General Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons'

[tom_mai78101]

If only Dolphins can speak a language we Humans also can, then it would be nice to consider a "non-human person" perspective.

That's my only point.

 

[perkeyone]

i think we should just decide based on how tasty they are. =P

 

[FireCat]

yea but since we speak.... and understand each other. We can give a yes or no answer, where as animals can't.

I agree 100%

 

[Zakyath]

Ethics are subjective and can't be proven. You can't prove something is morally wrong. You can prove most people think something is wrong. You can prove that dolphins are nearly as smart as humans, and perhaps people should take into consideration of treating them as well as other humans. But they can't prove that we are equal. There is no proof humans are equal. That's something made up by us.

 

[Danny Cross]

Ethics are subjective and can't be proven. You can't prove something is morally wrong. You can prove most people think something is wrong. You can prove that dolphins are nearly as smart as humans, and perhaps people should take into consideration of treating them as well as other humans. But they can't prove that we are equal. There is no proof humans are equal. That's something made up by us.

completely agreed...What is considered morally or ethically wrong is based on human thoughts. There is no other kind of thought process involved in the decision.

 

[sqrage]

Ethics are subjective and can't be proven. You can't prove something is morally wrong. You can prove most people think something is wrong. You can prove that dolphins are nearly as smart as humans, and perhaps people should take into consideration of treating them as well as other humans. But they can't prove that we are equal. There is no proof humans are equal. That's something made up by us.

completely agreed...What is considered morally or ethically wrong is based on human thoughts. There is no other kind of thought process involved in the decision.

Ethics are currently subjective; yes. If you read anything I posted in this thread you will become aware that ethics CAN be objective and more than likely WILL be in the future. Unless you argue that one's intention in this world is anything but to live the good life as opposed to the bad life, then this argument may prove invalid, but so will any ethical argument. As I said, once neuroscience matures, it will be able to figure out new things about the mind never before known. We will know how different events affect the brain and which ones, objectively, cause more harm than good.

I want to see you argue that female genital mutilation, which is practiced in many African cultures, is positive towards human psychological and physical well being (and following the good life). If you can't properly argue this, then clearly objective moral truths do exist and ethical relativism is complete BS.

 

[Dan]

Yes, society needs rules to work.
But murder isn't against the law because it's 'bad'. It's because if everybody just murders each other you can't survive as a society.

Of course ethic rules and law often are the same.
But if they are not the same you get stupid results.
Like this article.

Ethics are based on some assumptions that don't make sense to me. Why is life 'sacred' (not in religious sense)? Why is it 'good' that people don't suffer?
It seems to me like they know some ulterior motive I'm just not aware of.

I think you might have some things to talk to a therapist about...

 

[FireCat]

ethical relativism is complete

Ethical relativism isn't that different in cultures?
Well, in one state its acceptable but not acceptable in another.? Or It could have been equally right.?

 

[Zakyath]

Ethics are currently subjective; yes. If you read anything I posted in this thread you will become aware that ethics CAN be objective and more than likely WILL be in the future. Unless you argue that one's intention in this world is anything but to live the good life as opposed to the bad life, then this argument may prove invalid, but so will any ethical argument. As I said, once neuroscience matures, it will be able to figure out new things about the mind never before known. We will know how different events affect the brain and which ones, objectively, cause more harm than good.

I want to see you argue that female genital mutilation, which is practiced in many African cultures, is positive towards human psychological and physical well being (and following the good life). If you can't properly argue this, then clearly objective moral truths do exist and ethical relativism is complete BS.

Source? Everything you're saying is that we can track down the things that you think is ethically correct in peoples minds, and then see what is ethically correct ("We will know how different events affect the brain and which ones, objectively, cause more harm than good."). Just because something causes more harm than good doesn't mean it's wrong. We could shoot you and take your organs to save others - that would lead to the most people surviving. But most people would still argue it's wrong.

 

[Samael88]

ethics CAN be objective and more than likely WILL be in the future.

I don't know if anyone has said it and I hate to just budge into a discussion like this, but ethics has the be objective to work or else there is no need to having them at all.

I say if it is good eatin' then I don't mind it. If they now are so intelligent that the scientist states then we should perhaps exterminate them before they turn on us and build some kind of mega laser of death just to kill us all.

 

[sqrage]

Source? Everything you're saying is that we can track down the things that you think is ethically correct in peoples minds, and then see what is ethically correct ("We will know how different events affect the brain and which ones, objectively, cause more harm than good."). Just because something causes more harm than good doesn't mean it's wrong. We could shoot you and take your organs to save others - that would lead to the most people surviving. But most people would still argue it's wrong.

Source for what? You're misinterpreting what I mean by more harm than good. Good - leads to one living the good life. Harm - leads to one leading the bad life. Ethics, even those based on science as I'm talking about here agree that taking a human life is wrong. So your argument is not really valid... it would require killing someone in the first place which clearly isn't leading the deceased to the good life; it's taking away their life.

edit:

even without a scientific view on morality, I do believe there is already at least one objective moral truth. Don't kill without reason. A society would be non-existent if random killings went unpunished and were approved of.

 

[Zakyath]

Source for what? You're misinterpreting what I mean by more harm than good. Good - leads to one living the good life. Harm - leads to one leading the bad life. Ethics, even those based on science as I'm talking about here agree that taking a human life is wrong. So your argument is not really valid... it would require killing someone in the first place which clearly isn't leading the deceased to the good life; it's taking away their life.

edit:

even without a scientific view on morality, I do believe there is already at least one objective moral truth. Don't kill without reason. A society would be non-existent if random killings went unpunished and were approved of.

Yeah, english is not my native language. Would you define what you mean with the good and the bad life to avoid further misunderstandings?

 

[sqrage]

>>Do you have a source to support what you're saying: that ethics are objective and not subjective.

There are tons of arguments for this viewpoint.

If you want to read one that I recommend, The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

I understand ethics very well, I don't believe you understand it if you think there's no possible way it can be objective.

Do you think physics and chemistry can only be subjective too?

 

[Zakyath]

I edited my post, so I'd be glad if you instead could explain to me what you mean with good and bad life, because you're probably correct with that I don't understand.

 

[sqrage]

I'll define it then I'll stop posting cuz this has gotten way off topic.

The bad life, in general is just one full of agony, negative emotions, poor mental and/or physical health, lack of resources/leisure time.
The good life is obviously the opposite.

There are different levels of each though and of course no one reaches a completely "good life."

 

[GooS]

Aren't ethics, basically, empathic consensus, the majority and most consistent of feeling becomes an ethical "rule"?

Everything in this world is, in a way, made up, we as a human race have given names and meaning to objects, events,
feelings etc. that we may or do not fully understand, the currently most plausible idéa or theory is regarded as fact until
such a time a better idéa appears.

Objectivity requires that the facts about the subject isn't influenced by any conscious being, and with above regarding the state of facts
nothing in this world can truly be 100% objective and as such are subjective.

... physics and chemistry can only be subjective too?

As such I answer yes to this.

But then, I've never studied nor read anything about philosophy.

So what about the dolphins then, can't really say that I care, if it stood between the best of dolphin and a decent
human being I'd choose the human any day.

Possible that I've strayed way of here so, maeh!

 

[Jindo]

I'm sure this article was already posted a month or 2 ago, either that or StumbleUpon D: