5 ms·

>> They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans. I don't have a problem with extending le

• swombat 14y ago
  Their view is not that intelligence makes your life more worthwhile, but that there is a threshold of species intelligence which makes that species "persons". Note the focus on a species, rather than individuals.
  • crusso 14y ago
    When cetaceans let us know that they will mutually honor some sort of Interspecies Protective Treaty, I will be the first in line to support the move that they should have similar protections to people. Until then, I don't want to see such beautiful intelligent creatures harmed -- but murder/manslaughter charges would be inappropriate if one were inadvertently killed. The current animal protection/endangered species protection rules are sufficient.
    • belorn 14y ago
      There is a implied statement that cetaceans would somehow need to learn English to receive similar protections as people. This is of course a really bad requirement. A lot of people in the world do not know English, and would thus be unable to let anyone know that they will mutually honor some sort of Interspecies Protective Treaty. Mostly, they would be unable to read any such treaty, or reply with the word "yes". First create a requirement that all human being will pass. Then see if cetaceans do pass it.
      • crusso 14y ago
        There is a implied statement that cetaceans would somehow need to learn English to receive similar protections as people. English? Where did I say that? However, communication verbal or nonverbal that conveys agreement to participate in a society is a requirement. This kind of communication would need to happen either individually or representatives cetaceans would need to come forward who could vouch for others of their species. From there, we'd need to observe whether or not the agreement(s) were being followed. This starts to sound silly, doesn't it? But that's what being a member of a society entails. That's what being "human" or reasonably equivalent to oen entails.
        • shawnc 14y ago
          This too will sound silly, but we don't even know if that would happen or could happen with Dolphins and Whales, because they've really just never been given the chance. It'd be like someone invading a new land they discovered, and just killing anyone in their way, without waiting to see if these people would indeed like to participate in their 'society'. But actually, on top of that, even if the dolphins could say they'd participate in this required society - why would it be deemed appropriate for the humans to make the rules here?
          • nine_k 14y ago
            If you call something a treaty, isn't it expected to be discussed and agreed upon by both sides? Humans have to make the first step and propose a first draft because of their current position of power. Unfortunately, cetaceans so far haven't taken time to try to learn how to communicate with humans. A treaty with cetaceans would be a display of pure goodwill, as opposed to e.g. peace treaties between mutually menacing powers. Another interesting question is how many treaties are needed, since cetaceans are obviously no more unified than humans.
        • thenduks 14y ago
          Why do they have to participate in our society in order to be protected from torture/murder/slavery/etc? The point of this article is that they have their own society and should not be made our playthings. I'm also not sure why they would need to agree to some kind of treaty with humans just to be spared our cruelty. There's no evidence they mean us harm, we have the ability to protect ourselves if they did, let's just leave them alone.
    • analog 14y ago
      A quick google search provides plenty of examples of dolphins rescuing humans.
    • njharman 14y ago
      > The current animal protection/endangered species protection rules are sufficient. The recently and soon to be extinct species would disagree with you. Also, if homo sapiens had the same levels of "protection" I'd be able to cull yuppies when too many of them moved into my neighborhood.
  • jcarreiro 14y ago
    I believe their argument stems not so much from the intelligence of cetaceans -- as others have pointed out, intelligence is hard to define -- but from evidence that they are self-aware, conscious beings.
• dharmach 14y ago
  Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values.
  • brink 14y ago
    He has the right to talk about whatever he likes. This is an open discussion.
    • jlgreco 14y ago
      I don't think he was asserting he lacked the right, merely suggesting that he refrain from exercising it.
  • nathan_long 14y ago
    >> Your opinion is correct but don't drag Christianity here. Christianity did enough violence on the name of non-violent Jesus. Better you talk of universal human values. I understand your sentiment, but 1) you're making an "ad hominem" against Christianity, which I could argue is not justified but in any case is not pertinent, and 2) what you're asking ultimately doesn't make sense. We're having a discussion about what is or is not moral. Any answer you can give necessarily depends on views which can only be classified as religious, even if you are a purely a materialist; they involve the purpose of existence, what it means to be human, etc. Consider this exchange: A: "We should not commit genocide." B: "Why?" A: "Because protecting life is a universal human value." B: "It's not universal if I don't agree with it. Why should I care?" A: "Because we can't survive as a species unless we protect one another." B: "What if I don't care about the species, but only about myself?" A: "Genocide is still wrong. You shouldn't do it." B: "Says who?" Ultimately A has to answer "there is a larger moral principle outside of you which, whether you agree with it or not, you are obligated to obey", which is a religious statement. The only other option is "many of us prefer that you don't do this and we will use force to stop you." That's pragmatic, but it's not about morality at all; it could just as well be applied to playing the bagpipes. You can't exclude religion from moral debates because morality is inherently about religion.
• rmc 14y ago
  I think the point with intelligence is to show that dolphins, the species, are closer to humans, than (say) worms.
• jlgreco 14y ago
  In more extreme cases where emotional identification breaks down, I think it is clear that the lack of brain functioning is identified with a loss of humanity, even if other bodily facilities are still more or less operational. Now, are dolphins at the same level as vegetable humans? Clearly not. Is the bar to which we hold them higher than that, since we lack the same emotional connections? I suspect, in reality, yes.
• crusso 14y ago
  The Christian worldview holds that human life has value intrinsically because God values it. Protecting helpless/non-contributing life was happening long before Christianity. Protecting helpless/non-contributing life is seen in almost all vertebrate+ life forms and seems to be a requirement for species advancement. The alligator mother allows its spawn to swim in and out of its mouth for protection, it doesn't eat them even though it could. For instance, could a person with Down's Syndrome be denied protection from murder? As thinking, social beings, we've extended the umbrella of protecting life to members of our species that are functionally disabled, even to the point where they can't take care of themselves. It would be a significantly slippery slope hole in our Social Contract if we started trying to define who can and can't be murdered based upon genetic mutations.
  • takluyver 14y ago
    > The alligator mother allows its spawn to swim in and out of its mouth for protection Protecting offspring, and relatives more generally, is an expected consequence of natural selection. It doesn't require any kind of intelligence, compassion, or even consciousness. Witness the many ways plants invest in protecting their seeds, for example. What's interesting in this context is caring for the elderly, disabled or injured. The article mentions a case where a killer whale with a broken jaw was fed by other members of its pod. As far as I know, this kind of behaviour is only known in a few large mammal species.
    • crusso 14y ago
      Protecting other members of the social group is also an expected consequence of natural selection. Animals form social groups for survival reasons and caring for disabled members is a natural consequence. Wolves lick each others wounds, for example. Although the behavior evidenced by cetaceans is fascinating, it just isn't societally important enough to justify the push by the AAS to recognize them as fundamentally equivalent to people.
      • takluyver 14y ago
        What's interesting is where it appears to go beyond what natural selection would favour - caring for individuals who won't be able to hunt and provide food again. Of course, nothing in biology is that simple. The individuals could have some other use, such as navigational memory. The carers could be gaining reputation, i.e. they'll get more benefits from other members of the group. Or it could be an evolutionary 'accident': the injured or weak individual triggers a response that evolved to restore a productive member of the group, even if it won't work in that case. You can make similar arguments about human altruism. But in some cases, the most simple explanation is a personal relationship between individuals and a sense of compassion. I don't have strong feelings either way about the initiative in the linked article. But I'm fascinated by the questions of consciousness and how we assess it.
• Alex3917 14y ago
  "Especially considering how slippery the definition of 'intelligence' is." I think 'intelligence' represents how slippery all concepts are. Think about the definition of intelligence. According to the most common scientific definition, it's basically the ability to see patterns. The funny thing about that is that the ability to see patterns is basically what makes someone a good scientist, so scientists have defined 'intelligence' to mean having the potential to be good at science. Similarly, if you look at the CIA, intelligence means having information about enemy countries, because that's what makes a good CIA officer. If you were to ask a painter about the definition of intelligence, they'd probably tell you that it has something to do with being good at painting. All words are defined by the types of people who are most likely to spend time thinking about the definition of that word, which means that essentially every concept in the every language is fundamentally biased by the worldview of the sort of person who would spend time thinking about that concept. And since science, logic, and knowledge are fundamentally based on these concepts in terms of looking for what to talk about and measure, I think this may be a serious epistemological problem that leaves humans capped at a certain level in terms of what we can know. This is also why I'm generally skeptical of sites like Less Wrong, as I think the real limits of rationality and human knowledge have almost nothing to do with the 'official' list of logical fallacies that these sites tend to focus on.
  • astrobe_ 14y ago
    So... the definition given by people whose job is doing research on intelligence must be the right one? I took Latin in high school because I liked etymology (and because greek letters were really too weird): From Latin intellegentia ("the act of choosing between, intelligence"), from intellegō ("understand"), from inter ("between") + legō ("choose, pick out, read"). [taken from wiktionnary] So intelligence is the ability to understand, that's all (the etymologic link with dichotomy is beautiful). Now how we understand (and please don't confuse yourself again with "oh yeah but what does 'understand' really mean") is the hard part.
• mistercow 14y ago
  Richard Dawkins wrote a short article a while back arguing exactly this point: http://boingboing.net/2011/06/30/richard-dawkins-on-v.html http://boingboing.net/2011/06/30/richard-dawkins-on-v.html . Of particular interest is his point that it's completely plausible that less intelligent animals would suffer more, in direct contrast to common belief.
• Osmium 14y ago
  We need a metric by which to make these decisions, and intelligence is a good start. But note the logic only works in one direction: if you're intelligent enough, you get these ethical considerations, but if you're not intelligent enough that doesn't mean you don't get these considerations. The Down's Syndrome comment is not relevant to the discussion.
• AJ007 14y ago
  I always saw this question as one of sentience, not intelligence. Certainly there are computers that exceed human levels of intelligence at certain tasks today, but none are sentient. The things that I have been thinking a lot about lately are -- What happens when natural death is reduced by 99% and human levels of intelligence are extended to countless genetically customized biological lifeforms? Do sentient computers that consume non-renewable resources have the right to reproduce and live? Who would enforce either option? I think we are at the early stages of experiencing a paradigm change in human philosophy. In some part, because much of traditional human beliefs simply hold no foundation with reality (religious and otherwise.) Secondly, the things that were distant science fiction now exist or is within reach. The Star Wars/Star Trek view of the future and space travel mere decades later has become archaic. I happened to read "The Age of Spiritual Machines" by Ray Kurzweil over a decade ago. It completely changed my thought process in regards to much of life. (I doubt without it I would have been as strongly convicted about dropping out of college and starting an internet business.) As technology has advanced since then, I believe it has kept my thinking a step beyond where it would have been otherwise. The average person, even equipped with the latest smartphone, is unequipped to deal with these radical changes. Children can no longer look to their parents for patterns on how to live their lives, because their parents lives will not remotely resemble their own. These are very good opportunities for start ups.
  • guard-of-terra 14y ago
    "Children can no longer look to their parents for patterns on how to live their lives" This stands for at least a century when the big shift from the village to the city occured. I'd say it wasn't any less radical than the shifts ahead us. Maybe a bit more radical even.
• gort 14y ago
  > For instance, could a person with Down's Syndrome be denied protection from murder? Since nobody seems to have given a straight answer to this, I will. Someone with Down's Syndrome easily counts as an intelligent being, and is not even close to any borderline. I suppose your question assumes that, since intelligence comes in degrees, any value based on it must also come in degrees. But instead, most people who see personhood this way believe in some sort of threshold above which everyone deserves equal protection.
  • Evbn 14y ago
    OK, is it wrong to kill a stranger in a coma or PVS? They are less intelligent than dogs.
    • gort 14y ago
      People can wake up from coma, I take it. But in cases where damage to the brain is so extensive that we can reasonably say all capacity for future thought has been lost, the primary worry really is just for the wishes of the family. The medical establishment, at least where I live, tends to take the view that there's no intrinsic value in trying to prolong the life of such a body.