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.