But it doesn’t require any justification: it’s an animal, and it’s not accused of having broken any laws.
You’re a human being and not a whale. In fact as far as I know, whales aren’t subject to any laws at all. Speculation about their consciences is a waste of time, and I think casting this as a moral debate, as if the whale was standing up for liberty, is projection. It’s possible the whale was frustrated and lashing out, but I don’t think that’s been confirmed at all.
Well what I thought was interesting as an abstract was that this would be a case where intelligence or lack thereof, self awareness or lack thereof, would swing the case in a direction opposite to the usual one.
If a crocodile eats a baby, it’s not a ‘bad’ crocodile because it is a “mindless animal” and can’t be held accountable. If I eat a baby I’m definetely a ‘bad’ person.
Here we have an action (killing a person) that would if the animal was ‘mindless’ be thought of as somewhat ‘bad’, but assuming the animal is self aware and intelligent, is entirely justifiable.
And since some scientists say dolphins should be treated as “non-human persons” I don’t think it is a nonsense category at all.
No, one *non-*scientist said dolphins should be treated as “non-human persons.” He got quoted in the headline despite being mentioned only in the last sentence of the article, which is poor journalism. He also had no connection to the study and is a professor of ethics, not an expert on dolphins.
A group of scientists said dolphins are very intelligent, can pass some types of tests, and that they may be the most intelligent creatures on earth after the species that invented the Snuggie. Which I’m not going to dispute because I think there’s a very good chance it’s true.
Which is not to say there is no middle ground here - that the whale could not have been irritated and that life at an aquarium did not agree with him. But given the little we know so far, I’m not willing to make assumptions about its motives. And I’m not willing to anthropomorphize the thing by treating it like a freedom fighter based on what may have been an accident. Yes, ethically, this can get interesting and I think we need to be aware of the implications of how we treat any animal, particularly the intelligent ones. I think it’s unethical to use dolphins in war, for example. But I’m not connecting this whale to that debate yet.
Unlike all the other crucial and necessary comments on the SDMB.
I would be very interested to know if what we have here is a freedom-loving, pissed off dolphin who understands humans are its enemy and will try to kill us given the chance. We should also investigate whether its been trained by any Muslim extremists to kill Americans. Perhaps you remember the “Anti-American Eagle” from Our Man Flint, the Cold War documentary.
You’re missing the point. Killer whales don’t kill because they’re angry. They kill because they’re playful. Trainers aren’t allowed into the water with this specific whale, but that’s not because he’s aggressive - it’s because he’s simply too large to safely share a pool with.
Simply put, he doesn’t know his own strength.
Moreover, killer whales, for all their intelligence, occasionally forget things like “humans can’t hold their breath for long”, although by all accounts they do understand the concept. One of the games they play with the trainers is pulling them underwater for a few seconds - much like kids dunking each other in a pool.
That isn’t to say that no trained whale has ever attacked a handler, but it’s an extremely rare occurrence (even among the already rare occurrences of accidental deaths).
The interesting bits for me were the unwillingness to dive under 25m which makes sense if your life has been in a shallow enclosure, as well as a general inability to hunt. From what I can see an improved situation might be possible but a complete return would need some pretty huge resources as the issues faced are likely to be repeated.
The Keiko story is a sad but interesting case. If I may anthropomorphize for just a second, it reminds me of that bit from “The Shawshank Redemption” where the longtime convict, now elderly, is finally released, and finds that he can no longer function in normal society. Obviously, whales aren’t people, and captivity in SeaWorld isn’t nearly the brutalistic existence of a maximum security penitentiary in the 1950s. But we know that orcas as a species are intelligent and social enough that learned behaviors form an important aspect of their lives in the wild - which usually goes hand-in-hand with a sort of behavioral crippling for individuals who not given that opportunity to learn (or who are deprived of social activity for sufficient lengths of time).
It sounds like Keiko either never learned proper orca social and hunting behaviors, or forgot them after a decade of solitude and regularly scheduled feedings. We know from modern developmental and neurological studies that the juvenile mammalian brain is capable of absorbing information that adult brains cannot, including speech patterns and learned behaviors. By the time of his release, it’s very likely that Keiko no longer had the capacity to learn the behaviors that a baby orca might learn from its parent/ podmates. That’s why “freeing Willy” was ultimately a bad idea, and that’s why releasing Tilikum or any of the other orcas still in captivity into the wild is tantamount to a death sentence. They may not kill themselves like Old Brooks, but they simply won’t be capable of doing what wild, adult orcas need to do to survive.
I’m all for stopping the capture of new orcas for replenishment of captive stocks, and I even think there is merit in the idea that continuing to breed the orcas currently in captivity is something that should be discontinued. But let the orcas we have at SeaWorld and elsewhere live out their natural lives in captivity. If you want to make their lives better, petition the non-SeaWorld institutions out their to improve their living conditions (bigger tanks, better care/ feeding, etc). But advocating for their outright release is just misguided.
What I’m trying to do, perhaps not totally successfully, is not make any default assumptions about them. So if people are going to talk about the whales hating doing tricks and how they would rather be dead in the ocean, I’m not going to believe it unless it’s supported.
Fair enough. But we don’t know this animal was miserable- and that leaves out the problem of establishing whether or not an animal can experience suffering.
Um, no. “ballena asesina” means killer whale. A whale that kills. Not that kills whales.
You could make a really walk around case that since they are using “asesina” which means assassin more than it means killer, that they somehow meant that it kills its own but that is really clutching at straws.
Wait. What? You’re not convinced that animals* can experience suffering? And I assume you don’t mean simple animals such as tape worms, since the animal in question here is one of the most advanced mammals.
Are you of the opinion that humans are not animals?
So do we understand now how the trainer was killed? I’m don’t understand how exactly it happened and the articles I’m reading don’t give details. Does it appear to be an accident or a purposeful act by the whale? Was it carelessness by the trainer? Did he attack her or just not notice she was there? Did he bite her?
From the stories I’ve read, it appears it grabbed her in its mouth and dragged her around under water until she drowned. It is unclear if he bit her on her enough to cause serious damage.
I think even this much is speculation, as I haven’t heard anything about results of an autposy yet.
And one story I read says she was sitting at the side of the pool when it grabbed her and dragged her into it.
He seems to have dragged her around the pool either by her pony tail or leg.
He did bite the guy who wandered into his pool years ago, to “swim with the whales!” But I’m not sure if that’s considered less vicious since the guy was a total stranger.
