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

Science Forum

  1. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    11 Feb '10 18:42
    Contining from Sonhouses initial thread:

    http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html

    These scientists think so. What do you guys think?
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    155 years
    11 Feb '10 19:55 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Contining from Sonhouses initial thread:

    http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html

    These scientists think so. What do you guys think?
    "Should" and "rights" are not scientific concepts. The link between rights philosophy and science is that people have rights, and science can help us determine if something is a person...assuming we have a rigorous definition of "person" which is necessary for scientific work.

    "These scientists"? There are no scientists referring to whether dolphins "should" have rights. Only the journalist who summarized the article is using that language. The ethicist and scientists he is trying to paraphrase (badly) did not. The ethicist, who the original quote about non-human persons was from, is not a scientist anyway. Ethics is not science.

    This is a relevant quote:

    Reiss and Marino say their behavioral and anatomical findings and our new understanding of dolphin intelligence mean it may not be ethical to keep dolphins in aquatic amusement parks for our entertainment, or to kill them for food.

    Nothing about "should" it be unethical to do these things. No, it's about whether it IS unethical.

    Here's another:

    Thomas White, who said the new research adds weight to his ideas that dolphins should be regarded as "non-human persons" with the right to be treated as individuals.

    They should be REGARDED as persons, not they should be "granted" personhood.
  3. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    11 Feb '10 21:12
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    "Should" and "rights" are not scientific concepts. The link between rights philosophy and science is that people have rights, and science can help us determine if something is a person...assuming we have a rigorous definition of "person" which is necessary for scientific work.

    "These scientists"? There are no scientists referring to whether dolphi ...[text shortened]...
    They should be REGARDED as persons, not they should be "granted" personhood.
    Dear ATY
    a number of posters have stated that they are not interested in your babble and I started this thread so as we may have a discussion without it.

    I respect your right to have an opinion on the matter but I am not interested in it at the moment. Please start a parallel thread if you wish to discuss further.
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    155 years
    11 Feb '10 21:16 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Dear ATY
    a number of posters have stated that they are not interested in your babble and I started this thread so as we may have a discussion without it.

    I respect your right to have an opinion on the matter but I am not interested in it at the moment. Please start a parallel thread if you wish to discuss further.
    You know, there are PMs, Clubs, etc for your private conversations. This insistence you have on asserting that others' rights are something you choose to grant or take away is very dangerous and I don't want you spreading it in public without challenge. In any case you are LYING. I won't let you get away with that simply because you're annoyed that I keep pointing it out.
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    155 years
    11 Feb '10 21:19
    To paraphrase Einstein...

    You are insane if you think you can keep making the same thread and somehow get a different result.
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Feb '10 21:52
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Dear ATY
    a number of posters have stated that they are not interested in your babble and I started this thread so as we may have a discussion without it.

    I respect your right to have an opinion on the matter but I am not interested in it at the moment. Please start a parallel thread if you wish to discuss further.
    Personally I don't think ATY is babbling. I think he is bringing up valid points but we are not trying to anthropomorphize dolphins. We are totally aware they are not human. The question bears on our culpability if it turns out dolphin and other ocean mammals have something approaching human intelligence, which would be the same issue if a few hundred years from now we find intelligent life on one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. Of course there we may have had the wisdom of experience with dolphins to curb our natural tendency to make over the universe in human terms, to the detriment of all other life forms on the planet.
    Why do we rail against cannibalism? Isn't it because of the idea of intelligent life eating fellow intelligence?
    How far from cannibalism is it to eat possibly intelligent dolphins or enslave them into doing stupid pet tricks in aquatic zoo's?
  7. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    11 Feb '10 22:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Personally I don't think ATY is babbling. I think he is bringing up valid points but we are not trying to anthropomorphize dolphins. We are totally aware they are not human. The question bears on our culpability if it turns out dolphin and other ocean mammals have something approaching human intelligence, which would be the same issue if a few hundred years ...[text shortened]... possibly intelligent dolphins or enslave them into doing stupid pet tricks in aquatic zoo's?
    This is what I wanted the thread to be about. (As I thought you did?)

    At what point is it immoral/unethical to cause pain to an animal?
    At what point is it immoral/unethical to kill an animal?

    The answers to the above are subjective BUTthe reasoning behind the answer will surely have to be built on science.

    So for instance I eat meat but only humanely reared and slaughtered meat.

    I have eaten snails. I am less concerned about how these have been reared/killed than I am about a pig. Can I justify this scientifically? What are the parameters for another ape (if I chose to farm them)? Or dolphins? Or tuna?
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    155 years
    11 Feb '10 22:18
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    This is what I wanted the thread to be about. (As I thought you did?)

    At what point is it immoral/unethical to cause pain to an animal?
    At what point is it immoral/unethical to kill an animal?

    The answers to the above are subjective [b]BUT
    the reasoning behind the answer will surely have to be built on science.

    So for instance I eat meat but ...[text shortened]... ically? What are the parameters for another ape (if I chose to farm them)? Or dolphins? Or tuna?[/b]
    The snail has a far less developed nervous system, so is less capable of suffering. The brain is the most advanced organ of the nervous system, and leads to sentience and intelligence. Therefore, we can correlate the morality of what we kill and eat to the level of development of their nervous system.
  9. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    11 Feb '10 22:36
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The snail has a far less developed nervous system, so is less capable of suffering. The brain is the most advanced organ of the nervous system, and leads to sentience and intelligence. Therefore, we can correlate the morality of what we kill and eat to the level of development of their nervous system.
    Precisely! So we are basing our morality on scientific evidence.

    As we gain new evidence we should adapt our morality. Any evidence supporting higher sentience in dolphins and/or other animals should be examined closely and the ramifications examined.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    155 years
    11 Feb '10 22:41
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Precisely! So we are basing our morality on scientific evidence.

    As we gain new evidence we should adapt our morality. Any evidence supporting higher sentience in dolphins and/or other animals should be examined closely and the ramifications examined.
    Yes!
  11. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Feb '10 04:24
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    You know, there are PMs, Clubs, etc for your private conversations. This insistence you have on asserting that others' rights are something you choose to grant or take away is very dangerous and I don't want you spreading it in public without challenge. In any case you are LYING. I won't let you get away with that simply because you're annoyed that I keep pointing it out.
    Lying?
  12. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Feb '10 04:31
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Contining from Sonhouses initial thread:

    http://www.physorg.com/news181981904.html

    These scientists think so. What do you guys think?
    Look, I find it self-evident that dolphins, like chimpanzees and children, ought not to be harmed. In my view, these findings merely corroborate what is self-evident. That said, they are useful since if intelligence is the criterion for assigning a limited personhood to non human creatures (a wholly unnecessary and spurious line of argument from an ethical standpoint, in my opinion, but so what), then surely dolphins must be accorded the same dignity as human children. That might very well be condescending towards dolphins, but at least it would be a start.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    155 years
    12 Feb '10 06:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Lying?
    "These scientists think so" after I pointed out that they actually didn't.
  14. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    12 Feb '10 07:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    "These scientists think so" after I pointed out that they actually didn't.
    You made your point after his opening statement, then accused him of lying. Is this a case of preemptive lying? Don't be a dick.

    That said, you are correct in pointing out that the scientists did not say 'dolphins should be granted rights', although one of them seems to think so -- since to regard someone as a person is clearly to regard them as a person invested with rights, if you believe in such things.
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    155 years
    12 Feb '10 09:30 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    You made your point after his opening statement, then accused him of lying. Is this a case of preemptive lying? Don't be a dick.

    That said, you are correct in pointing out that the scientists did not say 'dolphins should be granted rights', although one of them seems to think so -- since to regard someone as a person is clearly to regard them as a person invested with rights, if you believe in such things.
    This is the third thread on the topic. He made the last two as some sort of attack aimed at me. He refuses to acknowledge my comments and instead keeps making new threads with the same mistruths I've already pointed out and asking me not to participate.

    It's some kind of childish attempt to avoid having to deal with my point because he doesn't like my point.

    When you say things that aren't true, and it's pointed out to you that it's not true, and you continue to say it, it's a lie.

    Wolfgang started the dickishness. You seem to have a habit of being highly critical of me when I'm defending myself from some other jerk. This is the second time now. Do you have a problem with me personally? This is getting kind of weird. You're been very aggressive toward me lately it seems.