are whales, dolphins, porpoises, elephants people?

Post Reply New Topic

Are people people?

A couple centuries ago, many white-skinned humans didn't think of dark-skinned humans as people. And many white-skinned people still don't think of dark-skinned people as people. If some humans can't think of other humans as people, why would we think of elves as people?



How do you suggest we go about doing that? We can't understand a word they're saying.



I think that depends on your definition of "people".

Maybe they just don't have much to say.

I had a friend who did underwater work for a living. He described what he felt like when he found himself face to face with an orca in the wild.
He was kind of helpless suspended in front of the huge thing. It just looked at him.
He said 'You are aware you are in it's domain'. But then I guess he was.

I was at a whale sighting spot on the East Coast of Australia, a middle aged couple were making exited noises, for a second it felt like Christmas!
I turned to see the hugest tail slowly lop into the small surf.
Left me awestruck by this fleeting appearance of one embodiment of the majesty of creation.
To kill such a thing just for the luxury of it?

Actually, none of those things are "people" rights or rights at all but merely privileges given to citizens. And what slippery slope are you talking about?

Look up the Great Ape Project to see what kind of rights they're actually talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project

No, I don't think so.

Elephants and Bottlenose Dolphins have some level of self-recognition using the mirror test.

The lower hominids have definite level of self-recognition, so they are probably sentient, but not sapient.

"It it an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem.For instance,on the planet Earth,man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much- the wheel,New York,wars ,and so on-whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time.But conversely,the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man- for precisely the same reasons."

Douglas Adams

"So long, and thanks for all the fish!"

I agree!



The dolphins might need to do that soon.

No. People is a name for humans.


I would not wish upon them, our societal structures. We have them because of out numbers, it is a necessity. I'm not an anarcho-primitivist as it is not viable, but it is better for them that the continue living the way they are, just like the bushmen (khoshan) hunter gatherers. They are expert hunter gatherers, and also have a surprising amount of leisure time, they cost nothing to the countries they reside in, they will trade ostrich egg jewelry for goods, though are not reliant on commerce or anybody.

You could say pods, troupes and groups are proto-societal, but it is not nearly as complex as civilization.

Humanizing animals is silly, there is a difference between saying they are intelligent than saying the think like us. A great white shark thinking is very different from a bonobo's, it doesn't mean it is not intelligent.

I have little doubt that animals of the same species have sophisticated ways of communicating with each other. I think the dolphins were talking to each other.

I have paid close attention to birds the last few years and have come to think they have complex ways of talking to each other - their songs are very complex. I also think bees and wasps use flight paths to communicate to each other.

"People" for what purpose?

For legal purposes? Clearly not. The law quite clearly draws distinctions between human beings, natural persons and legal persons. And while the law might circumscribe people's freedom to treat animals as they choose, that's a very different thing from prescribing that animals have rights that they are capable of exercising. When a cat can bring a writ of summons to get an injunction to stop the vet from neutering it, then we can talk about animals' legal rights.

But if we are talking about whether or not these animals for societies, communicate with each other and teach each other, then we are in a very different field.

They're not privileges, they're rights. Privileges can be revoked, rights cannot.

I was speaking under the assumption that a country legally was giving these species "people status" and if that was the case, then yes they would be given certain rights. Rights they wouldn't be able to exercise.

Slippery slope: At what point is an animal not considered intelligent enough to not be a person? We have tests but those tests are flawed and the results have many explanations. Just look at the Mirror Test.

Rights can be, and often are infringed.

ruveyn

Your idealism is charming, but terribly naïve.

A right is any title or claim to property, authority, privilege, benefit or immunity, arising in law or in equity and enforcable against others.

Rights arise in all manner of contexts. Contract gives you the right to the goods which you have agreed to purchase, and gives the seller the right to be paid. Rights that are enforcable in contract law. Occupation of real property (whether by ownership or by lease) gives the occupant a right of quiet enjoyment. A right that is enforcable in tort law. The beneficiary of a trust is entitled to the best efforts and good faith of the trustee, a right that is enforcable in equity.

You have taken the political concept of a personal, constitutional right and you have attempted to frame that as a legal concept. However, there is absolutely nothing in law or equity that stands for the proposition that rights can be distinguished from privileges by reason of revokability.

This is the kind of gross ignorance that seems forever to invade what passes for political discourse these days. If you don't know what a right is, how can you possibly have an intelligent conversation about who, or what possesses them?

They can be revoked. In your examples:



Do convicted criminals have the right to vote? In South Africa they can but I believe that in the US, convicted criminals can't vote. So, your right to vote is revoked if are convicted of a crime.



I don't. South Africa abolished it's jury system in 1969. Nonetheless, we still have a right to a fair trial, which is a different matter.

Also, in the context of this discussion, you are confusing constitutional rights with basic human rights, which are 2 different things.