Should dolphin/whale killers be prosecuted as murderers?

[Cetacea]

The brain on the right belongs to the bottle nose dolphin. Forty-percent larger than the human brain, with all of the additional brain mass occurring in the cerebral cortex, the area whose presence essentially separates man from the great apes. While man and the great apes share ninety-seven percent of their genes, it is the dolphin brain that most closely resembles the human brain.
But their impressive brains only tell part of the story, and the writers conclusion is based in part on recent findings that conclude that dolphins are at least second in intelligence to humans (the jury is still out as whether or not their intelligence rivals that of man).
Research into this matter has been tedious and largely unfunded. The communication and logistical barriers are enormous, and the government has shown little interest in investing in a Nasa-like program.

Link to "Dolphin Persons"
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1279

Full essay:

Thomas I. White argues that the sea is full of persons who are not humans



"...If we translate this general idea into a more specific list of criteria, we arrive at something like the idea that a person (1) is alive, (2) is aware, (3) feels positive and negative sensations, (4) has emotions, (5) has a sense of self, (6) controls its own behaviour, and (7) recognises other persons and treats them appropriately. A person also (8) has a variety of sophisticated cognitive abilities. It is capable of analytical, conceptual thought. A person can learn, retain and recall information. It can solve complex problems with analytical thought. And a person can communicate in a way that suggests thought.

How do dolphins match up against these criteria? Dolphins are animals, so they are obviously alive (1). Dolphins are also certainly aware of their external environments (2). Dolphins are universally placed high on the biological ladder, and the fact that they are aware of the external world and able to interact with it is apparent from the way they handle the demands of living in the ocean and from the simple fact that they can be so easily trained. There’s little doubt that their behaviour suggests a significant level of awareness.


From a philosophical perspective, the simplest way to talk about ethics is this. Judgements about the ethical character of actions ultimately are based on two principles: “do no harm” and “treat others appropriately”. In the first, we’re looking at the tangible results that come from an action; in the second, we’re looking at the character of the actions themselves. In order to be ethically acceptable, an action can violate neither principle. Humans claim that our actions towards each other must respect these principles because of the nature of who we are – specifically, the nature of the unique, individual consciousness that each of us possesses. However, if dolphins are “nonhuman persons”, that is, if dolphins have an analogous unique, individual consciousness, these same principles need to be observed in our dealings with them. Hence, it’s wrong to treat them as objects and property.

Dolphins are persons with an intrinsic worth and dignity.

Thomas I. White is the Conrad N. Hilton Chair of Business Ethics at Loyola Marymount University and the author of In Defense of Dolphins: The New Moral Frontier (Wiley-Blackwell)

[stray cat]

1. How about fetuses? Are they less human?

[and-justice-for-all]

3. Fetusus are no less human...

however, there are many reasons which are justifible to abort that fetus. It is not murder if that fetus in the womb is already dead or has sever malformations which will cause it die shortly after birth anyway or not live a proper life.

and yes, killing Dophins and Whales to me, is murder.

[Bluebear]

77. Are you anti-choice? nt

[RugbyGod]

82. I am guessing

but I think the poster is saying it is ironic that liberals could be so concerned about dolphins due to their intelligence level yet still subscribe to choice as a position.

And if we were to call the killing of dolphins murder, then are the anti choice people who call abortion murder wrong?

I am pro choice btw. Just an interesting pickle.

[Bluebear]

97. Bye bye now.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

88. Feh. You misunderestimate him.

He bats 1.000.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

87. Until at least the fifth month, yes. -nt

[Cerridwen]

96. Human fetuses or dolphin fetuses?

Or are you trying to confuse the issue by comparing human fetuses to dolphins and whales?

[HopeHoops]

2. People who still think of ocean mammals as "fish" will never understand the argument.

Whales predate even the earliest ancestors of humans. We are their only predator. Fuck, I teared up just posting this.

[Cetacea]

4. Considering how we discriminate among one another

getting past the visual and habitat differences is an enormous barrier to be overcome.

[HopeHoops]

9. C-SPAN just had a "Republican callers only" session and the racism was beyond disgusting.

Crooks & Liars has a rundown of some of the worst offenders.

[me b zola]

5. K&R

[Llewlladdwr]

6. No.

The concept of murder simply does not apply to animals.

[sudopod]

29. Why do you say that?

The Bible doesn't count as an answer, lol.

Here's a question in a similar vein. Say we go out into the universe one day and discover intelligent life on another world. Would it be murder to exterminate the fuck out of any aliens we encounter if they are delicious and have the temerity to live on top of our dilithium deposits?

[Llewlladdwr]

43. No, it would not be murder.

Murder has a very specific definition and refers to the unlawful killing of one human being by another. Legally, I think your hypothetical extra-terrestrial race would be considered wild animals without any human rights at all, especially if they were non-sentient or non-technological.

[sudopod]

45. I don't think I want to be within your reach.

You might decide that I'm not human, then all bets are off.

[Llewlladdwr]

50. A simple DNA test would resolve the issue.

But why do you feel I might arbitrarily decide you aren't human? Our species is pretty easy to identify with nothing more than the naked eye. Do you have a difficult time identifying other humans?

[sudopod]

54. Oh, now there's a whole new can of worms.

It's like pornography. "I'll know it when I see it." lol

Seriously though, just where do you set the genetic goal posts that define what is human and what is not? How do you measure the difference? How do you quantify the difference?

Similar arguments are made by very smart people (who I would not wish to be around) that claim that people with, say, Trisomy 23 are not people in the legal sense. Tying humanity to genetics...that's a very dark and crooked road that I want to stay far away from.

[Llewlladdwr]

56. So then, how do YOU define who is a person?

If not by genetics, then what's your criteria? Where do you put your goalposts? All roads get dark and crooked at some point along the way.

I believe that if a critter has homo sapiens DNA then it's human, otherwise it's not. A legal definition of human DNA could be developed fairly easily, and I would be willing to accept males with an extra X chromosome as human.

Bottom line is you have to define person somehow. And dolphins don't fit the current definition.

[sudopod]

60. I would say any group capable of claiming their rights,

and any individuals that they recognize as their own.

That way we cover all of currently-accepted humanity, including the handicapped and disabled who might not otherwise be able to claim their rights, and who might be excluded under a genetic test (depending on who designed the test). It would also cover any other intelligences we might encounter, whether they be terrestrial, alien, or machine. There is no stamp on the bottom of our feet that says we are human, yet we all agree that depriving someone of rights unfairly is wrong and to be avoided. Therefore, it is only sensible to draw the boundaries of wider "humanity" as far as possible, because the cost is small and the returns are morally substantial.

[Llewlladdwr]

63. I would agree with the proposition that ...

any species (or other non-homo sapiens group) capable of resisting our dominion, whether by force of arms or other means, would qualify as 'people'. That's simply acknowledging reality. But cetaceans aren't that group. They have no technology, no culture, and no discernible language. As intelligent as they might be they're still only animals, they don't have rights and killing one isn't murder. Stretching the bounds of person-hood to include species with which we cannot communicate in any meaningful way just doesn't seem rational to me.

[sudopod]

64. If being able to resist dominion via force of arms is a test of "personhood"

Then there are large swathes of the world that don't have very many "people" in them.

Also, they don't seem to speak any language that I can discern. Plus, they're living on my oil/gold/etc.

See where this sort of thinking leads? Is the alternative of being cautious so horrible?

[Cetacea]

65. Actually, they do have a culture and they probably have a language

In fact it is possible that they communicate more information than us and at faster speeds.
Regarding resisting us, we really don't know if they are. Being "nice" to us may be part of their resistance. As they are the only "animal" that actually seeks out humans to interact with them, they are probably quite knowledgeable about humans. (they can, after all, "see that our brains are very similar to their own).
You are still thinking of them as animals rather than intelligent equals.

[cbayer]

7. Cetacea,

Please be advised that our posting rules require that you limit copyrighted material to four paragraphs or less with a link to the original source.

Thanks,

cbayer
DU Moderator and huge dolphin advocate

[Cetacea]

11. Thank you.

I have adjusted the post. :)

[NightWatcher]

8. I prefer the company marine mammals to most people

and I love my job as a Marine Endangered Species Observer. Today I'm actually watching for manatee and sea turtles around, but the water temp is 54, thus no activity. I do get to observe and document the same 6-8 dolphins each morning when they come for breakfast.

Prosecute killers as murders? I dunno, but the fines/penalties for harassing them are pretty severe on their own. More marine mammals are killed by boating accidents and as last year by cold weather. Education and conservation are the keys to their protection.

[Cetacea]

12. Good points. But consider the practices in Japan and Denmark.

Inhumane for any animal....

[TheKentuckian]

10. Yup and elephants too

[RSillsbee]

13. It's been said, animals do not equal humans, no. NT

[Cetacea]

14. Did you read the essay?

[RSillsbee]

62. Yes

Animals do not equal humans, no.

[Cetacea]

67. That is why their status need to be elevated.

Thinking of them as animals is the core of the problem.

[RSillsbee]

76. They ARE animals

To be clear I'm totally against whaling of any kind. I also worked for several years in a Zoo In Fla. I am an animal lover to the core burt animals are not human and they don't have equal rights.

I'm sorry but I'm just not able to agree w/you on this

[sudopod]

33. Well, we would say that, wouldn't we? nt

[RSillsbee]

80. That's true

That said, as long as I'm at the top of the food chain I will do every thing in my power to stay there. Sorry

[petronius]

15. No. Protection for threatened species, and requirements for humane treatment

across the board, but murder is a specific concept referring to certain killings of humans by humans...

[Shandris]

16. I'm all for protection, humane treatment, and vigorous prosecution of...

...those who break the respective laws to the fullest extent OF that law. If the law is not strong enough, then I am in favor of strengthening the law.

However, you cheapen the concept of murder when you try to spread it around. Perhaps this topic could be revisited when dolphins exhibit the number one characteristic that divides 'person' from 'animal' -- the creation of tool. Solving complex problems is not enough. The creation of an item to facilitate that solution, on the other hand, is.

My $0.02, of course.

[Cetacea]

19. Thanks for your comment

I'm not sure that the concept of murder is cheapened when it is extended to a species such as the cetaceans. They appear to be an exception.

Tool making is only one aspect of the criteria of intelligence. While they have demonstrated tool usage, they are obviously restricted due to lack of hands. In other areas of the criteria they supersede humans (ie, long term survival/adaptability; rate of brain maturity; age of self-awareness; etc...)

It could also be argued that tool-making reflects a weakness in the sense that we need to build things that evolution has already supplied to dolphins. (the need for x-rays and ultrasound machines, for instance)

[KamaAina]

51. Wonder what would happen if someone gave them the assistive technology

that people without hands (or use of their hands) use.

[Cid_B]

100. This whole 'argument'...

... reminds me of this.

[AlienGirl]

115. Chimps, crows, ravens, and parrots are all tool-making species. nt

[flvegan]

17. *should* they?

Ethically, I can see the argument. I don't know that I'd stop at dolphins/whales though. White's criteria would dictate an awful lot more species be included in that list.

That said, the killers of dolphins and/or whales will go unprosecuted no matter. The human race is the most selfish to ever exist. WE decide what value other beings have (we even did that with some of our own...still do, matter of fact).

Now since there is no way/no one to prosecute those that kill dolphins and/or whales, I gladly give my money to Sea Shepherd and thank the heavens for Agenda 21.

[Llewlladdwr]

47. "The human race is the most selfish to ever exist"?

This statement doesn't make any sense. Of course no other species is as selfish as ours. Creatures that have no moral sense CAN'T be selfish. To say that the only species on the planet capable of being selfish is the most selfish species on the planet is a tautology.

[flvegan]

49. I do beg pardon for omitting the word "species"

I'll hire a proofreader for my future posts straight away.

[Llewlladdwr]

52. I'm not concerned about that.

I'm just not understanding how saying the only species capable of being selfish is the most selfish species actually provides any useful information.

[flvegan]

57. Sorry to hear that.

I disagree with your assertion. Appears we'll continue to do so.

[yawnmaster]

18. definitely no. eom

[Poll_Blind]

20. Should dolphins who rape be charged as rapists? Dolphins frequently rape, gang-rape and torment...

...female members of their pod or other dolphin species, especially bottle-nose dolphins who are very agressive.

Dolphin Rape
Dolphin Gang Rape & Harassment

PB

[Cetacea]

27. They don't attack humans.

Regarding that infamous Nat Geo special, it's chock full of "yellow journalism", if you will.
And what they do among themselves is there business.

[Poll_Blind]

38. BTW, from your original unedited response it's clear you didn't watch the videos I posted.

Then in this edited version you realized your assumption was wrong and slam National Geographic as "Yellow Journalism".

I find that allegation weak and unpersuasive as an argument. As though National Geographic has some big conspiracy against bottlenose dolphins. :crazy:

"And what they do among themselves is there business."

Maybe they're animals, not people? People are not allowed to kill their young, rape, torment, etc- and all of those things are common especially among higher-functioning mammals (for instance, the bottle nose dolphins or chimpanzees).

I think you would just like the killers of dolphins to be treated as murders, and haven't bothered to in any way think the implications of your desire past the end of your nose.

PB

[Cetacea]

41. You tube has a woman being "raped" by dolphins. Same title.

"Dolphin rape". Hostile much?
I like the crazy eyes, too. Very bright way to make a point. If you'd listened to you own video the narrator also mentioned that they are among the fewy animals aside from humans that kill for reasons other than hunger. Score another reason why they are similar to humans. How is your nose, btw?
Did the Nat Geo special mention that the spotted dolphin has a small brain? How do humans treat the retarded?
The Geo special is hysterical. It is yellow journalism because it makes assumptions based on limited observations. A money maker.

I still do not see dolphins murdering and raping people. So what is your point? I am sure dolphins deal with their own as they see fit.

proudly edited

[sudopod]

46. And even if they did do that, people murder and rape people all the time.

Some people are bad people, whether they have hands or not. nt

[Llewlladdwr]

55. I think the point is that dolphins are not people.

Thus killing one might be a tragedy but certainly isn't a murder.

[Doremus]

42. You might want to watch the videos you link to.

The one labeled Dolphin Rape is nothing of the sort.

[Catherina]

21. Yes. Recommended. n/t

:hi:

[Cetacea]

39. Hi!

:) :hug:

[Occam Bandage]

22. Only if dolphins themselves can be brought before judges and charged with crimes. nt

[yawnmaster]

23. Changing my vote to yes.... as long as the judge, prosecutor and jury are all dolphins/whales...

And as long as dolphins/whales are held to the same standard.

[yawnmaster]

24. clarification...the jury can be a mix of humans and dolphins. eom

[Bucky]

28. Nice post, George C. Scott

I can just see the hung jury: 4 votes for guilty, 4 votes for innocent, and 4 votes for Pha Love Pa.

[Cetacea]

36. A prophetic movie.

Putting aside the scenes of dolphins speaking poor English through their blowholes, the plot turned out to be rather prophetic given the later recruitment of dolphins into the Navy. And dolphins have tried to mimic human sounds through their blowholes.

[Dr. Strange]

30. 12 Angry Manatees

Starring Will Smith and Kevin Bacon

[Bucky]

32. Counsel will now present their FIN-ishing arguments

[Dr. Strange]

37. Tuna in next week to find out the verdict!

[11 Bravo]

86. But can a 14 year old dolphin be tried as an adult?

[KurtNYC]

113. In Florida, yes.

[JonLP24]

25. Very interesting and informative post. Rec.

However I always understood "murder" to be unlawful killing of another human. So I say 'no' to the question.

[Bucky]

26. According to Melville, whale's mighty good eatin'

Don't know about dolphins. Seems like they'd be kind of gamy.

[Cetacea]

31. Ha.

I hear that rednecks are, too.

[yawnmaster]

34. depend on what brand of chew they've been using. eom

[Desertrose]

35. K&R

So much we don't know...or refuse to look at.

Thx for this post Cetacea. :)

[Cetacea]

75. Thank you.

I'm glad that you enjoyed it!

[closeupready]

40. No.

n/t

[Kaleva]

44. No. Nonetheless, an interesting OP. Rec'd

[Sheepshank]

48. Forget the brain

The pig that ran into my car last night has facial features that could easily compete with that of the bottle nose dolphin. And he had the nerve to tell the PD I ran a red light. Good thing for witnesses. I don't know if doing now what was the question?

[KamaAina]

53. Dolphins can use computers

researchers at Sea Life Park on O'ahu rigged up a special touch screen divided into quadrants that the dolphins could activate with their rostrums ("beaks"), sort of like giant icons. The killer app in the dolphin world: video of other dolphins, especially those that had been rotated out of Sea Life Park to a dolphin lagoon at a hotel closer to town.

This makes them at least as intelligent as FReepers. :P

[pitohui]

58. no that's just silly

most animals are persons w. an intrinsic worth & dignity, however, murder is the killing of a member of your own species

killer a dolphin or whale for food is maybe not nice but it is not murder

each chicken i have owned is a person w. its own personality and outlook on life and its own desire to live, nonetheless, that don't make killing a chicken murder...it just means we need to do it humanely and w respect for the fact that they're giving their life for ours

if you base whether it's murder on IQ you are opening up a huge can of worms, for instance, why isn't it OK for me to arrange to have myself killed if i develop dementia in later life (as i would actually like to be able to do), why is infanticide wrong when the brain is not yet developed, why is it wrong to put to sleep those who have a severe brain injury or developmental disease? it ain't based on how much brain you have, it's based on whether or not you are human, NOT whether or not you are a "person"

all of my pets are persons w. individual personalities and most of them frankly are more worthwhile to be around than most human beings i know...still if my pet is old and in pain, i can put my pet to sleep, if my neighbor is old and in pain, i have to just let him suffer


that's the law of the land and the way the majority wants it

[sudopod]

61. " that's the law of the land and the way the majority wants it"

Oh brother...

[underseasurveyor]

59. YES YES YES they should

Nope, don't care to hear the details. If someone kills a dolphin or whale....harpoon the bastids :evilgrin:

I just adore these sentient beings :loveya:

[RegieRocker]

66. Same ol same ol

Ever notice that you never hear about the horrors that befall a mole by the hands of a homeowner? It has to be good looking, smart or both right?

[Cetacea]

70. A mole is an animal.

Not that I would ever kill one, or any other mammal. There is a very good scientific basis for removing dolphins and whales from that group,ie "animals", that humans feel superior to and are inclined to treat in inhumane ways.

[RegieRocker]

84. No a mole is a mammal

look it up.

[Cetacea]

89. Ah, but does it periodically seek and rescue humans?

Does any other wild animal voluntarily seek out humans for play, stimulation, or to occasionally rescue? I suspect the reason that dolphins do is because they sense a certain kinship with humans. And they can "see" through our skulls and measure our RAM.

[RegieRocker]

90. Oh...ok

[Cetacea]

92. Hi

Google computers sometime.

[Cid_B]

99. I think the point is that ...

... if this could do Calculus there still wouldn't be much of a clamor to claim it human. Gotta be cute....



Dolphins and Whales are many things but they aren't human and killing them isn't murder. *Trying so hard not to make use of the word DUH*

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

105. Ah, forget this pointless animal rights argument. They repealed DADT! Celebrate!

:woohoo:

[Cetacea]

107. Congratulations!!!. And thanks for kicking the pointless thread.

Don't let the cognitive dissonance hit you on the way out.:rofl:

:party:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

108. Thing are not what they seem. Will PM you shortly.

[Cetacea]

111. Thank you.

I must say that the senate vote took me by surprise!



:toast: :woohoo:

[Cid_B]

116. You are a lovely dirtbag...

... but we are going to have to stop meeting like this. You may not have noticed but you seem to have replied to a surprisingly high number of my posts.

Quite the koinkeedink, eh?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

117. Go to this thread and relax.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x41786

[jillan]

68. YES!!!!! Dolphins are amazing mammals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q

Here is a great site about dolphins.
http://www.dolphins-world.com/

[Cetacea]

74. I think of those vortex rings as "smoke signals".

Thanks for the links!

[Throd]

69. If a person is as dumb as a cow, can I kill him?

Would I then have to eat him? Waste not, want not.

[Cetacea]

72. A cow is an animal.

And no, I wouldn't. But that is my own preference.

[AmandaMae]

71. Yes. It's speciesism to assume humans are the only ones with rights.

read Tom Regan, "Empty Cages" or some Peter Singer if you aren't familiar with the ideas behind speciesism.

[flvegan]

73. Agreed.

Careful, though...mentioning Peter Singer around here can get iffy quickly.

Haven't seen you around much before. A much belated Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Countdown_3_2_1]

78. The problem is other animals are unable to demand their own rights.

When a human speaks for the animal it looks bogus. false.
Advocates don't help, and they could never convince a jury that they were speaking for an animal.
When an animal speaks a recognized language, then and only then will it be a crime to kill it.

Brain size means nothing. >>The animal needs to speak for itself.

If you want to help them, invest in the speech research going on right now.

[RegieRocker]

85. I would agree with that

I don't feel that because a animal etc is pretty that it is the only one that should be protected.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

79. No, marine mammals are not people.

Murder is a criminal charge reserved for a class of HOMICIDES (the killing of a human). By definition, marine mammals are not Homo-Sapiens. Therefore, killing a marine mammal cannot qualify as homicide or, by extension under the rule of law, be prosecuted as "murder".

librul-bleeding-heart FAIL.

[Cetacea]

81. Some marine mammals are persons. Sorry.

I can't ignore the science. If not murder, then a charge just shy of it.

[aikoaiko]

102. But you didn't cite science -- you cited philosophy.

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. No. They're not people. Some things really are that simple.

Should killer whales be imprisoned for life, or should Willy get the death penalty?

[aikoaiko]

91. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

still true.

[Cetacea]

93. We tend to not treat mammals like fish

Which might be part of the problem, as there are still people who apparently think that dolphins do not feel pain.
We certainly do not bleed primates to death, no less entire families of them.

[harun]

94. No, but they shouldn't kill them.

[Recovered Repug]

95. If a dolphin is killed

by a killer whale, is the killer whale a murderer?

[CrawlingChaos]

98. It should be a crime of the highest order

Your article was fascinating, and makes it all the more horrifying to reflect on how these amazing creatures are treated by humans.

[quaker bill]

101. No

But if they are in violation of a law that prohibits this killing, they should be prosecuted. People have gone to prison for harrassing and/or killing protected species. I fully support such enforcement and occasionally have even helped.

[Silent3]

103. Make killing dolphins a crime? Yes. Completely equivalent to murder of a human? No.

Even setting aside the use of the word "human" in the typical definition of murder, and being willing to consider the substitution "person" or "sentient being" or the like to broaden the definition, I can't see dolphins as the legal equivalent of humans unless there were a substantially greater cultural interaction between humans and dolphins, such that dolphins themselves were capable, even if only theoretically, of participation in the legal system that enforces laws against murder, i.e. dolphins could press charges, make arrests, testify in court, serve on juries, advocate for the defense or the prosecution, judge cases, hear appeals, carry out incarceration and/or execution, etc.

Murder has a legal dimension as well as a moral dimension. Real or perceived "moral equivalence" is not sufficient to create or recommend legal equivalence.

You only have to look at how gray an area defining murder or its moral equivalent among humans is to see that automatic extension of the same legal protections which humans enjoy to other species based on criteria such as brain size, intelligence, emotional capacity, etc., is no clear-cut matter.

Here's one common definition of murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"

How do you define "unlawful"? According to whose laws? In war, one side's justified killing for reasons of self defense can be seen as murder from the other side of the conflict.

If the technicalities of the law make it possible for a powerful or politically connected person to get away with killing another person without legal repercussions, if that killing is technically legal, is it still "murder" in the sense of a violation of "moral law", or as a violation of an abstract sense of what the law "should be", discounting the effects of corrupting influences on an established legal framework?

The very fact that it currently requires humans to stand up for rights of dolphins, that dolphins themselves cannot be their own advocates for human recognition, points to a real and substantial divide between the two species. Within our legal system there is a protector/protectee, guardian/ward relationship, with dolphins only ever on the protectee/ward side of that relationship. Dolphins may have fewer rights and protections under human law, but they also have no obligations under that law.

Some questions I think you'd have to be able to answer before killing of dolphins could ever be classified as "murder": Would dolphins, if they could understand the concept of murder, prohibit it between themselves? Impose penalties on each other? Punish fellow dolphins for the killing of humans as well as dolphins? Do dolphins mourn the loss of other dolphins as intensely as humans often mourn the loss of fellow humans?

As a practical matter, regardless of how any of us personally feel about the killing of dolphins, I don't think the legal systems of current human cultures (save perhaps a few tiny and obscure bands living in pre-industrial conditions) are anywhere close to granting non-human animals equivalent legal status to a humans, making the whole issue purely hypothetical as best.

[Cetacea]

104. Thank you.

Here's one common definition of murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"

This fact alone has been addressed by others and clearly answers my question with a resounding "no".

I would have to agree that dolphin-killing humans cannot be charged with "murder". I do support stronger international protection and elevating their status. While I am personally against killing all animals, the way in which large numbers of dolphins are killed and the real possibility that they feel pain comparable to our own calls for granting them special rights and status. I hope that you don't mind if I address some of your questions with some facts and theories that I feel support such a change.


"Some questions I think you'd have to be able to answer before killing of dolphins could ever be classified as "murder": Would dolphins, if they could understand the concept of murder, prohibit it between themselves? Impose penalties on each other? Punish fellow dolphins for the killing of humans as well as dolphins? Do dolphins mourn the loss of other dolphins as intensely as humans often mourn the loss of fellow humans?"

It appears that all cetaceans, including killer whales, are prohibited(?) from killing humans in the wild. We do not know if they have an ethical code that forbids the killing of humans, or if it is "merely" a matter of excellent impulse control as a result of an extremely large frontal lobe. It could very well be a combination of the two. And they could very well feel a sense of kinship with their landlocked neurological cousins.

Dolphins are extremely social and have lifelong bonds. They can also become extremely bonded with humans (but no other species)
Groups of dolphins will aid a sick or dying dolphin in concerted fashion, such as taking turns keeping the blow hole above the surface of the water. I'm tempted to refer to them as being rather "socialistic" in their displays of interdependence.

I may be wrong but I do not believe there is any evidence of one bottle-nose dolphin killing others. Violence seems to occur much less than it does in humans, however they do punish one another, and they will punish humans who mishandle them. (They also take special care in how they handle pregnant women and children).

It has been observed that female dolphins stop eating and die after the loss of their young.
During the yearly slaughters in Japan, their blood pressure gets extremely high and they emit loud whistles once they realize that they have been trapped, and this increases as they are slowly bleeding to death, with death in some cases taking up to twenty-four hours.
Although it is currently impossible to measure just how much they suffer relative to humans, based again on the presence of a huge cerebral cortex (and spindle cells) it is very likely that their perception of loss is comparable to that in humans and possibly exceeds it.

"As a practical matter, regardless of how any of us personally feel about the killing of dolphins, I don't think the legal systems of current human cultures (save perhaps a few tiny and obscure bands living in Prue-industrial conditions) are anywhere close to granting non-human animals equivalent legal status to a humans, making the whole issue purely hypothetical as best."



I do not believe that a charge of "murder" can be applied to the killing of cetaceans. That being the case, I believe that based on even the limited knowledge we have that cetaceans be given special status. Doing so would prompt more research; consolidate the knowledge base; educate those who routinely kill them; and so forth. I would think that education alone would bring the number of brutal killings down.
I routinely hear people confusing dolphin fish with dolphin mammals. (eg, "I had a dolphin sandwich in Florida! I'll never eat another dolphin!") It is widely accepted that fish feel little pain, and they are nearly universally accepted as an ethically sound food source.
I think that we do - to use another legal term - "discriminate" against dolphins based on their physical appearance, their habitat, their method of communication, and even their brainy status. I think that the phrase "aliens of the oceans" is very appropriate. I suspect that if a group of people began killing thousands of primates in ways that dolphins are routinely killed that the resulting outcry would put an immediate halt to the practice. This is one reason why the tendency to highlight the cetacean brain is important. On a strictly visual level the similarities with our own brains reduces the tendency to discriminate.
As far as their contributions to our culture go, please consider the following: they delight endless numbers of children and adults; they stimulate intellectual discourse and scientific research; they save human lives; they aid our military; they participate and aid humans in food herding; they are being used in increasing numbers for psychological/healing purposes.
With them we can potentially learn more about: the environment; evolution; neurology; consciousness and psychology; x-ray and ultra-sound technology; communications; sound and vision; medicine; deep ocean research, and last but not least, how to make underwater bubble rings that do not rise to the surface. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q&feature=player_embedded

Thank you for your informative and lengthy response!

"This is what you get when you try to pretend that reality is a 'worldview'." -- PZ Myers
"The case against intellect is founded upon a set of fictional and wholly abstract antagonisms..." -- R. Hofstadter

[micraphone]

114. It appears that all cetaceans, including killer whales, are prohibited(?) from killing humans in the

You are right to postulate with this. It is not really arguable that dolphins, and all cetaceans, are WAY more advanced,in evolutionary terms, than humans.

Whales entered the water roughly 50 million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale

"Lucy", found by Prof Louis Leakey in Africa, was dated a scant 4 million years ago.

We are so arrogant. Look at their BRAINS! These creatures are SO much more developed than we are so they KNOW we are empathetic "children" in evolutionary terms. Why else would their protect us in THEIR element??? They know kin, they can see our brain - and it's not as good as theirs - after all they have been developing theirs for 100+ times longer!

We dare to treat these companions on our Earth with arrogance (we can KILL them!) - when they do everything they can to save us.

From ourselves I think. Will we ever learn?

Sometimes I think it's not worth it. Leave to them. If they survive us.

[Cetacea]

120. Thanks for your post.

We didn't give up when marriage was between a man and a woman and blacks were 3/5 human. I appreciate your sentiment though.

[Generic Brad]

106. Only if monkey killers get the same treatment

IMHO.

[Godhumor]

109. Absolutely not. n/t

[Nailzberg]

110. Dolphins have big brains. Big, tasty brains.

[Odin2005]

112. Absolutely.

[Taitertots]

118. Charging fishermen as murders. Ever wonder why people view animal activists as extremists?

Well you don't need to wonder anymore.

[Cetacea]

121. Ever wonder why it took so long for civil rights? Gay rights?

Well we needn't wonder any more. Seems to me that even certain humans weren't believed to be persons, either. Makes it that much more acceptable to kill them. Oh, and let's not forget that marriage is between man and a woman.
Def

Apparently it's extreme activism when science poses troubling ethical problems. All definitions after fixed for eternity. Dolphins are fish. Whales eat sailors. The earth is flat. Humans are the only game in town. Animals do not feel pain as much as humans. Animals don't think. The cure for mental illness is to remove the frontal lobe. The cure for being human is lobotomy.
I'll stick with activism.
Evolution's a bitch.

[Cetacea]

119. My op does not represent the views of the linked author

If you haven't read the essay, the writer ponders the question of whether or not dolphins should be considered as persons. He concludes that they ought to be, a view reflected by experts in the field of cetacean intelligence. It is a view that I agree with.
Thank you all for your contributions !