3 ms·

Under United States law companies are persons as well, so these definitions are a bit out of date. It's perfectly reasonable to expand the term "person" to app

Under United States law companies are persons as well, so these definitions are a bit out of date. It's perfectly reasonable to expand the term "person" to apply to non humans, companies and orcas alike.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pluma 11y ago
True, but the legal definition of a person and the dictionary definition don't have to agree, so it's important which personhood we're trying to redefine. Should orcas be legal persons? Probably not. They can't give consent and will never be able to, in principle. This is different from a mentally underdeveloped human or a human child because an orca will neither grow up to be able to give consent nor could they reach that capacity as a species (within human timeframes). Could orcas evolve to become legal persons? Maybe, but there isn't any selection pressure guiding them in that direction. We should however acknowledge that "personhood" is not a well-defined requirement for the rights we grant to persons. We should probably extend some of those rights to certain animals independently of whether we can consider them persons or not. They're autonomous and have some form of sentience -- it seems only fair to acknowledge that in how we treat them. That aside, the real debate here is animal rights and what constitutes animal cruelty. Personally I think Sea World is criminally abusive because it is necessarily incapable of holding large water mammals like orcas in captivity in a way that minimizes suffering for them -- the tank size alone could not be large enough for that; the economics just wouldn't work out.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  > because an orca will neither grow up to be able to give consent Conjecture that I do not agree with. Orcas can definitely give consent, it depends on the situation. > nor could they reach that capacity as a species (within human timeframes). More conjecture with which I disagree. Orcas can talk and they can indicate consent already. > there isn't any selection pressure guiding them in that direction. Conjecture. Strongly disagree. > Personally I think Sea World is criminally abusive because it is necessarily incapable of holding large water mammals like orcas in captivity in a way that minimizes suffering for them Finally, something we agree on.
  - pluma 11y ago
    I'm talking about informed, legal consent. A child isn't able to give that, much less any non-human animal.
    - itistoday2 11y ago
      Here's an example of a grizzly expressing non-consent to being caged up: http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-zoo-bear-slams-rock-into-glass-pane-shattering-it-like-a-windshield/311777801/ http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-zoo-bear-slams-rock-int... That is sufficient for me and it should be sufficient for any decent human being. If you require a grizzly or an orca to "sign on the dotted line for informed legal consent", you are a monster, and you are the one who should be caged up.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

pluma 11y ago

True, but the legal definition of a person and the dictionary definition don't have to agree, so it's important which personhood we're trying to redefine. Should orcas be legal persons? Probably not. They can't give consent and will never be able to, in principle. This is different from a mentally underdeveloped human or a human child because an orca will neither grow up to be able to give consent nor could they reach that capacity as a species (within human timeframes). Could orcas evolve to become legal persons? Maybe, but there isn't any selection pressure guiding them in that direction. We should however acknowledge that "personhood" is not a well-defined requirement for the rights we grant to persons. We should probably extend some of those rights to certain animals independently of whether we can consider them persons or not. They're autonomous and have some form of sentience -- it seems only fair to acknowledge that in how we treat them. That aside, the real debate here is animal rights and what constitutes animal cruelty. Personally I think Sea World is criminally abusive because it is necessarily incapable of holding large water mammals like orcas in captivity in a way that minimizes suffering for them -- the tank size alone could not be large enough for that; the economics just wouldn't work out.

itistoday2 11y ago
> because an orca will neither grow up to be able to give consent Conjecture that I do not agree with. Orcas can definitely give consent, it depends on the situation. > nor could they reach that capacity as a species (within human timeframes). More conjecture with which I disagree. Orcas can talk and they can indicate consent already. > there isn't any selection pressure guiding them in that direction. Conjecture. Strongly disagree. > Personally I think Sea World is criminally abusive because it is necessarily incapable of holding large water mammals like orcas in captivity in a way that minimizes suffering for them Finally, something we agree on.
- pluma 11y ago
  I'm talking about informed, legal consent. A child isn't able to give that, much less any non-human animal.
  - itistoday2 11y ago
    Here's an example of a grizzly expressing non-consent to being caged up: http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-zoo-bear-slams-rock-into-glass-pane-shattering-it-like-a-windshield/311777801/ http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-zoo-bear-slams-rock-int... That is sufficient for me and it should be sufficient for any decent human being. If you require a grizzly or an orca to "sign on the dotted line for informed legal consent", you are a monster, and you are the one who should be caged up.