The advertising on this was so obnoxious (a 5 second video popup that I couldn't dismiss) that I was just left with Betteridge's law of headlines here.
> Intercepted echolocation data could generate objects that are experienced in more nearly the same way by different individuals than ever occurs in communal human experiences when we are passive observers of the same external environment. Since the data are in the auditory domain, the “objects” they generate would be as real as human seen-objects than heard “objects,” that are so difficult for us to imagine. They could be vivid natural objects in a dolphin’s world.
Not directly related to the personhood question, but for me it was the highlight.
According to the definition, a "person" refers to a human [0][1]. Perhaps the better question is should we treat the whales better or differently based on what we learned rather than shoe-horn them into a word that literally means human.
[0] Oxford English: "A human being regarded as an individual"
[1] Merriam-Webster: "a human being"
I think saying a human being can be called a "person" - meaning rational agent, is also misleading.
Almost no human being can live out the rest of their lives alone without becoming seriously dysfunctional, (and irrational). The rare human able to do this has terminal cancer or is very old and is about to pass away this very night and/or week at tops.
Talking about non-human persons is standard philosophical terminology, e.g
Personhood. What is it to be a person? What is necessary, and what suffices, for something to count as a person, as opposed to a non-person? What have people got that non-people haven't got? This amounts more or less to asking for the definition of the word person. An answer would take the form “Necessarily, x is a person if and only if … x …”, with the blanks appropriately filled in. More specifically, we can ask at what point in one's development from a fertilized egg there comes to be a person, or what it would take for a chimpanzee or a Martian or an electronic computer to be a person, if they could ever be. (See e.g. Chisholm 1976: 136f., Baker 2000: ch. 3.)
True, but the legal definition of a person and the dictionary definition don't have to agree, so it's important which personhood we're trying to redefine.
Should orcas be legal persons? Probably not. They can't give consent and will never be able to, in principle. This is different from a mentally underdeveloped human or a human child because an orca will neither grow up to be able to give consent nor could they reach that capacity as a species (within human timeframes).
Could orcas evolve to become legal persons? Maybe, but there isn't any selection pressure guiding them in that direction.
We should however acknowledge that "personhood" is not a well-defined requirement for the rights we grant to persons. We should probably extend some of those rights to certain animals independently of whether we can consider them persons or not. They're autonomous and have some form of sentience -- it seems only fair to acknowledge that in how we treat them.
That aside, the real debate here is animal rights and what constitutes animal cruelty. Personally I think Sea World is criminally abusive because it is necessarily incapable of holding large water mammals like orcas in captivity in a way that minimizes suffering for them -- the tank size alone could not be large enough for that; the economics just wouldn't work out.
> because an orca will neither grow up to be able to give consent
Conjecture that I do not agree with. Orcas can definitely give consent, it depends on the situation.
> nor could they reach that capacity as a species (within human timeframes).
More conjecture with which I disagree. Orcas can talk and they can indicate consent already.
> there isn't any selection pressure guiding them in that direction.
Conjecture. Strongly disagree.
> Personally I think Sea World is criminally abusive because it is necessarily incapable of holding large water mammals like orcas in captivity in a way that minimizes suffering for them
That is sufficient for me and it should be sufficient for any decent human being.
If you require a grizzly or an orca to "sign on the dotted line for informed legal consent", you are a monster, and you are the one who should be caged up.
That clickbait title though. Of course an orca is not a person; an orca is not human, which is most peoples' understanding of "person".
I understand if articles might have clickbait titles, but can we give a more reasonable title on HN? Even the second part of the article title, "The more we learn about orcas, the more our assumption of innate superiority looks like a presumption" would've been more effective.
I think a better title would be "Should we grant human rights to killer whales?" Still interesting, still thought provoking, but without the obvious absurdity.
The term person has established precedent, both for humans and non-humans. For humans, the legality of abortion is often thought of in terms of the humanity of the embyro. However, the actual legal issue is whether the law extends to the embyro the right of personhood.
Peter Singer has advocated both for the personhood of certain animals and the non-personhood of certain humans (including live infants below certain cognitive thresholds) for some time.
The abortion debate is largely orthogonal to the personhood of a foetus.
There is no precedent for making it illegal to refuse to risk your health, well-being and bodily integrity to sustain another person with your own body. If the risk is negligible, sure, everything else would be denial of assistance -- but pregnancy (to say nothing of birth) is extremely risky as far as biological processes go.
You could argue about a voluntary pregnancy being some kind of contract that suspends your right to bodily integrity but that still wouldn't apply to unwanted pregnancies, which represent the majority of abortions.
Arguing that a foetus' personal rights are violated by early stage termination of a pregnancy is just special pleading biased by religious ideas about the inherent sanctity of life. Most nefariously, the same people who argue for the rights of a foetus also oppose the welfare that would be necessary to address the social impacts of the unwanted birth. Or to put it more hyperbolically: "A human's life is holy, until they are born".
I'm only arguing that the term personhood has extensive use in definining rights for humans and non-humans, providing a prominent ethicist as an example. I'm not trying to open up an abortion debate in a comment thread, because those simply go no where, influence no one, and fail to advance a meaningful dialogue.
You can certainly disagree with applying personhood to the abortion debate and claim an unlimited number of nefaroious motives behind pro-life advocates, but those would be different discussions. The term personhood is used widely for embyronic and non-human rights, that's the extent of my claim.
That is the question basically, is being human a necessary precondition to being a person? And assuming that it is, which humans are not persons ( otherwise human and person would just be synonymous).
That doesn't really follow. Just because human may not be a necessary precondition doesn't mean being human can't be a sufficient precondition.
Consider the hypothetical definition that a person is any being that is either a human or a dolphin. Now all humans are people, but not all people are humans.
Did you actually read the article? The question "Are killer whales persons" is in fact the central issue that it examines, and the use of "persons" instead of "people" ought to make it clear that they're using "person" in the legal sense.
They are going a bit over the top with empathy claims for orcas:
"Monterey – In what is probably the first time such an event has been witnessed and recorded, humpback whales appeared to try to intervene when a pod of killer whales attacked a baby gray whale." [1]
Though different whale and dolphin species have exhibited what one could call empathy, theirs is a completely different world from ours and we shouldn't apply our values to them.
I think the real caution behind giving the status of person to a non-human has nothing to do with animals, but with removing the status of person from certain classes of humans. The atrocities of the last century should probably suffice to establish a measure of caution when redefining personhood.
I'd consider telling an autonomous citizen what they can and cannot do with their bodies in the absence of disparate impact to the rest of the social community at large to be pretty abhorrent, and the definition of "personhood" was used to do exactly that in US abortion debates.
Expanding the definition to include animals necessarily involves redefining personhood, and that's the risk. Expanding personhood doesn't necessitate removing classes of people from personhood, but allowing for its redifitinion makes it possible.
Your argument is similar to the argument of those who opposed gay marriage in that it claims that expanding something to another group will redefine said thing to the other group.
I have wondered about this often with cetaceans. I feel like personhood is such a human concept and completely depends on who is defining it. It calls into question, "What is personhood to begin with?"
There have many documented cases of dolphins rescuing drowning human swimmers or protecting surfers from sharks. I feel like it takes a good amount of intelligence and empathy-like qualities for dolphins to be able to recognize the peril of a human creature--foreign to their natural environment--and decide to treat him as one of their own where there is no obvious benefit for the dolphin.
My opinion is that we should give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to personhood.
A group of killer whales beach themselves to grab some sea lion pups for lunch, then proceed to toss them around and eat them. There was one seal they decided not to eat so one of the killer whales beached himself again in order to release it safely on land. It really does feel like there's complex mind behind this behavior.
Mhhh... I'm curious also. Well, killer whales are Dolphinidae so technically they are big dolphins. They killed some humans in the past, that is for sure. Some killer whale species are piscivorous and relatively safe, but other species eat mainly mammals, and are probably much more dangerous to humans.
Captive pygmy killer whales are really nasty also. They howl loudly (like wolves) and actively charge against humans when in the same pool. They need open and deep water so is understandable.
Bootlenose dolphins could hit and kill easily an human but probably only if seriously injured or restrained (or if a baby dolphin is in serious danger). Dolphins seem to be really smart and friendly even in the most dangerous situations for humans. Most are very curious with pregnant women for example. Could be really easy for the dolphin to kill the human foetus in this situation with a couple of hits of the beak but this never happens. To try to 'rape' humans is a much more frequent behaviour in male bootlenose dolphins (Not, I'm not joking).
Common dolphins probably not, their beak is too much fragile to take the risk to harm an human. A dolphin with a break mandible is a dead dolphin.
Ziphiidae probably could kill easily a human. They have the character and the strenght, although no case has been recorded I think... humans normally don't share the same space than beaked whales and its sharp and big frontal tooth. I did not advice to try to swim between two males figthing anyways.
Pygmy sperm whales are not aggresive for humans even when injured or stranded, and I'm really happy with it. They will readily defecate over you instead and I can personally assure that is a very sticky red jelly thing but you really don't die for this.
I've heard that there haven't been any cases of orca fatalities in the wild. All of the fatalities have occurred with captive orcas.
There are dolphin attacks but I have not heard of a fatality. But one thing to consider is that some species of dolphin are more aggressive and sometimes attack and kill other kinds of dolphins and porpoises. For no reason that we can discern.
Regardless, I don't think the fact that all dolphins aren't nice to humans means anything against their intelligence/sentience. All humans aren't nice to other humans.
That orcas avoid harming humans has long been a part of the legends of Pacific Northwest tribes. And, as this article suggests, Orcas do indeed seem to have a taboo against eating us:
Orcas can be local or transient, transient (pelagic) can be very dangerous just by accident. Wikipedia links to a very interesting description of an accidental attack to a surfer in 70's. The whale just bit once and go.
And, just for the nerd department, lord of the ring's orcs and orca whales share probably the same meaning. Orcus was one of the names from underworld (the hell) in the roman empire. Clever Mr. Tolkien...
# Instant group work, two monkeys having to analyse a situation to pull ropes (all rigged by researchers of course) with the right choreography to free some food. One came, saw that pulling either end alone wouldn't cut it, call his buddy, they look at each other and the rig for a second, then split each to its own end, synchronize then pull, profit. The 'no brainer' attiude killed me.
# Pity bargaining, a puppy lab trying to guilt trip us into letting her go outside after being reprimanded
# An octopuss mother heating its eggs until near death, saving her last forces to swim as far away as possible so her dead body wouldn't attract predators. The sacrifice got me emotional.
# The 'lion hugging its savior' video on youtube. That lion looked overwhelmed... More human than a Disney antropomorphic lion character. Just thinking about it warms my heart.
None of this is abstract enough for us to stop thinking we're not above. I'll agree that I've never seen an animal contemplating the world the way humans do. But maybe there's no point in doing it and we're just full of ourselves :)
I've skimmed through this a couple of times, and I think the answer is: it doesn't matter, because this article is actually about ending orca captivity by the Sea Worlds of the world. The personhood premise is just a macguffin.
According to this article, there's evidence to suggest that keeping orcas in captivity is detrimental to their well being. Why does having that evidence suddenly mean having an opinion on what to do with it is off limits?
It always seems weird when people are talking about whether x is a "word", and at the same time changing the definition of the "word" to mean "x".
Of course if we redefine the word "person" to mean something else, orcas can be considered "persons". We can even redefine it in such a way that a chair will be considered a "person" - but should we?
And if, as it currently stands, we have many different definitions, and are not even sure what the word means - of course we will not be sure whether orca is or is not it.
It's the same as with the debate of whether computers can be "conscious". A word is just a label, if nobody clearly understands what it means - conversation about whether or not something can be described by it is pointless.
Having said that, aside from the clickbaity title, article is pretty cool and interesting.
Edit:
Haha, I can't help but imagine that in 30 years human ethics will take another leap, orcas will be deemed sentient, and I will be denied some high status job for such an ignorant and speciest comment. And I'll have to give some apologetic speech "I deeply regret that I held such unenlightened beliefs, I profoundly apologize to the orca rights community, but I'd like to state for the record that I had a horrible day, and did not mean at all to offend the feelings of this oppressed minority by comparing them to furniture." And then the orca judge will sentence me to 10 years of eating algae of shame or something(a proper punishment as their sophisticated culture requires).
Well, it's clear from reading the article that Lori Marino thinks that actually using the word "person" -- in acknowledging that it might not be the right word -- is secondary to granting killer whales and other animals some of the rights and privileges associated with personhood on the basis of their capacity for emotion, intelligence and empathy. In that sense, the idea isn't pointless but actually would have practical implications, as much as the abolition of slavery wasn't simply a matter of definition.
Changing the definitions of words is just part of how human language fulfills its goals of communicating any idea to anyone at any time. Think about how intractable some of these refactorings would be if you were trying to code them formally in computer programming language.
I sometimes feel that HN tends to be a bit too strict in regards to what counts as clickbait title. The title is very much summing up the issue analysed in the article.
In this case, I don't think they're arguing about whether killer whales fit into any existing definition of the word; they're asking whether we should change the definition. (Or, in two smaller steps, whether usage is shifting in such a way that a new definition is required; and whether that shift is a sensible and informed one, or one borne out of misinformation.)
Haha, i for one welcome our orca overlords and would rather be on the right side of history! All hail orcas!
But all kidding aside, i do have appreciation for arguments against anthropocentrism, or at least suppositions of human superiority. Sure, there's a spectrum regarding to how “intelligent” (read: advanced faculties of empathy, planning, language, etc.) different species seem to be in general, but i definitely believe we as humans are very much on the bad side of the spectrum regarding how we treat non-humans. We have a long way to go yet. Locking up animals in zoos, through to slaughtering them for food after a life of misery, all don't seem to me behaviours befitting a species which calls itself empathic and intelligent. As somebody wise once said, a society should be judged on how it deals with its weakest members.
But yeah, i guess the article is preaching to the choir in my case, since i would be in favour of more protection of non-human rights, not only for orcas (presumably rather high on the intelligence scale) but also for most non-humans we use for food, medical trials, etc. Whether that means they should be granted personhood, however, seems a tricky question, which i assume is best fought out by lawyers. The thing is, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that probably entails many responsibilities and prohibitions (e.g., no killing each other) which would simply be impractical/absurd (having said that, i like the idea lower down in the thread, that inter-species violence could be considered in a similar fashion to crimes outside of a given jurisdiction). Still, if not personhood, i would at the very least be in favour of universal rights for all sentient beings (ha, i hear you now, what is the cut-off for sentience? Mice? Flies? Earthworms? Bacteria? This is a hypothetical and hand-wavy argument)—they should not be kept in zoos against their will, and (more pertinently) not be killed for our sustenance/experiments/gratification. Basically, they should not be property.
...but none of that seems to be very broadly underwritten by society at large. One can dream, i guess.
I don't think that capturing killer whales is a thing we should do, but I don't like this line of reasoning: "They have big brains, complex social structures, rich emotional lives -- how can we still hold them captive?"
That line of argument is based on the idea that the rights of an individual are based on the intelligence or capability of the individual. That shouldn't be the case -- if a human being has a impaired intellectual capacity, or no social relationships, that's not grounds for abridging their rights.
>That line of argument is based on the idea that the rights of an individual are based on the intelligence or capability of the individual.
I think it's based on the idea that the rights of an individual are based on the intelligence or capability of the species he's part of. Thus a single human wouldn't be singled out for lacking any of these as it's a still a human, thus treated according to human rights.
False equivalence. Should the police of human state A prosecute citizens of state B for something they did inside the territory of state B?
I realize that the answer is sometimes "yes", but I don't think that crimes against humanity (orca-kind?) or rendition agreements are applicable in this case.
If animals are persons, and deserve some or all of the rights that humans persons enjoy, then they should also bear some or all of the responsibilities that human persons usually bear.
Oh, you just ate another sentient animal? Locked up in a zoo for the rest of your life.
So although I believe that we should treat certain animals as if they had certain rights, I don't think we should approach the topic in the same way we think of human rights. If animal have rights, they will be very different kinds of rights than what we are used to. There may also be equally large differences between different species. Orcas are just as different from dogs, if not more, as dogs are from us.
Even the right to life, possibly the most fundamental of human rights, takes on a completely different meaning when another animal claims the right to eat you. And perhaps if we think hard enough along these lines, we might also get some fresh insights about the ethics of human meat-eating.
A lot of the comments here seem to be focusing on the definition of 'person'. The fact is, 'person' has always been a species-ambiguous term. Anything that exhibits 'personality' is a person, by some definitions.
That said, I get some very strange vibes from the way this article is written, especially give the subtitle that humans may not be superior. Some choice quotes:
>> Orcas, with their big brains, complex social structures, mysterious communications, and mind-boggling sixth sense, by their very existence, challenge the long-standing belief that human beings are the planet’s only intelligent occupants
"by their very existence, challenge the long-standing belief"... really? Why are any of these a true measure of intelligence?
>> Social life for killer whales, as we have seen, is deeper and more omnipresent than it is for humans
This is supposition, at best.
>> If orcas have established empathy as a distinctive evolutionary advantage, it might behoove a human race awash in war and psychopathy to pay attention.
Let's just ignore the way they can turn on one another and fight against other pods. Not to mention the truly brutal ways they hunt other species. So they show what we perceive as empathy. Let's apply that idea across all Orcas as if it were a rule, and then compare it to the worst humans in existence. Great.
>> The ability to experience positive emotions, like love and attachment, would mean that dogs have a level of sentience comparable to that of a human child
This is used as supporting proof, but when read by itself seems more like someone pointing out the obvious flaw of anthropomorphizing the actions of animals.
>> The “social cognition” that arises from this kind of richly shared experience of the world would even lead to a different sense of self than humans experience [...] The communal experience might actually change the boundaries of the self to include several individuals [...] This clearly indicates that dolphins—and particularly killer whales [...] have powerful emotional and empathic connection
So we're jumping from 'could and might' to saying the evidence 'clearly indicates' something?
I'm not trying to be overly negative, this article just strikes me as someone who is trying to twist what we know to suit their own agenda.
64 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadNot directly related to the personhood question, but for me it was the highlight.
According to the definition, a "person" refers to a human [0][1]. Perhaps the better question is should we treat the whales better or differently based on what we learned rather than shoe-horn them into a word that literally means human.
[0] Oxford English: "A human being regarded as an individual" [1] Merriam-Webster: "a human being"
Almost no human being can live out the rest of their lives alone without becoming seriously dysfunctional, (and irrational). The rare human able to do this has terminal cancer or is very old and is about to pass away this very night and/or week at tops.
Personhood. What is it to be a person? What is necessary, and what suffices, for something to count as a person, as opposed to a non-person? What have people got that non-people haven't got? This amounts more or less to asking for the definition of the word person. An answer would take the form “Necessarily, x is a person if and only if … x …”, with the blanks appropriately filled in. More specifically, we can ask at what point in one's development from a fertilized egg there comes to be a person, or what it would take for a chimpanzee or a Martian or an electronic computer to be a person, if they could ever be. (See e.g. Chisholm 1976: 136f., Baker 2000: ch. 3.)
(from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/)
It's perfectly reasonable to expand the term "person" to apply to non humans, companies and orcas alike.
Should orcas be legal persons? Probably not. They can't give consent and will never be able to, in principle. This is different from a mentally underdeveloped human or a human child because an orca will neither grow up to be able to give consent nor could they reach that capacity as a species (within human timeframes).
Could orcas evolve to become legal persons? Maybe, but there isn't any selection pressure guiding them in that direction.
We should however acknowledge that "personhood" is not a well-defined requirement for the rights we grant to persons. We should probably extend some of those rights to certain animals independently of whether we can consider them persons or not. They're autonomous and have some form of sentience -- it seems only fair to acknowledge that in how we treat them.
That aside, the real debate here is animal rights and what constitutes animal cruelty. Personally I think Sea World is criminally abusive because it is necessarily incapable of holding large water mammals like orcas in captivity in a way that minimizes suffering for them -- the tank size alone could not be large enough for that; the economics just wouldn't work out.
Conjecture that I do not agree with. Orcas can definitely give consent, it depends on the situation.
> nor could they reach that capacity as a species (within human timeframes).
More conjecture with which I disagree. Orcas can talk and they can indicate consent already.
> there isn't any selection pressure guiding them in that direction.
Conjecture. Strongly disagree.
> Personally I think Sea World is criminally abusive because it is necessarily incapable of holding large water mammals like orcas in captivity in a way that minimizes suffering for them
Finally, something we agree on.
A child isn't able to give that, much less any non-human animal.
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-zoo-bear-slams-rock-int...
That is sufficient for me and it should be sufficient for any decent human being.
If you require a grizzly or an orca to "sign on the dotted line for informed legal consent", you are a monster, and you are the one who should be caged up.
I understand if articles might have clickbait titles, but can we give a more reasonable title on HN? Even the second part of the article title, "The more we learn about orcas, the more our assumption of innate superiority looks like a presumption" would've been more effective.
Peter Singer has advocated both for the personhood of certain animals and the non-personhood of certain humans (including live infants below certain cognitive thresholds) for some time.
There is no precedent for making it illegal to refuse to risk your health, well-being and bodily integrity to sustain another person with your own body. If the risk is negligible, sure, everything else would be denial of assistance -- but pregnancy (to say nothing of birth) is extremely risky as far as biological processes go.
You could argue about a voluntary pregnancy being some kind of contract that suspends your right to bodily integrity but that still wouldn't apply to unwanted pregnancies, which represent the majority of abortions.
Arguing that a foetus' personal rights are violated by early stage termination of a pregnancy is just special pleading biased by religious ideas about the inherent sanctity of life. Most nefariously, the same people who argue for the rights of a foetus also oppose the welfare that would be necessary to address the social impacts of the unwanted birth. Or to put it more hyperbolically: "A human's life is holy, until they are born".
You can certainly disagree with applying personhood to the abortion debate and claim an unlimited number of nefaroious motives behind pro-life advocates, but those would be different discussions. The term personhood is used widely for embyronic and non-human rights, that's the extent of my claim.
Consider the hypothetical definition that a person is any being that is either a human or a dolphin. Now all humans are people, but not all people are humans.
Though different whale and dolphin species have exhibited what one could call empathy, theirs is a completely different world from ours and we shouldn't apply our values to them.
[1] http://blog.seattlepi.com/candacewhiting/2014/12/01/humpback...
There have many documented cases of dolphins rescuing drowning human swimmers or protecting surfers from sharks. I feel like it takes a good amount of intelligence and empathy-like qualities for dolphins to be able to recognize the peril of a human creature--foreign to their natural environment--and decide to treat him as one of their own where there is no obvious benefit for the dolphin.
My opinion is that we should give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to personhood.
EDIT: This video of killer whales is also perplexing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWsN63PRCW8
A group of killer whales beach themselves to grab some sea lion pups for lunch, then proceed to toss them around and eat them. There was one seal they decided not to eat so one of the killer whales beached himself again in order to release it safely on land. It really does feel like there's complex mind behind this behavior.
Captive pygmy killer whales are really nasty also. They howl loudly (like wolves) and actively charge against humans when in the same pool. They need open and deep water so is understandable.
Bootlenose dolphins could hit and kill easily an human but probably only if seriously injured or restrained (or if a baby dolphin is in serious danger). Dolphins seem to be really smart and friendly even in the most dangerous situations for humans. Most are very curious with pregnant women for example. Could be really easy for the dolphin to kill the human foetus in this situation with a couple of hits of the beak but this never happens. To try to 'rape' humans is a much more frequent behaviour in male bootlenose dolphins (Not, I'm not joking).
Common dolphins probably not, their beak is too much fragile to take the risk to harm an human. A dolphin with a break mandible is a dead dolphin.
Ziphiidae probably could kill easily a human. They have the character and the strenght, although no case has been recorded I think... humans normally don't share the same space than beaked whales and its sharp and big frontal tooth. I did not advice to try to swim between two males figthing anyways.
Pygmy sperm whales are not aggresive for humans even when injured or stranded, and I'm really happy with it. They will readily defecate over you instead and I can personally assure that is a very sticky red jelly thing but you really don't die for this.
There are dolphin attacks but I have not heard of a fatality. But one thing to consider is that some species of dolphin are more aggressive and sometimes attack and kill other kinds of dolphins and porpoises. For no reason that we can discern.
Regardless, I don't think the fact that all dolphins aren't nice to humans means anything against their intelligence/sentience. All humans aren't nice to other humans.
http://science.kqed.org/quest/2011/07/20/why-killer-whales-d...
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19960117&id=...
And, just for the nerd department, lord of the ring's orcs and orca whales share probably the same meaning. Orcus was one of the names from underworld (the hell) in the roman empire. Clever Mr. Tolkien...
here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ti%C3%A3o
Seeing animals behaving as traders as in "this is mine, this is yours, I'll trade you mine for yours."
Seeing an animal contemplate art.
Seeing animals having a conversation.
Perhaps all of these have been observed, but if so we need to be more aware of them.
Edit
One more:
Saving and passing on records of previous events
# Instant group work, two monkeys having to analyse a situation to pull ropes (all rigged by researchers of course) with the right choreography to free some food. One came, saw that pulling either end alone wouldn't cut it, call his buddy, they look at each other and the rig for a second, then split each to its own end, synchronize then pull, profit. The 'no brainer' attiude killed me.
# Crows 'reverse engineering' and social hacking: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ted+talk+crows
# Pity bargaining, a puppy lab trying to guilt trip us into letting her go outside after being reprimanded
# An octopuss mother heating its eggs until near death, saving her last forces to swim as far away as possible so her dead body wouldn't attract predators. The sacrifice got me emotional.
# The 'lion hugging its savior' video on youtube. That lion looked overwhelmed... More human than a Disney antropomorphic lion character. Just thinking about it warms my heart.
None of this is abstract enough for us to stop thinking we're not above. I'll agree that I've never seen an animal contemplating the world the way humans do. But maybe there's no point in doing it and we're just full of ourselves :)
Of course if we redefine the word "person" to mean something else, orcas can be considered "persons". We can even redefine it in such a way that a chair will be considered a "person" - but should we?
And if, as it currently stands, we have many different definitions, and are not even sure what the word means - of course we will not be sure whether orca is or is not it.
It's the same as with the debate of whether computers can be "conscious". A word is just a label, if nobody clearly understands what it means - conversation about whether or not something can be described by it is pointless.
Having said that, aside from the clickbaity title, article is pretty cool and interesting.
Edit:
Haha, I can't help but imagine that in 30 years human ethics will take another leap, orcas will be deemed sentient, and I will be denied some high status job for such an ignorant and speciest comment. And I'll have to give some apologetic speech "I deeply regret that I held such unenlightened beliefs, I profoundly apologize to the orca rights community, but I'd like to state for the record that I had a horrible day, and did not mean at all to offend the feelings of this oppressed minority by comparing them to furniture." And then the orca judge will sentence me to 10 years of eating algae of shame or something(a proper punishment as their sophisticated culture requires).
But all kidding aside, i do have appreciation for arguments against anthropocentrism, or at least suppositions of human superiority. Sure, there's a spectrum regarding to how “intelligent” (read: advanced faculties of empathy, planning, language, etc.) different species seem to be in general, but i definitely believe we as humans are very much on the bad side of the spectrum regarding how we treat non-humans. We have a long way to go yet. Locking up animals in zoos, through to slaughtering them for food after a life of misery, all don't seem to me behaviours befitting a species which calls itself empathic and intelligent. As somebody wise once said, a society should be judged on how it deals with its weakest members.
But yeah, i guess the article is preaching to the choir in my case, since i would be in favour of more protection of non-human rights, not only for orcas (presumably rather high on the intelligence scale) but also for most non-humans we use for food, medical trials, etc. Whether that means they should be granted personhood, however, seems a tricky question, which i assume is best fought out by lawyers. The thing is, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that probably entails many responsibilities and prohibitions (e.g., no killing each other) which would simply be impractical/absurd (having said that, i like the idea lower down in the thread, that inter-species violence could be considered in a similar fashion to crimes outside of a given jurisdiction). Still, if not personhood, i would at the very least be in favour of universal rights for all sentient beings (ha, i hear you now, what is the cut-off for sentience? Mice? Flies? Earthworms? Bacteria? This is a hypothetical and hand-wavy argument)—they should not be kept in zoos against their will, and (more pertinently) not be killed for our sustenance/experiments/gratification. Basically, they should not be property.
...but none of that seems to be very broadly underwritten by society at large. One can dream, i guess.
That line of argument is based on the idea that the rights of an individual are based on the intelligence or capability of the individual. That shouldn't be the case -- if a human being has a impaired intellectual capacity, or no social relationships, that's not grounds for abridging their rights.
I think it's based on the idea that the rights of an individual are based on the intelligence or capability of the species he's part of. Thus a single human wouldn't be singled out for lacking any of these as it's a still a human, thus treated according to human rights.
Uhm... Usually that implies something paranormal. I assume what the author meant was sonar, which is somewhat less bogglesome.
I realize that the answer is sometimes "yes", but I don't think that crimes against humanity (orca-kind?) or rendition agreements are applicable in this case.
Oh, you just ate another sentient animal? Locked up in a zoo for the rest of your life.
So although I believe that we should treat certain animals as if they had certain rights, I don't think we should approach the topic in the same way we think of human rights. If animal have rights, they will be very different kinds of rights than what we are used to. There may also be equally large differences between different species. Orcas are just as different from dogs, if not more, as dogs are from us.
Even the right to life, possibly the most fundamental of human rights, takes on a completely different meaning when another animal claims the right to eat you. And perhaps if we think hard enough along these lines, we might also get some fresh insights about the ethics of human meat-eating.
That said, I get some very strange vibes from the way this article is written, especially give the subtitle that humans may not be superior. Some choice quotes:
>> Orcas, with their big brains, complex social structures, mysterious communications, and mind-boggling sixth sense, by their very existence, challenge the long-standing belief that human beings are the planet’s only intelligent occupants
"by their very existence, challenge the long-standing belief"... really? Why are any of these a true measure of intelligence?
>> Social life for killer whales, as we have seen, is deeper and more omnipresent than it is for humans
This is supposition, at best.
>> If orcas have established empathy as a distinctive evolutionary advantage, it might behoove a human race awash in war and psychopathy to pay attention.
Let's just ignore the way they can turn on one another and fight against other pods. Not to mention the truly brutal ways they hunt other species. So they show what we perceive as empathy. Let's apply that idea across all Orcas as if it were a rule, and then compare it to the worst humans in existence. Great.
>> The ability to experience positive emotions, like love and attachment, would mean that dogs have a level of sentience comparable to that of a human child
This is used as supporting proof, but when read by itself seems more like someone pointing out the obvious flaw of anthropomorphizing the actions of animals.
>> The “social cognition” that arises from this kind of richly shared experience of the world would even lead to a different sense of self than humans experience [...] The communal experience might actually change the boundaries of the self to include several individuals [...] This clearly indicates that dolphins—and particularly killer whales [...] have powerful emotional and empathic connection
So we're jumping from 'could and might' to saying the evidence 'clearly indicates' something?
I'm not trying to be overly negative, this article just strikes me as someone who is trying to twist what we know to suit their own agenda.