10 Jan 10
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.
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by CoconutWe're not in the XVIIIth century anymore.
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.
11 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by CoconutI agree with the first paragraph for the most part, but not the second.
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.
The best way to rephrase the question in my opinion is:
"Are dolphins People and do they therefore possess Inalienable Rights?"
12 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI said the same thing in a round-about way.
"Are dolphins People and do they therefore possess Inalienable Rights?"[/b]
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.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by CoconutYou said all that with a straight face ... I admire you.
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.
12 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd how would you test for that?
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?"
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.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by CoconutHow 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.
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 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!
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by CoconutPeople 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.
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 do not need to be capable of going to McDonald's without pooping!
12 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe whole question of inalienable rights is of course outright nonsense.
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.
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.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCorrect. 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".
People do not need to be capable of going to McDonald's without pooping!
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageARE ALL PERSONS HUMAN?
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.
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