanently 100% monitored world to stop such a thing and since that is not going to happen any time soon, it seems a moot point, nobody can stop it, and it will go on despite our objections (mine included).
  10. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    10 Feb '10 18:09
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    We would have to live in a permanently 100% monitored world to stop such a thing and since that is not going to happen any time soon, it seems a moot point, nobody can stop it, and it will go on despite our objections (mine included).
    LOL, that's just ridiculous, sorry.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    11 Feb '10 21:24
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    That's just speciesism, not to mention a flagrant abdication of thought.

    Why is it fine for people to kill animals merely because they are not people? 'Tradition'. OK. Got anything better -- less irrational -- than that?

    Besides, we've already established that natural rights theory is irrelevant to this discussion, so this thread can just die.
    I'm not the one who decided only Homo sapiens can be people. In fact I disagree with that assertion. Why is it fine for people to kill animals because they are not people? Because they have no Right to Life. Is this irrational? Maybe, but it's how we do things in the American and international legal systems.

    We have not established natural rights theory is irrelevant to this discussion. I've chosen to take a break because I wanted to give myself time to relax and reflect. This topic feels like it's heating up and I don't like that sort of tone, so I'm taking a break.
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    11 Feb '10 21:26
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Well you can say animals kill animals, mainly for food, sometimes not.
    We are also animals, being in exactly the same environ, so we would be on exactly the same moral level if we kill animals for food and for pleasure which some animals do also, although it may be a stretch to use the word 'pleasure' in animals. Personally I think animals perceive the emo ...[text shortened]... in animals.
    So in that sense, we can kill whatever we want, as reprehensible as that sounds.
    Non-person predators are incapable of comprehending that other beings are suffering. Therefore they cannot have evil motives, while people can. People know exactly what they're doing when they cause pain.
  13. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Feb '10 10:39
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I'm not the one who decided only Homo sapiens can be people. In fact I disagree with that assertion. Why is it fine for people to kill animals because they are not people? Because they have no Right to Life. Is this irrational? Maybe, but it's how we do things in the American and international legal systems.

    We have not established natura ...[text shortened]... opic feels like it's heating up and I don't like that sort of tone, so I'm taking a break.
    Fantastic, the irrationality of the legal system justifies cruelty.

    What if you wanted to change the legal system -- make it a little more rational?
  14. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Feb '10 10:41
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Non-person predators are incapable of comprehending that other beings are suffering. Therefore they cannot have evil motives, while people can. People know exactly what they're doing when they cause pain.
    Interesting assumptions.
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    13 Feb '10 03:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Interesting assumptions.
    That's natural rights theory. I didn't make it up. I'm willing to accept it has weaknesses. Once again, I choose to use it because it's the moral concept that my nation and the international community have agreed on as the system that will inform the law.

    It's also the logic the scientists and ethicist in the article are using to justify the idea of dolphins having rights and being persons.