Dolphins: The moral equals of humans?

Zero Beat · Jul 19, 2009

First and foremost, let's define a few words and possibly save us useless arguments. I'll just do a mini debate with myself and clear things out:

Privilege and rights. Privileges are different from rights.

Privilege= something you're granted by a higher power. The word comes form privi lege, it means PRIVate law; Lege like legislaiton. Rights are something you just *have*.
Privileges are something you are granted by a higher power. Therefore, this debate will focus on rights between the two. (human/dolphins)

Objective: Find what gives humans rights. Apply the same rules to dolphins. See if they stick. If they do, dolphins have rights.

Obviously, rule one is you have to be intelligent. Plants do not have rights and neither do rocks. Therefore, dolphins and humans both satisfy this. Rule two: You have to be self-aware. If you don't even recognize that you exist and what you are, you probably won't be able to recognize that there are certain things you shouldn't do, right?/pun

Then there's a lot of other rules that are pretty much givens in this universe. You have to be able to be injured or costed something. If nothing anyone else ever did could hurt you, you wouldn't need rights. **** like that, which apply equally.

I'll also make it a point that just because two people don't speak the same language does not mean one may murder the other, much as Americans may think so! By the same token, just because dolphins don't speak english doesn't change the possibility of them having rights. Given these facts, the default position is that dolphins do have rights, until it can be proven that they do not. <<Point of the opposition I hope to have in this topic.(If not i'll gladly close it)

Possible counter arguments while playing devil's advocate with myself:

Some people say that dolphins **** and murder, which is true, but so do humans, that's why we have short words for each of those issues. What do I mean by short words, some of you may ask.

Well, we have a short word for acetylsalycitic acid. We call it "asprin." We have a short word for the act of depriving another person of their ability to continue functioning as a person. We call it "murder." Some words are used to build larger ideas, some words are simply larger ideas. We don't really bother making short words for things we never have to think about, and we never have to think about things that never happen. If murder never happened, we wouldn't have a word for it, we'd call it the act of depriving blah blah blah..Anyway, yeah, "Humans **** andmurder too."

Another argument I thought about:

Some objections are of the structure that suddenly there's a fuzzy line if you accept dolphins having rights, do dogs have rights? Pigs? Chickens? Horses? In which case the question is, is an arbitrary line better than a fuzzy line? Knowing the DH, the likely answer would be no, arbitrary lines are teh ghey. Fuzzy lines at least give you a more realistic idea where the line is

.

Note: This thread is as useless as the free will topic but in the spirit of some activity, and perhaps even kicking off the Devil's Advocate idea by RDK, let's give it a try. However, don't disagree without merit -_-. If we all come to a conclusion, I won't mind closing the thread.

Jam Stunna · Jul 20, 2009

Intelligence is too loose of a standard for having rights. I think that for something to have rights, they need to understand what that concept even means. A dolphin can't exercise its "rights", so what does it matter if it has them or not?

I'll say that dolphins (like any other animal) have rights, only in so far as humans are willing to accord them those rights. Or better: dolphins don't have rights, but they are protected by what we humans can do to them in accordance with our own morals/laws. I said something similar about children in another thread, and I think it applies here as well.

Zero Beat · Jul 20, 2009

Thanks for the reply Jam.

Intelligence itself is too loose for having rights. But what DOES it take to have rights? That's the bigger, more important question that needs to be answered. As long as people aren't making up stupid **** that is clearly only there to let humans and nothing else have rights, there's no particular reason dolphins can't have rights. And what do you mean by dolphins can't exercise their rights?

Rights are not exercised, only privileges are. Rights are things you are permitted to do irrelevant of what other people think of it, not something you are specially granted. I touched on this at the very beginning of my post, perhaps I should have been more thorough.

Dolphins have a right to not be killed, like humans do. They have a right to try to get fish, and a right to ****[sex] their brains out, they take that last one very seriously.

So I ask:

What rights are you talking about that they can't exercise? And, what DOES it take to have rights?

RDK · Jul 20, 2009

I think that animals should be respected just like humans are respected, solely on the virtue that they are living beings like us. If you take the time to think about it, and reverse the situation, how would we want to be treated if humans weren't the dominant species?

What if we were hunted, tortured, and killed for food, or just for the hell of it - as a "sport"? What if we were taken from our homes, de-clawed, clipped, neutered, and put in cages for the amusement of stupid American families? What if we were sold as pets and beaten, abused, starved, and neglected daily?

I think Plato said it best when he said "A nation's progress can be judged by how they treat their animals." Why do we treat animals the way we treat them? Do people forget that humans are animals too? When we start deciding that it's okay to do whatever we want with the lives of other beings, just because they can't stand up for themselves, then we as a country and as a species don't deserve the power we have.

:mad: · Jul 20, 2009

Interesting topic. It seems that humans are the dominant animal species, so if you're looking for who gives them rights, it would probably be us.

I also think you have the right idea when it comes to "what gives them rights". They're extremely intelligent, they've proven that time and time again. So are dolphins just a given example, or at they the only animals deserving of these unspecified rights?

Miggz · Jul 20, 2009

Hm. I feel dolphins have the "right" to live freely in their environment as any other organism on this planet. As RDK pointed out, if the roles where reversed...we'd probably be begging on our hands and knees to be spared. When I watch films like AVP and see the aliens and the predators use humans for their own selfless purposes...can't help but cringe. Sure the film is fiction. But the reality is, we are just vulnerable as other livng creatures.

The same thing can apply to small animals such as ants. I know most of us hate it when ants "invade" our homes. But before or houses where built, what stood there before? A forest? A garden? A marshland? Can't help but feel we are the one's who "invaded" the ant's home. So in a sense...they technically have the right to come in and out of our houses as they please.

cF=) · Jul 21, 2009

RDK said:
I think that animals should be respected just like humans are respected, solely on the virtue that they are living beings like us.

I mow my lawn every week despite that the grass is a living organism, so I guess "living" is still a loose criteria on which I could give rights. The ability to feel pain would be a much more technically applicable criteria since it's as a good for animals as it is in cases of abortion, for example.

But what about animals who themselves don't think other animals should not suffer? Take killer whales for example, these supreme hunting machines have been seen torturing and playing with baby seal's body WAY over the amount of energy their flesh gives back. There's also swimmers and scientists who say that it's far safer to go into the sea when there are sharks and cephalopodes rather than orcas. What do you think explains this kind of cruel behavior in another animal?

RDK · Jul 21, 2009

cF=) said:
I mow my lawn every week despite that the grass is a living organism, so I guess "living" is still a loose criteria on which I could give rights. The ability to feel pain would be a much more technically applicable criteria since it's as a good for animals as it is in cases of abortion, for example.

I worded that poorly. Obviously our treatment of plants and bugs is going to be different than our treatment of animals like dogs and dolphins. Perhaps "sentient beings" would have been better phrasing.

But what about animals who themselves don't think other animals should not suffer? Take killer whales for example, these supreme hunting machines have been seen torturing and playing with baby seal's body WAY over the amount of energy their flesh gives back. There's also swimmers and scientists who say that it's far safer to go into the sea when there are sharks and cephalopodes rather than orcas. What do you think explains this kind of cruel behavior in another animal?

The word cruel implies that the animal in question is deriving some sort of pleasure, or doesn't necessarily benefit in any way, from doing the act. While there are instances of this in nature (your orcas for example), it's the exception rather than the rule. What seems cruel to us is merely just animals trying to survive, often times at the expense of other animals. Cruelty only really seems to arise when the animal knows the implications of what it's doing; I.E., sentience.

Humans on the other hand are one of the most destructive species on the planet. I doubt anyone here would compare human cruelty to that of orca whales. When orcas become the dominant species and cause worldwide pain, misery, and extinction, then maybe you'll have a point.

aeghrur · Jul 21, 2009

RDK said:
I worded that poorly. Obviously our treatment of plants and bugs is going to be different than our treatment of animals like dogs and dolphins. Perhaps "sentient beings" would have been better phrasing.

But what defines a sentient being?
Because the abilities to think and adapt are simply chemical processes.

Zero Beat · Jul 21, 2009

cF=) said:
I mow my lawn every week despite that the grass is a living organism, so I guess "living" is still a loose criteria on which I could give rights. The ability to feel pain would be a much more technically applicable criteria since it's as a good for animals as it is in cases of abortion, for example.

I'm pretty sure plants were specifically targeted in the OP.

Zero Beat said:
Obviously, rule one is you have to be intelligent. Plants do not have rights and neither do rocks. Therefore, dolphins and humans both satisfy this.

RDK · Jul 21, 2009

aeghrur said:
But what defines a sentient being?
Because the abilities to think and adapt are simply chemical processes.

I don't think I understand your question. How in the world does the fact that thinking is a chemical process (which isn't entirely true, BTW) change whether or not a being is sentient? Are you saying that humans aren't sentient because at a certain level our conscious processes can be reduced to chemical interactions?

aeghrur · Jul 21, 2009

RDK said:
I don't think I understand your question. How in the world does the fact that thinking is a chemical process (which isn't entirely true, BTW) change whether or not a being is sentient? Are you saying that humans aren't sentient because at a certain level our conscious processes can be reduced to chemical interactions?

I'm saying that other beings such as plants might be considered sentient too due to them having chemical reactions which can cause them to adapt to certain situations as well.

RDK · Jul 21, 2009

aeghrur said:
I'm saying that other beings such as plants might be considered sentient too due to them having chemical reactions which can cause them to adapt to certain situations as well.

Sentience is much more than adapting t to certain situations. It's the ability to feel or quantify objectively; I.E. an awareness, and is often measured by the capacity for self-perception.

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

Faithkeeper · Jul 21, 2009

So I spend 1/2 an hour writing this huge devil's advocate post, and right before I get ready to post it I realize I have an opinion on this topic. Bad timing.

Human morality seems to transcend to animals. This is undeniable. Why is irrelevant. The basis of this morality is irrelevant. The fact is it is there, and it isn't going away. (at least for a while... but if we don't focus on the here and now nothing we say will have any point) Therefore, if we are to acknowledge any morality whatsoever, we must accept that it is connected to non-humans as well. With this in mind, we must obey the "moral laws" that tell us it is "wrong" to the things mentioned in earlier posts unless our own needs conflict. If there is a food shortage and dolphins are a usable and available food source, by all means, our own needs are of priority. If a dolphin decides it is going to kill you, you may kill it in the same way you may kill man trying to kill you, without moral repercussions. Yet it is undeniable that humans (in the majority of cases the majority of the time) have a stronger morality towards their own kind. If I tortured a human, I am certain I would undergo more emotional or moral pain/guilt than I would if had done the same thing to a dolphin, or any other non-human for that matter. I believe this makes it evident that our morality holds humans in higher regard than any non-humans. I'm sure you all are creative to think of more examples and test them out for yourselves if you require more. All of the arguments I can think of to this conclusion really ignore the purpose of this debate, as stated in the title: "Dolphins: the moral equals of humans?". No. Unless we try to apply some strange form of non-human morality. Even if said morality is illogical (I'm not saying it is), it is the morality we posses, and for the sake of this debate, we must adhere to it.

EDIT: In review, I find that the objective is hardly the same thing as the topic... strange. So I suppose the thought process in the above paragraph would conclude that yes, dolphins have rights, but not the same rights (or in equal magnitude) as humans.

cF=) · Jul 21, 2009

Zero Beat said:
I'm pretty sure plants were specifically targeted in the OP.

Despite that, I still had to nitpick on why the adjective "living" was perhaps misused.

RDK said:
I worded that poorly. Obviously our treatment of plants and bugs is going to be different than our treatment of animals like dogs and dolphins. Perhaps "sentient beings" would have been better phrasing.

Unless you prove to me that lab rats are not sentient, the fact that animals can feel and perceive subjectively doesn't automatically grant them any rights. As of today, many animals suffer the consequences of tests we can't carry on human beings, and it's simply when we have the choice not to take precedence over an animals life that we do so. This is why I won't get arrested for running over a badger with my car, why we conduct scientific experiments on monkeys, and why japanese fishermen uselessly cut thousand of shark fins every year, murdering in the process these important predators.

When this is applied to the subject at hand (dolphins), this means that any non participating member of society has no right, because a human being will much likely have precedence of right in any situation where both are confronted. As a test, are humans participating members of society? Yes. Are dolphins participating members of society? No, so their rights have to be what Zero Beat calls privileges.

You can still get at me and argue that the ecosystem is part of society, but that'd be a stretch

RDK said:
While there are instances of this in nature (your orcas for example), it's the exception rather than the rule. What seems cruel to us is merely just animals trying to survive, often times at the expense of other animals.

This also relates to what I said previously; a human being who has to *survive* at the expense of other animals acts morally.

Zero Beat · Jul 24, 2009

cF=) said:
Unless you prove to me that lab rats are not sentient, the fact that animals can feel and perceive subjectively doesn't automatically grant them any rights. As of today, many animals suffer the consequences of tests we can't carry on human beings, and it's simply when we have the choice not to take precedence over an animals life that we do so. This is why I won't get arrested for running over a badger with my car, why we conduct scientific experiments on monkeys, and why japanese fishermen uselessly cut thousand of shark fins every year, murdering in the process these important predators.

When this is applied to the subject at hand (dolphins), this means that any non participating member of society has no right, because a human being will much likely have precedence of right in any situation where both are confronted. As a test, are humans participating members of society? Yes. Are dolphins participating members of society? No, so their rights have to be what Zero Beat calls privileges.

You can still get at me and argue that the ecosystem is part of society, but that'd be a stretch

1. One would need to show that precedence of right is even a valid concept.

2. Participation in society does not create rights, especially participation in alternative societies. For instance, can it be considered okay to kill sentient aliens, should we find them, simply because they do not sell us flying saucers?(It comes down to either "Whatever side you want to be true is the side you'll see evidence for, and nothing the other side says will address your reasoning" thing or a "Precisely what gives you rights" thing, in the latter case many of the criteria are bound to be continua and not discrete binary conditions)

And whether the alternative "dolphin society" can be considered a valid alternative society is itself irrelevant because participation in society does not create rights. The question stands, what does it take to have rights?

Privileges are bull****, and in my opinion it is the wrong way to go about thinking about this. In the ultimate, truest sense, right and wrong are defined by the sum of the magnitude of the costs and the benefits to specific goals of specific actions, and you're welcome to challenge this since this is an incredibly anal way to define it, but it's true! We call actions ignorant when they are the wrong actions to meet certain goals. We call actions stupid when they habitually or repeatedly fail to meet certain goals.

In this sense, being stupid is one of the highest forms of wrong. :-p Or "Stupidity is evil!"

Now, as that applies to dolphins, it doesn't appear to matter much given that dolphins and humans don't interact much. So the number of decisions each has to make about the other species is incredibly small.

When you're dealing with humans, humans have this habit of trying to offload all costs onto everyone else, and minimize any costs that they must incur. Costs incurred from others, they try to pass back onto the person who made the decisions necessary to bring that cost to reality.

Some people's approach is to focus on passing all their problems on to somebody else, and some focus on not causing problems, everyone does both though. And, the very act of moving all these problems around is a problem itself. To minimize all problems, there's a good set of general rules that you can follow in the decisions you make, especially regarding other people. If you want to, you can call the inverse of these rules "rights." Humans who are wronged will try to pass the wrongs onto others, but usually, given a choice, will force the wrong back onto the person that wronged them. Inversely, dolphins generally lack the ability to do that. However, This does not mean that rights don't apply to them. It just means they aren't terribly capable of enforcing them. Unless of course you are stranded in the water.

They are even less capable of this in tanks and pools. But this is like the condition of slaves back before the 1860's. Slaves were unable to pass their wrongs onto others does not mean that they do not have rights. They were incapable, but not because they did not possess the prerequisites for rights. Eventually their rights were recognized as their value to society was recognized. The recognition of rights though, is totally separate from whether or not a particular being has these rights.

As the slave example shows: Dolphins, while not by any means widely respected as having rights, do not any less have rights for that reason, as rights are defined here. Many of them are slaves at Seaworld and other places.

/Personal experience:

I actually have a friend that works at a small aquarium nearby, they have 4 dolphins there. These are all rescued dolphins though. They aren't so much enslaved, and if they could be considered enslaved, then it could be said that they are enslaved to the degree necessary for them to pay any debts due to the costs of rescuing, medical care, and food while they are there. It's a very small, low budget aquarium, and mostly holds only rescued animals. If you gotta have a zoo, that's the way to do it, no doubt.

SuSa · Jul 26, 2009

Zero Beat said:
Thanks for the reply Jam.

Intelligence itself is too loose for having rights. But what DOES it take to have rights? That's the bigger, more important question that needs to be answered. As long as people aren't making up stupid **** that is clearly only there to let humans and nothing else have rights, there's no particular reason dolphins can't have rights. And what do you mean by dolphins can't exercise their rights?

Rights are not exercised, only privileges are. Rights are things you are permitted to do irrelevant of what other people think of it, not something you are specially granted. I touched on this at the very beginning of my post, perhaps I should have been more thorough.

Dolphins have a right to not be killed, like humans do. They have a right to try to get fish, and a right to ****[sex] their brains out, they take that last one very seriously.

So I ask:

What rights are you talking about that they can't exercise? And, what DOES it take to have rights?

I don't think this was ever responded to... so here we go:

Human's make rights. We ultimately decide what gets rights and what doesn't. Why? Well find me another species that has control and influence over the entire planet and every species that lives on it.... having problems doing so? Sadly, we rule the planet. This means we get to decide. If we don't want to give Dolphins rights, why must we?

Do they have a right to not be killed, or do human's give them the privilege of not being slaughtered like cattle? Do they have a right to get food, or do we give them the privilege to eat? (Ok, that last one was a bit of a stretch.. but I think you get the point)

Generally the higher powered being gives the privileges. This can be placed onto children as to their parents to some degree. However it is a bit less because we have rights.

amIdoingitright?

CRASHiC · Jul 26, 2009

I agree with Susa, though it is a sad truth. Those in power grant rights to those below them. The basic human rights we all now hold to be true, would not be legal rights if the king had not signed the Magna Carta. To another extent, the slaves had no rights, till the white men granted it. Of course, both cases were done in part by the people below working for their rights. Dolphins, on the other hand, can not fight for these rights on their own, so should we deny them rights? The mentally handicapped can not fight for themselves, and yet other fight for them to protect their rights, as do many protect the rights of the yet to be born.

However, is there such a thing as basic rights, and not rights defined by the laws set before us?
"We hold these truths to be self evident" Clearly the founding fathers believed that there was such a thing, and sat out to protect these rights of theirs the best they could. Though, in modern times, we see flaws in their logic, such as granting political power to only white, property owning men, and of course slavery. However, slavery does not really hold true, because in the unrevised declaration of independence, one of the unalienable rights and the grievances towards the kings makes a scolding mark towards the practice of slavery. Southern states, whose economic depended upon the slaves, disagreed.

Generally speaking, the rights a society holds important you will see reflected in their legal system, but where does this invisible system of rights come from? According to Marx, when a child is born, they begin to form a social identity, based on the system they were born into. Originally, this was meant to apply to the role of either consumer, or worker, depending upon being born in either a capitalist, or a communist world, however, it has been applied to sociology in more ways. Does this same system apply to rights? I believe so.

And so we see a general problem with rights, and three paragraphs that reach no real answer, but only proposes more problems.

Rights are granted by those higher than you. Will the people grant them these rights? Why should the people grant them these rights?

Most great strides in human rights have been granted by the lower, underprivileged people fighting for these rights. Dolphins can not speak for themselves, so who will fight for their rights, and who do they fight for these rights?

Are rights more than legal bindings? Is there such thing as a base moral code, and if so, where do dolphins fit in with this.

If there is a base moral code, and the laws are set up to reflect this moral code, can the society change to include dolphins?

But in truth, I've already given a possible answer.

Marx was right in that people base their worldly ideas based into what they were born into. And since the Magna Carta was signed, the world erupted into gradual change. For the first time since the fall or Rome we see the first step away from the rule of the kings, queens, and clergy. We see the first steps towards the self evident truths that we now hold to be common sense. Born into change, people now conceive the world not as a stagnant place, but as one that changes and grows. The idea of rights expands, most recently to include gay rights. Even today, Peta groups fight in Japan to protect the rights of whales and dolphins from Japanese fishermen. This is how dolphins may achieve rights, but only if societies change their current image of what is deserving of rights.

FearTheMateria · Jul 27, 2009

I am gonna side with Zero Beat.

Admittedly, I was first going to disagree with a series of points arguing that rights do not naturally occur to these creatures. But I thought about it and was reminded of a documentary film I had seen in my Marine Science class;

Did you know that dolphins are one of two classes of animals that engage in sexual intercourse for pleasure (Not only for mating purposes) besides humans? (The only other kind of animal to do that is some sort of baboon...)
Also, the male dolphins, when they have a fertile female nearby, will guard her from any other potential male to the point of murder. And if the female gave birth, the assaulting male, if prevailing, will kill the protecting male dolphin AND the newborn in order to get the female to mate with him.

They are making decisions like sex, ****, and murder. They also are quite the intellectuals and are of the few mammals to have learned to effectively communicate to humans.

I argue that because of their ability to make decisions, they do have RIGHTS. As for PRIVILEGES, that is the point of which I believe you, SuSa and CRASHiC, are trying to make.

To quote from the Declaration of Independence itself:

The Declaration of Independence said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (We were born with them, they were ENDOWED to us by OUR CREATOR at BIRTH), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights (Otherwise, they were NOT a privilege and thus cannot be taken away), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Zero Beat · Jul 27, 2009

Wow thank you for pointing it out, I did not want to sound like a lone-broken record. What SuSa and CRASHIC are talking about are privileges, NOT rights.

Did you guys read the OP?

Riddle · Jul 27, 2009

I think that all sentient (they can feel pain/are self-aware) beings have some rights. Obviously all animals have the right to eat and sustain themselves. However, I don't think that they neccessarily have the same rights as humans however. Dolphins aren't on the same intelligence level as humans, and are not aware of the concept of rights. If we just mindlessly slaughtered dolphins they wouldn't think there rights were being violated, even if they were.

I think dolphins should have basic rights such as the right to not be killed purely for sport, the right to eat, and the right to pursue happiness (wonder whaat that would be).

Wheres my pink name!!

CRASHiC · Jul 27, 2009

Zero Beat said:
Wow thank you for pointing it out, I did not want to sound like a lone-broken record. What SuSa and CRASHIC are talking about are privileges, NOT rights.

Did you guys read the OP?

The purpose of laws is not to give out privileges, its to protect the rights of others, and these rights are handed down to the lower from the higher. If these rights were truly rights, and not granted by someone higher, then why have their been revolutionary wars and civil wars all over the world to protect these rights? Something that is fought for is not endowed by the creator.

The definition of basic human rights today is drastically different then what we see 1000 years ago, and this definition will change and fluctuate over the years. If something changes, it is not endowed by the creator.

Physics is something given to us by the creator. Rights for living beings is not.

Wheres my pink name!!

http://www.smashboards.com/profile.php?do=editusergroups scroll down to the bottom and click to switch your name to pink.

Purple · Jul 27, 2009

what's needed to make rights is usually an example or reason of we need them. We might lose the right to carry a gun if death by shootings suddenly sky rocket. It all depends on how humans as a whole (or as a nation) evolve.

The question i have is do dolphin's evolve in the same way as humans do. We have facts that they act like humans (sex for pleasure, protecting their mate, murder, etc.) But besides for these basic functions that most other animals also have , have they evolved over the years without human help? If so then they don't really deserve rights because they aren't like humans who can understand these rights and adapt.

SuSa · Jul 27, 2009

The Declaration of Independence said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (We were born with them, they were ENDOWED to us by OUR CREATOR at BIRTH), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights (Otherwise, they were NOT a privilege and thus cannot be taken away), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

I think the fact that they speak of men, not dolphins kind of negates this being used.

Also explain the difference between rights and privileges to me, because I just can't seem to tell the difference. From what I gather is that rights cannot be taken away while privileges can. Which is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing about how they are given.

Faithkeeper · Jul 27, 2009

I think the important thing in this discussion is to come to a consensus (if possible) about what gives humans their rights and then apply it to dolphins, trying to do both in the same step doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. With this being said, I will discuss how some methods, however valid, will come to no conclusions in relation to dolphins, so I do address those. Debating in circles could commence if we keep it up.

Now, some proposed ways humans have their rights are:

*By a higher power (in this case, humans are the higher power giving rights to themselves)
*By intelligence
*By the ability to make choices
*By sentience
*By morality

Now lets address these individually.

Higher Power

Zero Beat said:
Privilege and rights. Privileges are different from rights.

Privilege= something you're granted by a higher power. The word comes form privi lege, it means PRIVate law; Lege like legislaiton. Rights are something you just *have*.
Privileges are something you are granted by a higher power. Therefore, this debate will focus on rights between the two. (human/dolphins)

The definition given by the OP (Which I assume has the power of the affirmative to define the terms) excludes things granted by a higher power as rights. Now whether that is right or wrong is quite irrelevant. If the only way rights are gained is through a higher power, then we must conclude that dolphins have privileges, not rights. This may very well be the conclusion we reach.

Intelligence

In my opinion, there are a lot of gray lines here. Frankly, we don't know enough, or have the right methods. By the arguments given by those debating here, it seems the only way to quantify whether intelligence warrants rights is to compare dolphins to ourselves. Even here, I find it impossible to come to a real conclusion. At what point of comparative intelligence do dolphins gain their rights? 50% as smart? 75% as smart? Just as smart or smarter? Not only do I find this number impossible to find, I find it nearly as impossible to determine just how smart dolphins are in comparison.

Ability to Make Choices

Again, this is nigh impossible to quantify. How do we know they make choices rather go off of reaction? How do we know we make choices rather than going off of reaction. I think the only thing this point will successfully do is bring us off on a tangent. If you want to debate this, post in RDK's Free Will topic.

Sentience

See my statements for the last two points. Apply them here.

Morality

I think this is the only point within the guidelines that we can make headway with. Now I acknowledge that morality is not completely universal, but it does not have to be. There is no reason to get all hung up on rather irrelevant extreme examples. We must focus on the majority of people, the majority of the time (we are talking about humanity here)

Faithkeeper said:
Human morality seems to transcend to animals. This is undeniable. Why is irrelevant. The basis of this morality is irrelevant. The fact is it is there, and it isn't going away. (at least for a while... but if we don't focus on the here and now nothing we say will have any point) Therefore, if we are to acknowledge any morality whatsoever, we must accept that it is connected to non-humans as well. With this in mind, we must obey the "moral laws" that tell us it is "wrong" to the things mentioned in earlier posts unless our own needs conflict.

This is, in essence, what rights are when viewed through the lens of morality. You cannot kill a man unless he is trying to kill you. His right to live conflicted with yours, and you have the right to defend your rights. Morality tells us this is ok. Now it was mentioned that morality has changed over the years, but as I said in my post, if we don't focus on the here and now, we won't be getting anywhere. The majority of the people the majority of the time would think it wrong to go on a dolphin killing spree. Therefore, at very least through the lens of morality, we can come to the conclusion: Yes, dolphins do have rights.

SuSa · Jul 27, 2009

Higher power case seems to be the best out of what you listed.

For the morality case, with that conclusion we could conclude that many beings - not just dolphins could be argued as to having rights. Which personally I don't have a problem with, although I still say it's a privilege given.

cF=) · Jul 27, 2009

Zero Beat, I offer you a challenge. Tell me why human have rights, and I'll tell you why dolphins don't. You started your debate the other way around, and now we are stuck proving you *wrong* when your de facto stance hasn't been backed up yet.

Faithkeeper · Jul 27, 2009

SuSa said:
Higher power case seems to be the best out of what you listed.

So you are saying the conclusion should be "Animals don't have rights, they have privileges given by a higher power"? (No problems with this conclusion, just confirming)

For the morality case, with that conclusion we could conclude that many beings - not just dolphins could be argued as to having rights.

Agreed.

Which personally I don't have a problem with, although I still say it's a privilege given.

I thought we might run into this, thanks for bringing it up,we may as well deal with it early. I nearly included a plan spike about it, but I didn't know what to say. Depending on one's viewpoint, morality itself could be considered a source of higher power. I can see people saying moral law is the higher power that gives these creatures rights. It all really comes down to whether morality is included with the higher power. Since the original poster is most generally the one who defines the terms and sets out the structure and direction for the debate, I'll let Zero Beat make the call on this one.

RDK · Jul 27, 2009

SuSa said:
Higher power case seems to be the best out of what you listed.

For the morality case, with that conclusion we could conclude that many beings - not just dolphins could be argued as to having rights. Which personally I don't have a problem with, although I still say it's a privilege given.

Technically the "rights" we have are just priveleges too; the only difference is that we all (most of us) agree to honor them when interacting with each other. If we didn't, society would fall apart.

And seeing as how morality isn't objective - it's a subjective agreement between working members of society - there's no reason why other members of the animal kingdom who display a similar level of intelligence shouldn't be granted similar "rights".

Zero Beat, I offer you a challenge. Tell me why human have rights, and I'll tell you why dolphins don't. You started your debate the other way around, and now we are stuck proving you *wrong* when your de facto stance hasn't been backed up yet.

That's not the point. He's trying to show why if humans have certain rights, dolphins should too. Nobody has come up with an explanation as to why only humans are granted "rights". Every argument you can come up with can be transferred to another animal.

cF=) · Jul 27, 2009

RDK said:
That's not the point. He's trying to show why if humans have certain rights, dolphins should too. Nobody has come up with an explanation as to why only humans are granted "rights". Every argument you can come up with can be transferred to another animal.

I'll take that for granted when every human will have equal rights, because now in most continent this is not the case. Some people on Earth have the treatment we, north american, give to our freshly captured, sealed into a water tank dolphins.

SuSa · Jul 27, 2009

Human rights are placed upon humans by humans.

Arguing to us giving dolphins "rights" is wrong. We can give them privileges, but they would have to give themselves "rights" because if we did give dolphins rights, would they respect them?

@Faithkeeper
Yea, that is my stance on it.

Mewter · Jul 27, 2009

This is my stance:

RDK said:
Technically the "rights" we have are just privileges too; the only difference is that we all (most of us) agree to honor them when interacting with each other. If we didn't, society would fall apart.

And seeing as how morality isn't objective - it's a subjective agreement between working members of society - there's no reason why other members of the animal kingdom who display a similar level of intelligence shouldn't be granted similar "rights".

I agree entirely with this.

Zero Beat said:
Privilege= something you're granted by a higher power. The word comes form privi lege, it means PRIVate law; Lege like legislaiton. Rights are something you just *have*.
Privileges are something you are granted by a higher power. Therefore, this debate will focus on rights between the two. (human/dolphins)

As I see it, higher powers are determined along the lines of:
`Sentience (Is it intelligent?)
``Decision-Making (Can the said object make decisions?(Kind of fills in with sentience))
`Power (Overall Influence/ Control)
So basically, intelligence and power.

Naturally, every living organism on the planet has the right to live and carry on their life processes. However, when a higher power has the power to influence those rights, those rights can become privileges. The "lower power" can attempt to fight for extra privileges which they believe to be rights if it's within their power to acknowledge and to do so. Depending on who you are, you see what should be labeled as rights and privileges differently. It's subjective.

Humans, being the "higher power" of the world in general, can decide to give privileges to everyone on the planet. In their own society, the highest authorities grant everybody else rights. When the majority allow certain privileges, then they can be taken as "rights" of a sort, just because everybody agrees with it. Again, it's subjective.

Zero Beat said:
Objective: Find what gives humans rights. Apply the same rules to dolphins. See if they stick. If they do, dolphins have rights.

Summary (tl:dr):
We can pretend dolphins have rights (and naturally, without human interference, they do), but the truth is, all they have are privileges, granted by us, humans. And it is only when there is no "higher power" that we truly have rights, because otherwise, there are only granted privileges. Dolphins just have granted privileges by the human race, and no rights but the ones we can't interfere with and turn into privileges (obviously, you can't be everywhere at once).

However, if someone feels that there is no good reason (no benefits) to let something "lower" live, then say goodbye to privileges! :lick:

FearTheMateria · Jul 28, 2009

Mewter said:
This is my stance:

Summary (tl:dr):
We can pretend dolphins have rights (and naturally, without human interference, they do), but the truth is, all they have are privileges, granted by us, humans. And it is only when there is no "higher power" that we truly have rights, because otherwise, there are only granted privileges. Dolphins just have granted privileges by the human race, and no rights but the ones we can't interfere with and turn into privileges (obviously, you can't be everywhere at once).

However, if someone feels that there is no good reason (no benefits) to let something "lower" live, then say goodbye to privileges!

The purpose of this thread, as stated by the OP is to APPLY what gives humans rights to dolphins and if they co-align, dolphins have them too.

The first sentence of yours that I placed in bold is entirely contrary to your claim. Because, naturally, they have rights w/o human interference, that means they must have been born with them and thus it is naturally there. So, as you said, they have rights.

The second sentence I placed in bold it what I would like to claim as "Infringing on Rights" rather than human selected privileges as several had tried to point out earlier. Just because we are the higher being doesn't mean we have the "Right" to force every animal on the "Privilege" system. If they make decisions, they have rights.

Mewter · Jul 28, 2009

Personally, I believe the definition of privilege and rights should be this:
Right: Something that everyone deserves; should not be taken away
Privilege: Something that should be/is earned
*This agrees with Zero Beat's definitions of a right being something you just have and a privilege being given by a higher power.

FearTheMateria said:
The purpose of this thread, as stated by the OP is to APPLY what gives humans rights to dolphins and if they co-align, dolphins have them too.

What gives humans rights?
Rights are the ideals of what you believe should be mandatory to everyone (the right to freedom of speech). When a group gets together to create laws that establish rights, they give their own versions of these rights, and everyone reaches a consensus, which is to be upheld as a "right" that everyone should possess.
We give ourselves rights.

The first sentence of yours that I placed in bold is entirely contrary to your claim. Because, naturally, they have rights w/o human interference, that means they must have been born with them and thus it is naturally there. So, as you said, they have rights.

Remember, though. I said they (natually) have rights when there is no human interference . We have the ability to interfere, though, and therefore, make their rights an overall privilege.

Any right is in reality a widely accepted privilege that most in society accept believe to be correct. It can be taken away, though, even if you believe it should be a right.

The second sentence I placed in bold it what I would like to claim as "Infringing on Rights" rather than human selected privileges as several had tried to point out earlier. Just because we are the higher being doesn't mean we have the "Right" to force every animal on the "Privilege" system. If they make decisions, they have rights.

Human rights are given to humans by their own kind, just like SuSa said. I guess the same would apply to dolphins on their own level. So in that sense, dolphins do have rights, set and placed by themselves; at least, they set their own standard of rights until we stumbled upon them.

As to what we're disagreeing on is whether or not their rights are more or less privileges when someone else has the ability to change/stop them.

If someone has the power to take away someone's "rights", then it can just as easily be called a "privilege", simply because it has the power to be granted and taken.

Now, do humans have the "right" to "force every animal into the Privilege system"? That varies from person to person. But, regardless of your opinion in the end, it doesn't matter. We have the ability to interfere with dolphins' rights anyways, which makes those rights just as much an earned privilege as a sports trophy.

Objective/Goal Part/Summary:
People only have rights which are actually widely accepted and followed privileges put into action by the law. And since we can't really sit down and make a conference with the dolphins, we don't really know what they wish for their rights to be, so they have as many "rights" as we give them.

Dolphins: The moral equals of humans?

Cognitive Scientist

Writer of Fortune

Cognitive Scientist

Smash Hero

Bird Law Aficionado

Pancake Sandwiches

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Cognitive Scientist

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Cognitive Scientist

Banned via Administration

Smash Hero

Smash Apprentice

Cognitive Scientist

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Hi guys!

Banned via Administration

Smash Lord

Banned via Administration

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Banned via Administration

Smash Master

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

Information

Network