Save the Dolphins?
- Thread starter Lene
- Start date
Jeff the Green
Member
Despite the less than civil tone, Yum has a point. I can't prove that it's immoral to kill a self-aware being. Of course, it's rather difficult to prove anything is immoral, since "morality" and "ethics" (I ought to have used the term "ethical", really) are abstract. One can't prove that it is immoral or unethical to murder, either, but I'd say that most people can agree on that one.
That said, I can make an argument for the case that killing a self-aware being is immoral/unethical (I'll stick with ethics from now on). We can all accept, I assume, that (barring starvation that necessitates cannibalism) it is unethical to end the life of a human that is not threatening us and has not committed any crimes. Now we can use this assumption to compare the acts of killing other animals and argue that they are ethical or unethical.
The defining characteristics of humans are memory, social relationships, and self-awareness. (You can argue these, of course, but I'll bite back.)
Cows lack social relationships and self-awareness, and have limited memory. Chickens also lack social relationships and self-awarness, and have an even more limited memory. Dolphins have strong social relationships, memory on par with humans, and self-awareness. So, in order from most similar to least similar, we have dolphins, then cows, then chickens. Dolphins are thus comparable to humans in ethical terms while cows and chickens are not, and killing a dolphin is justifiably called "murder."
Not quite Q.E.D., but close enough.
Oh and regarding this:
That said, I can make an argument for the case that killing a self-aware being is immoral/unethical (I'll stick with ethics from now on). We can all accept, I assume, that (barring starvation that necessitates cannibalism) it is unethical to end the life of a human that is not threatening us and has not committed any crimes. Now we can use this assumption to compare the acts of killing other animals and argue that they are ethical or unethical.
The defining characteristics of humans are memory, social relationships, and self-awareness. (You can argue these, of course, but I'll bite back.)
Cows lack social relationships and self-awareness, and have limited memory. Chickens also lack social relationships and self-awarness, and have an even more limited memory. Dolphins have strong social relationships, memory on par with humans, and self-awareness. So, in order from most similar to least similar, we have dolphins, then cows, then chickens. Dolphins are thus comparable to humans in ethical terms while cows and chickens are not, and killing a dolphin is justifiably called "murder."
Not quite Q.E.D., but close enough.
Oh and regarding this:
Maybe you should have considered context. Isn't hunting for dolphin (i.e. killing for sport, since no one needs dolphin flesh to survive) a little different than killing an enemy soldier, who is, presumably, a threat to one's own life?
Bearcat, I don't agree that self-awareness, social relationships, and memory are justification for not participating in killing of a species.
Dolphins are prey for various sharks and some dolphins even eat other smaller dolphins. If humans are to abstain from killing dolphins for food, then so too should these prey animals. But we don't mess with nature like that, now do we?
The argument that dolphins should be treated differently because they're smarter/more advanced than other animals is a wrong one. And the bottomline is that you're interfering with thousands of years of asian culture with your dolphin-hugging.
Dolphins are prey for various sharks and some dolphins even eat other smaller dolphins. If humans are to abstain from killing dolphins for food, then so too should these prey animals. But we don't mess with nature like that, now do we?
The argument that dolphins should be treated differently because they're smarter/more advanced than other animals is a wrong one. And the bottomline is that you're interfering with thousands of years of asian culture with your dolphin-hugging.
Jeff the Green
Member
Humans are prey for various large cats and some apes even eat other smaller primates. If humans are to abstain from killing humans for food, then so too should these prey animals.
Sharks are amoral creatures, in that they do not have an innate sense of morality and cannot reason about ethics, and the dolphins that eat their kin are (presumably) either not aware that their prey might be self-aware, or they also lack the capacity to reason about ethics. Humans, however are moral and ethical creatures, and we owe it to ourselves to be consistent.
Well I'm in two minds about this
1. I think we shouldn't kill animals without a valid reason. And, really the only reasons i accept are food and research. They share the planet too, ruling out food chains, animals should leave other animals alone.
2. FUCK THEM. Seriously though, why the hell do i care if there aren't any more dolphins? Why don't the idiots just reproduce faster? Or evolve, or something. I dunno. Or just become extinct, it won't make much of a difference to the world except that there won't be any supply to people who want to eat them. And they can get over it and eat beef or something.
EDIT: Ooh and also, mainly aimed at Bearcat, Morals are entirely a matter of opinion. One person thinks killing is 'wrong', another doesn't have a problem with it. The average New Zealander (Or American, or whatever) would think that having more than one partner is wrong. But other countries (less so these days, but still) don't see what's wrong with having whole harems of women. It's a matter of opinion, whether something is right, moral or ethical. Humans decide for themselves. And because of that, it can't be 'right' or 'wrong' to kill animals, it is just something we do that may have more negative effects than positive effects. And so on.
1. I think we shouldn't kill animals without a valid reason. And, really the only reasons i accept are food and research. They share the planet too, ruling out food chains, animals should leave other animals alone.
2. FUCK THEM. Seriously though, why the hell do i care if there aren't any more dolphins? Why don't the idiots just reproduce faster? Or evolve, or something. I dunno. Or just become extinct, it won't make much of a difference to the world except that there won't be any supply to people who want to eat them. And they can get over it and eat beef or something.
EDIT: Ooh and also, mainly aimed at Bearcat, Morals are entirely a matter of opinion. One person thinks killing is 'wrong', another doesn't have a problem with it. The average New Zealander (Or American, or whatever) would think that having more than one partner is wrong. But other countries (less so these days, but still) don't see what's wrong with having whole harems of women. It's a matter of opinion, whether something is right, moral or ethical. Humans decide for themselves. And because of that, it can't be 'right' or 'wrong' to kill animals, it is just something we do that may have more negative effects than positive effects. And so on.
This is probably the only thread outside support I read from beginning to end. I believe that the Baiji is extinct now isn't it?
Anyway so far I've seen the discussion of the morality of killing animals vs the adverse affect on a ecosystem. That was awesome by the way the argument was based on two unrelated points but somehow dragged on. Now after reading this whole thread I had to go back and read the point of this topic. Because somewhere it got skewed as with all topics I guess.
Q: Is it unethical to kill a dolphin?
A: American Answer: If it's cute and smart than yes it is unethical. Otherwise eat that delicious bugger.
A2: Japanese Answer: No... We don't tell you to stop driving those gas guzzling SUVs and you don't tell us to stop killing those scrumptious critters.
Q: Is it ok to supply dolphin when there's a market desire for them?
A: American Answer: No! What part of killing a smart cute animal don't you get?
A2: Japanese Answer: Yes! What part of scrumptious don't you get?
Morality is based on region. After all, cannibalism is acceptable in some parts of the world. So asking what we think about whether the slaughter of a dolphin is ethical, will generate a million different responses. And I guarantee until a dolphin actually screams out, "Oh my god! Is that a machete?! What the **** is going on!", they will continue to die.
Anyway so far I've seen the discussion of the morality of killing animals vs the adverse affect on a ecosystem. That was awesome by the way the argument was based on two unrelated points but somehow dragged on. Now after reading this whole thread I had to go back and read the point of this topic. Because somewhere it got skewed as with all topics I guess.
Q: Is it unethical to kill a dolphin?
A: American Answer: If it's cute and smart than yes it is unethical. Otherwise eat that delicious bugger.
A2: Japanese Answer: No... We don't tell you to stop driving those gas guzzling SUVs and you don't tell us to stop killing those scrumptious critters.
Q: Is it ok to supply dolphin when there's a market desire for them?
A: American Answer: No! What part of killing a smart cute animal don't you get?
A2: Japanese Answer: Yes! What part of scrumptious don't you get?
Morality is based on region. After all, cannibalism is acceptable in some parts of the world. So asking what we think about whether the slaughter of a dolphin is ethical, will generate a million different responses. And I guarantee until a dolphin actually screams out, "Oh my god! Is that a machete?! What the **** is going on!", they will continue to die.