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

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Jan '10 10:43
    http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html

    These scientists think so. What do you guys think?
  2. 10 Jan '10 20:19
    One is not "granted" rights. Rights are inherent. I have the right to speak, buy, sell, trade, possess, etc, so long as it does not infringe on your rights. You do not grant me my rights, nor do I grant you yours. We, as civilized people, choose to respect each others rights to reach a higher standard of living.

    Dolphins do not have the concept of rights, and therefore cannot respect yours. So I cannot respect theirs.
  3. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    10 Jan '10 22:27
    Originally posted by Coconut
    One is not "granted" rights. Rights are inherent. I have the right to speak, buy, sell, trade, possess, etc, so long as it does not infringe on your rights. You do not grant me my rights, nor do I grant you yours. We, as civilized people, choose to respect each others rights to reach a higher standard of living.

    Dolphins do not have the concept of rights, and therefore cannot respect yours. So I cannot respect theirs.
    We're not in the XVIIIth century anymore.
  4. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    11 Jan '10 12:28
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html

    These scientists think so. What do you guys think?
    Yes, I think dolphins should have rights.

    What are the chances?
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    11 Jan '10 21:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Coconut
    One is not "granted" rights. Rights are inherent. I have the right to speak, buy, sell, trade, possess, etc, so long as it does not infringe on your rights. You do not grant me my rights, nor do I grant you yours. We, as civilized people, choose to respect each others rights to reach a higher standard of living.

    Dolphins do not have the concept of rights, and therefore cannot respect yours. So I cannot respect theirs.
    I agree with the first paragraph for the most part, but not the second.

    The best way to rephrase the question in my opinion is:

    "Are dolphins People and do they therefore possess Inalienable Rights?"
  6. 11 Jan '10 22:16
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html

    These scientists think so. What do you guys think?
    I think... No.
  7. 12 Jan '10 04:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    "Are dolphins People and do they therefore possess Inalienable Rights?"[/b]
    I said the same thing in a round-about way.

    What makes people "better" than animals and deserving of inalienable rights? Our superior reasoning, understanding, and responsibility. Therefore that's why we expect to have our rights respected.

    If a dolphin could come out of the ocean, go to McDonalds, pay for a cheeseburger, go sit in the park and eat it, and then go back to the ocean without defacing anyone's property by you know, going to the bathroom wherever it wants like an animal does, then there could be an argument made that the dolphin has rights that should be respected.
  8. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Jan '10 06:47
    Originally posted by Coconut
    I said the same thing in a round-about way.

    What makes people "better" than animals and deserving of inalienable rights? Our superior reasoning, understanding, and responsibility. Therefore that's why we expect to have our rights respected.

    If a dolphin could come out of the ocean, go to McDonalds, pay for a cheeseburger, go sit in the park and eat it ...[text shortened]... , then there could be an argument made that the dolphin has rights that should be respected.
    You said all that with a straight face ... I admire you.
  9. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Jan '10 06:50 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I agree with the first paragraph for the most part, but not the second.

    The best way to rephrase the question in my opinion is:

    "Are dolphins People and do they therefore possess Inalienable Rights?"
    And how would you test for that?

    I would rather ask 'what would the rights of a non-human person entail'?

    The whole question of inalienable rights is of course outright nonsense.

    If a chimpanzee has the intelligence of a young child, should it not be afforded the personhood of a young child? In which case, although it doesn't get to vote or drive a car, it should be treated with dignity and its needs taken care of. Even this approach reeks of condescension, but it's better than a view that blithely recommends vivisection in the name of 'progress', or whatever.
  10. Standard member mikelom
    Ajarn
    12 Jan '10 11:35
    Originally posted by Coconut
    One is not "granted" rights. Rights are inherent. I have the right to speak, buy, sell, trade, possess, etc, so long as it does not infringe on your rights. You do not grant me my rights, nor do I grant you yours. We, as civilized people, choose to respect each others rights to reach a higher standard of living.

    Dolphins do not have the concept of rights, and therefore cannot respect yours. So I cannot respect theirs.
    How do you know dolphins do not have a concept of rights? They have rights in their own community, same as most animals have a pecking order - they are developed rights, versatile and self-sustaining rights.

    How about a human foetus, and not a dolphin? The foetus doesn't have a concept of rights either?! Yet it can develop one, can't it? - same as any other animal, but much more advanced?

    Does a human foetus have a human style right, or does a human foetus, because it can't go to Macs, buy and sell goods etc and not have a concept of rights by 'age', not fit into your respect for its rights? Not fogetting - you were a foetus once!
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    12 Jan '10 19:19
    Originally posted by Coconut
    I said the same thing in a round-about way.

    What makes people "better" than animals and deserving of inalienable rights? Our superior reasoning, understanding, and responsibility. Therefore that's why we expect to have our rights respected.

    If a dolphin could come out of the ocean, go to McDonalds, pay for a cheeseburger, go sit in the park and eat it ...[text shortened]... , then there could be an argument made that the dolphin has rights that should be respected.
    People are not better than animals. All people we know of are animals. But of course you probably mean people are better than non-people animals.

    People do not need to be capable of going to McDonald's without pooping!
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    12 Jan '10 19:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    And how would you test for that?

    I would rather ask 'what would the rights of a non-human person entail'?

    The whole question of inalienable rights is of course outright nonsense.

    If a chimpanzee has the intelligence of a young child, should it not be afforded the personhood of a young child? In which case, although it doesn't get to vote or r than a view that blithely recommends vivisection in the name of 'progress', or whatever.
    The whole question of inalienable rights is of course outright nonsense.

    What do you mean by this? It's a moral framework. It's no more nonsense to say "he violated her Right to Her Own Body and her Liberty" than to say "he raped her and the act of doing so was evil".

    If a chimpanzee has the intelligence of a young child, should it not be afforded the personhood of a young child? In which case, although it doesn't get to vote or drive a car, it should be treated with dignity and its needs taken care of. Even this approach reeks of condescension, but it's better than a view that blithely recommends vivisection in the name of 'progress', or whatever.

    Basically yes. What exactly are the characteristics of a Person I'm actually not sure; I don't know if it's even rigidly defined.
  13. Standard member PBE6
    Bananarama
    12 Jan '10 19:25
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    People do not need to be capable of going to McDonald's without pooping!
    Correct. In fact, ingesting McDonald's is a virtual guarantee of gale-force "chocolate rain" some 3-4 hours after said ingestion. However, not going to the bathroom after eating McDonald's should be awarded some sort of special prize, like a bronzed inalienable right affixed to a plaque featuring a thumbs-up with a caption that reads "Intestines of Steel".
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    12 Jan '10 19:28
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    And how would you test for that?

    I would rather ask 'what would the rights of a non-human person entail'?

    The whole question of inalienable rights is of course outright nonsense.

    If a chimpanzee has the intelligence of a young child, should it not be afforded the personhood of a young child? In which case, although it doesn't get to vote or ...[text shortened]... r than a view that blithely recommends vivisection in the name of 'progress', or whatever.
    ARE ALL PERSONS HUMAN?

    Firstly, there is the simple and traditional view that the common usage is the correct one: that "person" does indeed mean "human". However, this runs into the problem that the term "person" has a somewhat loaded meaning - we commonly believe that all and only persons have certain rights, for example, the right to life. Some would go so far as to say that all and only persons are Sacred .


    Non-human persons

    However, we can imagine the hypothetical Alien from another planet, who, despite not being human, nevertheless has every trait that we see as being essential for this protected status that elevates it above mere objects. Thus, many claim that the simple view implies a sort of arrogant Speciesism . There are also religious views that attribute personhood to Supernatural beings such as gods, angels, demons, elves, and so on. Similar ethical debates centre around the question of Animal Rights and Artificial Intelligence .

    Some would argue that humans have an amount of hubris that could potentially prevent us from recognizing the personhood of other sentient species. Some argue that certain Primate s and Cetacea ns (particularly the most highly Intelligent species, such as the Great Apes and Dolphins And Killer Whales ) possess enough of the commonly held criteria for personhood to be considered persons. Recently...

    http://www.informationdelight.info/encyclopedia/entry/persons
  15. Standard member PBE6
    Bananarama
    12 Jan '10 19:31
    If lions and gazelles both have inalienable rights, does the lion have the right to feed on the gazelle?