Should Dolphins Be Treated As Non-Human Persons?

Hugh Pickens writes "Dolphins have long been recognized as among the most intelligent of animals, but now the Times reports that a series of behavioral studies suggest that dolphins, especially species such as the bottlenose, have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self, can think about the future and are so bright that they should be treated as 'non-human persons.' 'Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,' says Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory University. 'The neuroanatomy suggests psychological continuity between humans and dolphins and has profound implications for the ethics of human-dolphin interactions.' For example, one study found that dolphins can recognize their image in a mirror as a reflection of themselves — a finding that indicates self-awareness similar to that seen in higher primates and elephants. Other studies have found that dolphins are capable of advanced cognitive abilities such as problem-solving, artificial language comprehension, and complex social behavior, indicating that dolphins are far more intellectually and emotionally sophisticated than previously thought. Thomas White, professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University, has written a series of academic studies suggesting dolphins should have rights, claiming that the current relationship between humans and dolphins is, in effect, equivalent to the relationship between whites and black slaves two centuries ago."

Comments

Non-human intelligences

[Omnifarious]

I think we should have standards for how we treat them, but I think that comparing the situation to slavery is somewhat over-the-top. Though it's really hard to think of some objective way of deciding just what rights they should have.

I think, maybe, we should just ask, if we can figure out how. Of course, then there's the morass of objectively identifying and interpreting communication. :-)

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

If you grant dolphins "personhood" (whatever that means), then you've got to do the same thing with chimps. And probably orang-utans. And then maybe whales and elephants too.

My suggestion is that we grant them this personhood when they ask for it. When they're able to ask for it, then it's obvious they deserve it. Until then, there's a huge gap between what humans are capable of and what various smart animals are capable of.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an easy solution! When dolphins (and dolphins alone) can create tools and devices such that they are able to wage war for their freedom, it should be granted. Until then, they're screwed.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[Cruciform]

Some human "persons" don't understand that they have that right until you explain it to them.
Look at the caste systems.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[INeededALogin]

When they're able to ask for it, then it's obvious they deserve it.

This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RsG]

I should probably preface this by stating that I am thoroughly omnivorous, fine with testing on lab rats, can't stand PETA and generally hold that most people's preconceptions about animal rights have far more to do with "cute vs ugly" than they do with "right vs wrong".

So it may sound strange that I'm all for dolphins being recognized as near-human level intelligent life, and accorded legal protection befitting said status. Actually I'd go as far as extending such status to most other cetaceans and all apes.

What is the measure of a human being? I don't believe in souls, nor should religion be invoked in temporal debates. Human genetics are no more complex than any other mammal. Human anatomy, while distinct from other apes in a few areas, is mostly unremarkable from the neck down. We're animals ourselves, vertebrate, tetrapod, primate, ape, hominid. We like to imagine ourselves as special, as evidenced by the way we write our mythologies and philosophy, but that's ego talking, not evidence.

All that distinguishes us from the other apes is brain size to body mass ratio. And even then, the gulf isn't vast. We can safely assume that any mammal with a similarly large brain in relation to body mass has the same range of emotions, capacity for complex thought, self-awareness, creativity, what-have-you. Language and communication isn't uniquely human. Nor is art. Hell, even tool use isn't unique to us.

If the only measure of value is sapience, and it can be demonstrated that a non-human of any stripe shares that characteristic with us, than damn straight we ought to treat them the way we treat humans.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[mcvos]

Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.

No. Slaves were fully human, and humans already had "personhood". Not just that, but slaves have asked for freedom. And even when they didn't speak the same language, they were still able to express their displeasure over their captivity. (Although I seem to recall a story about a circus with African elephants that were also clearly unhappy about their captivity, no matter their treatment. And yes, that means they tore the place down, and probably got shot.)

In any case, I'm all for treating animals with respect, and letting them live in their own habitats rather than captivity. But giving them human rights simply because they might be slightly smarter than some other animals is just silly.

Re:Non-human intelligences

[RsG]

Except that argument conflates "personhood" with "capacity" (that is, the legal term capacity). The poster you were replying to specifically referred to the former, you responded as if they'd argued about the latter. They aren't the same thing.

A child can't sign a contract, make a will, drink, etc as they lack the legal capacity. They're still "people". The legal restrictions on capacity make that abundantly clear. What they don't have is the ability to fully understand the consequences of their actions. They have rights, but aren't mature enough to have the responsibilities that come with.

I realize this is a nit-picking distinction, but it's relevant. A person is protected under the law, irrespective of capacity. You can't go out and kill a retarded man and argue before a judge that, as the victim lacked capacity, he was not a person, and therefor fair game. Acknowledging dolphins as "persons" in a limited way extends legal protection to them, even if they aren't afforded the same legal status as a mentally sound adult human being.

I have a better idea

[operagost]

Why don't we just leave them to their business, and keep to our own? Otherwise, we'll have community organizers signing up dolphins to vote in elections and lobbying for tax dollars to fund flipper-accessible housing.

Why just dolphins?

[Haedrian]

Lots of creatures exhibit some form of intelligence. Should they have rights too? And why is intelligence the only factor? Should a stupid person have less rights than a dolphin? What about faster? or stronger? Should animals which have those traits be given rights too?

Why do we have the right to give other creatures rights?

And do you think tuna fishermen are going to stop using nets because they might catch something which has rights?

Re:Why just dolphins?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of creatures exhibit some form of intelligence. Should they have rights too? And why is intelligence the only factor? Should a stupid person have less rights than a dolphin? What about faster? or stronger? Should animals which have those traits be given rights too?

Why do we have the right to give other creatures rights?

You can grant "rights" to any species you like... Dolphins have the same intrinsic rights as humans. i.e. none.

False equivalence

[Locke2005]

...the current relationship between humans and dolphins is, in effect, equivalent to the relationship between whites and black slaves two centuries ago.

Right, because everybody knows that humans and dolphins can interbreed.

So they are smart ...

[CannonballHead]

... but they don't appear to develop* at all? I haven't seen any dolphin civilizations or "dolphin science" or "dolphin inventions" lately...

* Develop not referring evolutionary development or something like that, but developing things to help them survive better, live better, enjoy life better.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back to me when humans develop echolocation senses or become smart enough to stay out of traffic accidents.

Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity.

[geekoid]

My experiences is that most people studying dolphins are quick to rely on confirmation bias.

Re:What about pigs?

[Spy Handler]

Believe me, the people who dream up stuff like this would LOVE to outlaw the eating of pork (and all other animal meats).

Re:I agree

[Gordonjcp]

So, they go around beating the shit out of something and killing other animals for fun, *because they can*.

Sounds awfully like humans to me...

Re:I agree

[roman_mir]

Also clearly dogs are human. So are chimps.

What the hell, what's NOT a human? A rabbit? A cockroach?

You can come up with whatever justifications to 'give rights' to whatever you want, but in reality 'rights' are an abstract idea defined by humans.

Do dolphins have the same 'rights' as humans? Well, it's up to humans to define. I, on my part, will always discriminate against dolphins, I promise that much.