Originally Posted by Nosu3
I understood it before you explained it, so yes. The idea is that the same ways we consider humans to be people can also be applied to dolphins. I don't think the intention was to go in depth philosophically. The post said animals, not just cats. Watch the videos and you'll know. It's not pseudo-science. "New research shows that dolphins are as intelligent as human children — leading some scientists to argue the mammals are "non-human persons" posted on January 5, 2010 Dolphins deserve human rights. That's the statement being made by scientists at Emory University in Atlanta, who say that the mammals are so intelligent they deserve the status of "non-human persons." After years of studying dolphin brains, the researchers have concluded that aquatic mammals are more mentally advanced than chimpanzees, placing them second only to humans. Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory, says that there is a strong “psychological continuity” between humans and dolphins that requires they be given the status of equals. Is it time to start treating dolphins like people?" http://theweek.com/article/index/104...ins-people-too
You have it the other way around. They don't need to think of dolphins as people. You defend them saying the dolphin intelligence and consciousness shouldn't matter when the people killing the dolphins think they are fish. They don't even know their cognitive abilities, let alone what kind of animals they are.
You still do not understand it, you seem to be almost incapable of theoretical thinking. We might consider all humans to attain the level of "personhood" but it is not a given, throughout history various groups have been included or excluded. Personhood isn't a stable concept and its definition varies, you can't even say "we consider humans to be persons", maybe I don't agree all humans are... This, of course, says nothing of how western-centric the idea of "personhood" is. AFAIK it isn't even an element of, say, classical eastern thinking. A few points: -researchers may make observations about a dolphins intelligence and socialization and this stays into the realm of science. When they make a call for their inclusion into a group called "non-human persons" they are not voicing a scientific opinion but an ethical one. It is not pseudo-science but simply not science at all. They are of course entitled to do that as citizens having access to a public platorm. -we are not "going in depth philosophically", you just have to understand that, want it or not, when you are voicing an opinion or presenting an argument regarding the personhood of dolphins, the treatment of animals or any other issues you are engaging in philosophical musings, namely ones regarding the realm of ethics. That you do it without any method or coherent form of argumentation and from a position of complete ignorance of ethics just makes it bad philosophy. I am not sure why you do it and expect to convince anyone, well maybe that is not your goal. -Saying fishermen are not aware of the congitive abilities of dolphin is probably true. However, for the reasons I explained, you can't make the jump from "knowledge of dolphins cognitive ability" to "declaration of dolphins as persons" to "dolphins have the following rights". The arguments you present have more holes than actual points. Now, do you REALLY understand what I just said?