Dolphins and Human Rights - a possible reality?

[Deleted]

Just because I'm not allowed to eat them doesn't mean they have rights.


If I want to put on a literal dog and pony show the animals don't have a choice in it. How much they want or don't want to entertain people is meaningless.

Most people would probably say the dog and pony are not quite interested in entertaining you and if enough of those people decide forcing them to do it anyway is immoral, then eventually by way of law you won't get to put on your show. So the underlying feelings of the animals are in fact, pretty meaningful.

If your only criteria for the ethical treatment of others is their ability to convey their thoughts, then I'm scared for what you think of how we should treat the mentally incapacitated.

[slackjawsix]

A human in the middle of the ocean alone is at the bottom of the food chain. Just sayin~

a dolphin captured by humans is at the bottom, point is in general were on the top

[Deleted]

These food chain arguments are so contrived and devoid of any reasoning, it's pointless to even bring them up. Such blanket statements don't bring the discussion any further.

[Deleted]

Yeah... No.

Dolphins are dolphins.

[Deleted]

Great argument. Just don't post anything then.

[Majik8ball]

Just found this whilst trawling the BBC site, piqued my interest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17116882

The consensus of a meeting in Canada is that dolphins and Cetaceans in general should have their own Declaration of Rights which would ultimately prevent them from being used in entertainment purposes, wholly protect them from hunting, and (hopefully) guarantee them absolute freedom as a normal person should do.

This is based upon scientific investigations into the complexity and brain capacity of dolphins, among some remarkable stories is the realisation that Cetaceans understand a concept of 'self', as humans do.

Any thoughts? Not quite sure where I stand on the issue, I recognise that these are incredibly intelligent beings, however as a human, I don't frequently get myself entangled in tuna nets. The implications of 'accidents' where the death of a whale / dolphin might be accidentally caused by mundane means could be quite drastic if they are by law, given some of the same protection as human beings are.

I eat neither dolphin nor whale, so I see no problems with this.

[Extrazero8]

Most people would probably say the dog and pony are not quite interested in entertaining you and if enough of those people decide forcing them to do it anyway is immoral, then eventually by way of law you won't get to put on your show. So the underlying feelings of the animals are in fact, pretty meaningful.

Sorry but you're wrong. The thoughts of people and only people will change the law. If people never care about how an animal feels about entertaining people then the law never changes.

How much a chicken wants to be apart of a $10.99 16 piece family bucket with sides is also meaningless. As long as the majority of people love eating chicken then it's never going to change.

If your only criteria for the ethical treatment of others is their ability to convey their thoughts, then I'm scared for what you think of how we should treat the mentally incapacitated.

Mentally incapacitated people are still people. As people they have rights no matter what their ability is to comprehend whats going on around them.

People have rights. Animals have dipping sauces, breading, leashes, cages, and aquariums.


Also I never said animals should not have ethical treatment. They should not be abused and neglected. But that doesn't mean we stop eating them, keeping them as pets, having them on display for entertainment, or giving them rights.

[Deleted]

Mentally incapacitated people are still people. As people they have rights no matter what their ability is to comprehend whats going on around them.

People have rights. Animals have dipping sauces, breading, leashes, cages, and aquariums.


Also I never said animals should not have ethical treatment. They should not be abused and neglected. But that doesn't mean we stop eating them, keeping them as pets, having them on display for entertainment, or giving them rights.

I take your point, but the issue at hand here specifically involves Cetaceans, which (for the majority of the world) are not eaten.

We do need to start drawing lines as to what should be included in this argument, as we too are 'animals' in the sense of the word, we however have just been the dominant species for milennia and have had time to outstrip every other creature in certain ways (obviously not 'all', I am well aware there are many species that FAR dominate us for certain traits).

What about Cetaceans then, ignoring for now *all* other animals? The basis for our position in the world is our intelligence, if we discover that certain creatures have similar levels of intelligence (not literally), what then excludes them other than our dominance from deserving the same respect and attention that we would otherwise show a human being?

[ciggy]

the depths of the stupidity of some folks astound me.

[Wolftusk]

i'm gonna marry a dolphin and there's nothing you can do to stop me

[Sunseeker]

What about Cetaceans then, ignoring for now *all* other animals? The basis for our position in the world is our intelligence, if we discover that certain creatures have similar levels of intelligence (not literally), what then excludes them other than our dominance from deserving the same respect and attention that we would otherwise show a human being?

If we can't take care of ourselves, why do we think we're capable of taking care of other creatures?

And that said, it's one think to attempt to apply one type of human morality on other humans, but why would human morality even be applicable to dolphins? They are by definition: not human. They may very well have fundamental differences on "rights", in which case, why should we force them to abide by our rights?

You can't have laws that force you to treat non-humans as humans especially when there's no guarantee that they will treat us humanely. I mean, if dolphins have rights, can I take one to court if a pack of them kills my child? What if they sink my boat? Can I sue them for damages? Rights are a two-way street, you get rights, but also must live under the restrictions that come with them. This will not happen with Dolphins.

[DerSenf]

I dont think you can eat dolphin meat, so there rly is no reason to kill them in the first place.

I don't know why they should not be edible, but that doesn't matter anyway.

My question is, what makes cetaceans so special? It makes no sense to say that some animals have "human rights" and others don't. A living being is a living being, you should treat them all equall.

[Deleted]

If we can't take care of ourselves, why do we think we're capable of taking care of other creatures?

And that said, it's one think to attempt to apply one type of human morality on other humans, but why would human morality even be applicable to dolphins? They are by definition: not human. They may very well have fundamental differences on "rights", in which case, why should we force them to abide by our rights?

You can't have laws that force you to treat non-humans as humans especially when there's no guarantee that they will treat us humanely. I mean, if dolphins have rights, can I take one to court if a pack of them kills my child? What if they sink my boat? Can I sue them for damages? Rights are a two-way street, you get rights, but also must live under the restrictions that come with them. This will not happen with Dolphins.

Very good point, just to re-iterate my position I have never actually stated that I am in favour of the proposals, I merely support further protection. I've just been stirring up debate rather than blind opinion ^^

I'd genuinely be surprised if this wasn't brought up in the conference, there must be further details somewhere, I'll see if I can fish them out (no pun intended).

I would very much like to see such a court case, quite fittingly such an animal exists as a 'Lawyer Fish'.

[caninepawprints]

as a human, I don't frequently get myself entangled in tuna nets

But I bet you stub your toe on the coffee table and get tangled in blankets sometimes! :P

[Archangel Tyrael]

Dolphin rights you say?

I give you 5 good reasons to punch a dolphin in the mouth.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/dolphin_punch

[Sunseeker]

Very good point, just to re-iterate my position I have never actually stated that I am in favour of the proposals, I merely support further protection. I've just been stirring up debate rather than blind opinion ^^

I'd genuinely be surprised if this wasn't brought up in the conference, there must be further details somewhere, I'll see if I can fish them out (no pun intended).

I would very much like to see such a court case, quite fittingly such an animal exists as a 'Lawyer Fish'.

I know, and that's my main reason I'm against this, it really doesn't feel fully thought out. Does giving the dolphin X tuna per hour count as payment and therefore the dolphin is employed and not captive?

[Kevyne-Shandris]

Mentally incapacitated people are still people. As people they have rights no matter what their ability is to comprehend whats going on around them.

People have rights. Animals have dipping sauces, breading, leashes, cages, and aquariums.


Also I never said animals should not have ethical treatment. They should not be abused and neglected. But that doesn't mean we stop eating them, keeping them as pets, having them on display for entertainment, or giving them rights.

Amen.

I don't like the thought of hunting for food. But at the same time we're also humans and our lineage since the dawn of time is of hunter/gatherers.

We will eat what is there to eat, as we must eat. And if we lose the skills to hunt, we lose how to sustain ourselves.

There's a certain Canadian author who spearhead one of the "causes" of saving wildlife in northern Canada. To those south of the treeline it was "sane" and "noble", to the natives "cruel". That lesson taught me that individual societies and cultures have just as much right to define their own. If it's their tradition and way of life, as barbaric it is to another culture, who are we to tell them it's wrong? The Inuits of the north fish the whales and nothing is wasted, even down to the bones they use. Which is more than the rest of the world can say of things they feel is "right" that they take from this world and waste.

Same can be said of those idiots who claim they "know what's best" for you in everything you eat. We're human, and human RIGHTS also include the ability to simply LIVE. Or is that too a "right" for others to chose? To play God.

[Deleted]

As long as its just
-don't kill them on purpose for eating or sport
-don't imprison them
That would be somewhat acceptable. But if you're getting into putting a trawler crew up on manslaughter charges because they got a dolphin caught in their nets, I'm not so sure.

Plus why stop at dolphins? I'm pretty sure apes and elephants also have a sense of self.

[Deleted]

Not sure what else to say.

By he's logic, it would be ok to kill and eat all the useless humans too that aren't contributing to building those anti asteroid defenses (which don't even exist now btw).

Mentally retarded? - let's kill him and eat him
Sick or elderly? - get into our hamburgers
No college education or scientific degree? - chop em up and down the hatch

It's just stupid if you ask me. Besides, this has nothing to do with whales and dolphins anyway .. or other higher animals. People just kill them and hold them in captivity and torture them for stupid reasons like entertainment or trophies.

[Deleted]

A human in the middle of the ocean alone is at the bottom of the food chain. Just sayin~

And so is a shark on land. What's your point?