Recently I mentioned in a thread about apes that there are people out there who believe that great apes deserves the rights of personhood because they are so similar to humans.
I thought it was interesting to find this article which discusses something similar for dolphins: Is a Dolphin a Person?
In spite of how so many people like to think of humanity as being superior to other animals, it seems like we still commit an unbelievable amount of short-sighted, selfish, and animalistic behavior in this world.
Sure, dolphins can have personhood. Hell they can have citizenship for all I care… they just have to go down to City Hall and register for their ID cards first.
We **are **superior to other animals. Other animals couldn’t even have this conversation. Other animals can’t even comprehend morality. Our perceived immorality is irrelevant to our perceived superiority.
Only in certain ways. My dogs are probably contemptuous of our complete inability to comprehend smells. A dolphin’s sonar is believed to let him perceive the organs inside a living fish and give him a 3-d “image” not unlike a medical scan. Animals with near-perfect balance would find us clumsy. Our “superiority” is true mostly when we get to define the contest – and we’ve shown no shame at all in re-defining the contest rules whenever we feel challenged.
The history of scientific literature about intelligence is littered with abandoned standards from times we learned something new and changed the definition of intelligence to exclude the animal we had just learned about…brain size, brain-to-body ratio, cerebral folds, problem-solving, language use, tool use, naming…all examples where the bar was moved when we found out the current “standard” didn’t make us unique enough to feel good about how we treat our neighbors.
Some other animals do have at least some conception of morality, even if it’s not as developed as in humans, and cetacean communication is complex enough that we don’t really know if they’re discussing philosophical concepts.
We ARE however superior the the ways that are relevant to being a “person” however, since the term “person” was defined with a focus on human qualities.
True. An awful lot of people, including scientists who should know better really want to believe in some neat bright line between humans and animals. And want to put animals in the same moral category as vegetables, or objects.
As for me; no, I don’t think that dolphins, apes or any other animal is likely to qualify as a person. But I don’t think that means we should treat them as undeserving of consideration either. I believe there should be a graduated scale of how much moral concern we give animals, according to their emotional/mental complexity, and what kinds of those they have. An insect is basically a meat robot as far as we know; while a chimp probably has most, maybe all the emotions we do if in simpler form. I don’t think things so different belong in the same moral category.
I may be opening a can of worms here but this is something I’ve wanted to discuss on this board for a very long time but have never been brave enough to start a thread about it.
Why do people think that we are superior to other animals?
Growing up I was raised as a Christian, and, as a Christian I was taught that God made us, then the rest of the animal and put us in charge. I can understand someone who believes that thinking that humans are superior to other animals.
But what I can’t understand is someone who believes in Evolution thinking that humans are superior to other animals. How does evolution make humans superior? Because we’re the smartest? A flea can jump 200 times the length of its body. A vulture can fly for 6 hours without even flapping its wings and see things 6 times further than humans can. A sperm whale can hold its breath for two hours. They all do these things naturally, with no mechanical help.
We all come from the same beginnings, we are all made of flesh and bone. So why is Joe Schmoe superior to Lassie simply by virtue of his birth?
I’m very curious why so many people think humans are superior. I know I’m in the minority because I don’t think humans are inherently superior to other animals.
I’m glad that this is in MPSIMS because I’m genuinely curious as to peoples thoughts about this and hope it doesn’t turn into a bunch of name calling.
Let me help (this same explanation works for about half of GD threads): Most words don’t have mathematically precise meanings, adjectives like “superior” particularly so. Since different people define these words differently, they can all be right when they make statements based on their own definition. This has exactly zero convincing power when trying to convince folks who hold a different definition. Hilarity ensues, often going on for several pages.
You can’t base personhood on intellegence because of what it implies.
You’re saying that a creature deserves to be considered a person because it’s smart.
Well about the reverse? What about a baby born with severe mental defects and can barely function. Is that a person or a thing, 'cause, for lack of a better phrase, it’s stupid?
Well if you’re saying something smart should be a person then you are implying that something stupid isn’t.
Of course no one would argue a baby born mentally retarded isn’t a person, but they just might start arguing that.
In addition, call me weird or damaged or something, but I’d prefer the company of the grumpiest dolphin, to that of a lot of the humans I meet in Superior Human Land.
I really hope those of you who are arguing against human superiority are all vegan, because human superiority is really the only thing that justifies you eating animals.
Partly because we are the only ones setting up a standard. Partly because we have become more powerful than other forms of life, and pretending otherwise is foolish; we have to worry about the effects of our actions, and not hope that the otters and geckos are going to get together and reign us in. And partly because we are more emotionally complex than most and intellectually superior to all others, and those are the most morally important aspects of living creatures.
If badly damaged enough, no it’s not a person. The same goes for an adult too. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt in such cases because our understanding of the brain is limited, and we know that being genetically human they have at least the genetic potential to be people. We might be wrong about how bad off they are, so we often play it safe and treat damaged humans who probably aren’t people anymore or never were people, as people.
But if they are badly damaged enough, no they aren’t people. That’s what concepts like “brain death” are all about; the body is alive, but the person is not.
Bollocks. If someone has already killed it, it’d be a shame to waste it. How about those who are producing the handily packaged slices of animal set the example, and start producing alternatives?