3 ms·
It always seems weird when people are talking about whether x is a "word", and at the same time changing the definition of the "word" to mean "x". Of course if
by rayalez 11y ago
It always seems weird when people are talking about whether x is a "word", and at the same time changing the definition of the "word" to mean "x".
Of course if we redefine the word "person" to mean something else, orcas can be considered "persons". We can even redefine it in such a way that a chair will be considered a "person" - but should we?
And if, as it currently stands, we have many different definitions, and are not even sure what the word means - of course we will not be sure whether orca is or is not it.
It's the same as with the debate of whether computers can be "conscious". A word is just a label, if nobody clearly understands what it means - conversation about whether or not something can be described by it is pointless.
Having said that, aside from the clickbaity title, article is pretty cool and interesting.
Edit:
Haha, I can't help but imagine that in 30 years human ethics will take another leap, orcas will be deemed sentient, and I will be denied some high status job for such an ignorant and speciest comment. And I'll have to give some apologetic speech "I deeply regret that I held such unenlightened beliefs, I profoundly apologize to the orca rights community, but I'd like to state for the record that I had a horrible day, and did not mean at all to offend the feelings of this oppressed minority by comparing them to furniture." And then the orca judge will sentence me to 10 years of eating algae of shame or something(a proper punishment as their sophisticated culture requires).
- boomlinde 11y agoWell, it's clear from reading the article that Lori Marino thinks that actually using the word "person" -- in acknowledging that it might not be the right word -- is secondary to granting killer whales and other animals some of the rights and privileges associated with personhood on the basis of their capacity for emotion, intelligence and empathy. In that sense, the idea isn't pointless but actually would have practical implications, as much as the abolition of slavery wasn't simply a matter of definition.
- dasil003 11y agoChanging the definitions of words is just part of how human language fulfills its goals of communicating any idea to anyone at any time. Think about how intractable some of these refactorings would be if you were trying to code them formally in computer programming language.
- liviu- 11y agoI sometimes feel that HN tends to be a bit too strict in regards to what counts as clickbait title. The title is very much summing up the issue analysed in the article.
- derefr 11y agoIn this case, I don't think they're arguing about whether killer whales fit into any existing definition of the word; they're asking whether we should change the definition. (Or, in two smaller steps, whether usage is shifting in such a way that a new definition is required; and whether that shift is a sensible and informed one, or one borne out of misinformation.)
- toothbrush 11y agoHaha, i for one welcome our orca overlords and would rather be on the right side of history! All hail orcas! But all kidding aside, i do have appreciation for arguments against anthropocentrism, or at least suppositions of human superiority. Sure, there's a spectrum regarding to how “intelligent” (read: advanced faculties of empathy, planning, language, etc.) different species seem to be in general, but i definitely believe we as humans are very much on the bad side of the spectrum regarding how we treat non-humans. We have a long way to go yet. Locking up animals in zoos, through to slaughtering them for food after a life of misery, all don't seem to me behaviours befitting a species which calls itself empathic and intelligent. As somebody wise once said, a society should be judged on how it deals with its weakest members. But yeah, i guess the article is preaching to the choir in my case, since i would be in favour of more protection of non-human rights, not only for orcas (presumably rather high on the intelligence scale) but also for most non-humans we use for food, medical trials, etc. Whether that means they should be granted personhood, however, seems a tricky question, which i assume is best fought out by lawyers. The thing is, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that probably entails many responsibilities and prohibitions (e.g., no killing each other) which would simply be impractical/absurd (having said that, i like the idea lower down in the thread, that inter-species violence could be considered in a similar fashion to crimes outside of a given jurisdiction). Still, if not personhood, i would at the very least be in favour of universal rights for all sentient beings (ha, i hear you now, what is the cut-off for sentience? Mice? Flies? Earthworms? Bacteria? This is a hypothetical and hand-wavy argument)—they should not be kept in zoos against their will, and (more pertinently) not be killed for our sustenance/experiments/gratification. Basically, they should not be property. ...but none of that seems to be very broadly underwritten by society at large. One can dream, i guess.