Slashdot Mirror


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."

9 of 785 comments (clear)

  1. I have a better idea by operagost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  2. Why just dolphins? by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  3. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. Re:Yes, but that will go against most of humanity. by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  5. Re:Non-human intelligences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Non-human intelligences by Cruciform · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  7. Re:I agree by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  8. Re:Non-human intelligences by INeededALogin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Non-human intelligences by RsG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.