Dolphins are going to be given special " Non-human Person" status

(08-20-2013, 08:34 PM)ReneLeBeau Wrote: I think that this is a bit silly. I, of course, 100% support the protection and rights of dolphins, but calling them "non-human persons" just makes a point that their lives are somehow more worthy that those of other animals. Rather than doing this, I would like to see humans reminded that we are just an animal species too. I would like to see all animals get more rights. Pigs and chickens are also highly intelligent animals, and the treatment they get is almost too horrible for words. It seems to me that the dolphins are getting better treatment simply because they're cuter and they don't have a big role in the food industry, since intelligence isn't the most valued trait even among humans.

This is a big part of what I came here to say. I don't think any animal should have to prove its intelligence to be treated humanely, nor do I think a "non-human person" status is valid because this still implies that an animal should be treated with care and respect only as much as we can relate to it. I remember the debate about whether or not lobsters can feel pain, and it was recently found that yes, they can. A person can see an animal reacting in a way very similar to how a human would act but still discount it and say it's just instinct unless proven otherwise; only if an animal reacts exactly like a human will we start considering if there's any reason to protect them from ourselves.

Human beings are animals, too—highly advanced animals without parallel, yes, but so what? It's precisely because of our intelligence that we have the responsibility not to abuse the other animals on this planet. And for me, it's better safe than sorry. I wouldn't want to cause harm to an animal, even if it's not proven that they can feel pain or feel pain in the same way humans do. It's not practical on a grand scale, no, but I do feel we all have the responsibility to do our best.

Instead of "non-human person" being granted to dolphins, I'd say give humans an "only possible perpetrator" status! By this I mean that I don't see how we can extend animal rights without limiting human behavior. If a dolphin has a "right" to live, then only humans can understand this right; a shark isn't going to be held up to the word of the law, obviously. It would be more accurate to say, not "dolphins have a right to life," but "humans do not have the right to kill dolphins." I think that handles the non-human person status, though I have to say I know nothing of law or philosophy Just my early morning ramblings.