5 ms·

How do you define "participate in society", though, and why does it have to be human society? I'm not deeply invested into these topics (legal or otherwise), b

by sho_hn 12y ago

How do you define "participate in society", though, and why does it have to be human society? I'm not deeply invested into these topics (legal or otherwise), but as your typical 30-year old engineer who grew up on Star Trek, I guess I've always wondered if it's justified to not treat intelligent animals as persons just because they're dumber than us and/or not interested in negotiation. When certain criteria are met (e.g. just from the top of my head, the ability to be sufficiently self-aware to be aware of incarceration and not like it) it seems hard not to. Ultimately it just comes down to competing for living space and picking sides, perhaps.

Natsu 12y ago
I was using their standard, not my own. Personally, I only entertain the notion of personhood with entities which are known to be capable of asserting it themselves. So if Data shows up someday, I'm happy to welcome him. But I'm not going to go into contortions over how intelligent something is or might be unless they're able to pose these questions themselves. I've never been impressed by the 'speciesist' argument, either. I have yet to find a person who has not killed a mosquito, or who is against wiping out deadly diseases and I find the very construction of the word designed to be emotionally manipulative.
- trhway 12y ago
  >I have yet to find a person who has not killed a mosquito, or who is against wiping out deadly diseases do you honestly not see a difference in sentience between mosquito and a chimp?
  - Natsu 12y ago
    Yes, but I also see one between person and chimp. And all such distinctions are, by definition, 'speciesist'.
    - trhway 12y ago
      >And all such distinctions are, by definition, 'speciesist'. not. Recognizing difference in sentience level not necessarily means "specie-ism", for example between a human with severe autism and a "normal" human.
      - Natsu 12y ago
        Humans with autism and those without are the same species. Treating mosquitoes differently from humans is, by definition, speciesist. That's among the reasons I think the concept of speciesism is absurd.
    - Falling3 12y ago
      No they aren't. Speciesism refers to moral distinctions made based solely on the basis of species membership.
      - Natsu 12y ago
        I don't think you'd get very far with such a definition for any other -ism. Moreover, we do things like attempting to wipe out entire organisms (e.g. malaria mosquitoes) simply based on what the average one does, whether or not any particular mosquito would have bitten a human. So you'll have a hard time unless you add lots of special cases to it.
- sho_hn 12y ago
  > Personally, I only entertain the notion of personhood with entities which are known to be capable of asserting it themselves. I think that's an interesting yard stick worth discussing. The problem seems to be to me that it leaves you free to treat a creature as a non-person until it complains, and complains in a way you understand and recognize as asserting personhood. I think that's erring on the side of us making the right call in these matters, and giving the possible ramifications of getting it wrong, I think I'd prefer a more careful approach that doesn't put all of the burden of proof on the creature.
  - Natsu 12y ago
    I believe that any creature capable of asserting personhood would be able to show indicia of moderately advanced civilization. If there were good evidence to be uncertain, I could understand caution. I do not have such evidence regarding chimps. As best I can tell, the studies where they attempted to teach them sign language show otherwise.
- Falling3 12y ago
  > I've never been impressed by the 'speciesist' argument, either. I have yet to find a person who has not killed a mosquito... Self-defense does not invalidate speciesism.
  - Natsu 12y ago
    You can't kill someone for biting you. The disparity in how we perform self defense is speceisist. As are a whole lot of ordinary things that everyone does, which is why I don't buy into the argument to begin with.
    - Falling3 12y ago
      And if someone inserts a needle into you to take your blood and potentially transmits a dangerous disease? If we weren't on the topic of animal rights, there would be no disagreement with the assessment of self-defense.
      - Natsu 12y ago
        That would not generally rise to the level of lethal force. People also kill flies, roaches, etc. and the self defense justification is a lot more flimsy there, particularly when people will preemptively attempt to wipe them out, based on the assumption that they will do bad things... because of their species. Interestingly, that also points to one sort of intelligence. That is to say, you can't assume anything about how a person will behave simply because of what race they are. You can reasonably do so with unintelligent animals (e.g. you can assume a mosquito will bite you, given a chance).
icebraining 12y ago
why does it have to be human society? Because that's what these laws are meant to regulate. Other species also have rules that regulate their own communities.
- sho_hn 12y ago
  I.e. you're saying that legislation regulating how humanity behaves towards non-human creatures inherently doesn't fit in with the concept of person? Seems like sort of a pattern reuse/layering issue to me. Also, given that all species on the planet exist in the same evolutionary tree, I guess I find species distinctions somewhat arbitrary. What's the meaningful biological difference between a chimp and a not very smart human, really? It seems like a lot of the same stuff to me. Why do arguments end at species boundaries? They may be a legally uncooperative population, sure, but that can happen with groups of humans, too. I'm not applying for sainthood here or anything; I'm a meat-eater, and I don't lose sleep at night over it - yet, anyway. But that I don't feel guilty doesn't necessarily make it right; I find these things worth mulling.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    you're saying that legislation regulating how humanity behaves towards non-human creatures inherently doesn't fit in with the concept of person? No, I'm saying that the concept of person is inherently linked to humanity (incl. human society) and therefore non-human creatures are only judged as "people" if they can approximate humanity to some level. The fact that we find it natural that "smart" non-humans like chimpanzees and dolphins are better candidates to being classified as persons is evidence of that: after all, why should smartness/intelligence be the classifier? It's because that's what distinguishes us. Also, given that all species on the planet exist in the same evolutionary tree, I guess I find species distinctions somewhat arbitrary. What's the meaningful biological difference between a chimp and a not very smart human, really? That's like asking what's the meaningful difference in terms of physics between a human and a rock, since we're both bags of carbon. Law simply isn't designed to work at the biological level. It's a social construction.

by sho_hn 12y ago

Natsu 12y ago

I was using their standard, not my own. Personally, I only entertain the notion of personhood with entities which are known to be capable of asserting it themselves. So if Data shows up someday, I'm happy to welcome him. But I'm not going to go into contortions over how intelligent something is or might be unless they're able to pose these questions themselves. I've never been impressed by the 'speciesist' argument, either. I have yet to find a person who has not killed a mosquito, or who is against wiping out deadly diseases and I find the very construction of the word designed to be emotionally manipulative.

trhway 12y ago
>I have yet to find a person who has not killed a mosquito, or who is against wiping out deadly diseases do you honestly not see a difference in sentience between mosquito and a chimp?
- Natsu 12y ago
  Yes, but I also see one between person and chimp. And all such distinctions are, by definition, 'speciesist'.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >And all such distinctions are, by definition, 'speciesist'. not. Recognizing difference in sentience level not necessarily means "specie-ism", for example between a human with severe autism and a "normal" human.
    - Natsu 12y ago
      Humans with autism and those without are the same species. Treating mosquitoes differently from humans is, by definition, speciesist. That's among the reasons I think the concept of speciesism is absurd.
  - Falling3 12y ago
    No they aren't. Speciesism refers to moral distinctions made based solely on the basis of species membership.
    - Natsu 12y ago
      I don't think you'd get very far with such a definition for any other -ism. Moreover, we do things like attempting to wipe out entire organisms (e.g. malaria mosquitoes) simply based on what the average one does, whether or not any particular mosquito would have bitten a human. So you'll have a hard time unless you add lots of special cases to it.
sho_hn 12y ago
> Personally, I only entertain the notion of personhood with entities which are known to be capable of asserting it themselves. I think that's an interesting yard stick worth discussing. The problem seems to be to me that it leaves you free to treat a creature as a non-person until it complains, and complains in a way you understand and recognize as asserting personhood. I think that's erring on the side of us making the right call in these matters, and giving the possible ramifications of getting it wrong, I think I'd prefer a more careful approach that doesn't put all of the burden of proof on the creature.
- Natsu 12y ago
  I believe that any creature capable of asserting personhood would be able to show indicia of moderately advanced civilization. If there were good evidence to be uncertain, I could understand caution. I do not have such evidence regarding chimps. As best I can tell, the studies where they attempted to teach them sign language show otherwise.
Falling3 12y ago
> I've never been impressed by the 'speciesist' argument, either. I have yet to find a person who has not killed a mosquito... Self-defense does not invalidate speciesism.
- Natsu 12y ago
  You can't kill someone for biting you. The disparity in how we perform self defense is speceisist. As are a whole lot of ordinary things that everyone does, which is why I don't buy into the argument to begin with.
  - Falling3 12y ago
    And if someone inserts a needle into you to take your blood and potentially transmits a dangerous disease? If we weren't on the topic of animal rights, there would be no disagreement with the assessment of self-defense.
    - Natsu 12y ago
      That would not generally rise to the level of lethal force. People also kill flies, roaches, etc. and the self defense justification is a lot more flimsy there, particularly when people will preemptively attempt to wipe them out, based on the assumption that they will do bad things... because of their species. Interestingly, that also points to one sort of intelligence. That is to say, you can't assume anything about how a person will behave simply because of what race they are. You can reasonably do so with unintelligent animals (e.g. you can assume a mosquito will bite you, given a chance).

icebraining 12y ago

why does it have to be human society? Because that's what these laws are meant to regulate. Other species also have rules that regulate their own communities.

sho_hn 12y ago
I.e. you're saying that legislation regulating how humanity behaves towards non-human creatures inherently doesn't fit in with the concept of person? Seems like sort of a pattern reuse/layering issue to me. Also, given that all species on the planet exist in the same evolutionary tree, I guess I find species distinctions somewhat arbitrary. What's the meaningful biological difference between a chimp and a not very smart human, really? It seems like a lot of the same stuff to me. Why do arguments end at species boundaries? They may be a legally uncooperative population, sure, but that can happen with groups of humans, too. I'm not applying for sainthood here or anything; I'm a meat-eater, and I don't lose sleep at night over it - yet, anyway. But that I don't feel guilty doesn't necessarily make it right; I find these things worth mulling.
- icebraining 12y ago
  you're saying that legislation regulating how humanity behaves towards non-human creatures inherently doesn't fit in with the concept of person? No, I'm saying that the concept of person is inherently linked to humanity (incl. human society) and therefore non-human creatures are only judged as "people" if they can approximate humanity to some level. The fact that we find it natural that "smart" non-humans like chimpanzees and dolphins are better candidates to being classified as persons is evidence of that: after all, why should smartness/intelligence be the classifier? It's because that's what distinguishes us. Also, given that all species on the planet exist in the same evolutionary tree, I guess I find species distinctions somewhat arbitrary. What's the meaningful biological difference between a chimp and a not very smart human, really? That's like asking what's the meaningful difference in terms of physics between a human and a rock, since we're both bags of carbon. Law simply isn't designed to work at the biological level. It's a social construction.