
Are killer whales persons? - noondip
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/27/are_killer_whales_persons_the_more_we_learn_about_orcas_the_more_our_assumption_of_innate_superiority_looks_like_a_presumption/
======
rayalez
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).

~~~
boomlinde
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.

------
kendallpark
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.

EDIT: This video of killer whales is also perplexing.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWsN63PRCW8](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.

~~~
pcthrowaway
Is it possible the whales realized that by returning the pup to shore when
they weren't hungry, they were ensuring a larger crop next year?

~~~
deanCommie
Sure, but that still suggests complex reasoning

------
sologoub
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.

[1]
[http://blog.seattlepi.com/candacewhiting/2014/12/01/humpback...](http://blog.seattlepi.com/candacewhiting/2014/12/01/humpback-
whales-intervene-in-orca-attack-on-gray-whale-calf-2012/)

------
qq66
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.

~~~
liviu-
>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.

------
kijin
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.

------
xCathedra
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.

~~~
adamnemecek
can you provide an example where expanding the definition of personhood was
abused as an excuse to commit atrocities?

~~~
xCathedra
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.

~~~
adamnemecek
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.

------
gnoway
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.

~~~
gharial
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?

~~~
gnoway
I didn't say that. Of course it's detrimental to their well-being: Orcas are
wild animals not bred for captivity. This is not new news.

------
goblin89
> 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.

------
Terr_
> and mind-boggling sixth sense

Uhm... Usually that implies something paranormal. I assume what the author
meant was sonar, which is somewhat less bogglesome.

------
gambiter
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.

------
rokhayakebe
Here are a few things that would help humans begin to consider animals as
their equals:

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

~~~
agumonkey
Few things animals did that had me sitting:

# 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](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 :)

------
mashedpotato
Can we arrest killer whales then? Or can Orca on Orca crime be allowed?

~~~
romanlevin
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.

------
jeffdavis
Does this article add anything new to the animal-sentience discussion?

------
itistoday2
Nice exception to Betteridge's law of headlines, IMO.

------
bshimmin
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.

------
yarrel
If they are, I demand my own tank and as much fish as I can eat.

------
personjerry
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.

~~~
xCathedra
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.

~~~
pluma
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".

~~~
xCathedra
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.

------
crazy1van
"Can an animal be a person?"

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"

~~~
itistoday2
Under United States law companies are persons as well, so these definitions
are a bit out of date.

It's perfectly reasonable to expand the term "person" to apply to non humans,
companies and orcas alike.

~~~
pluma
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.

~~~
itistoday2
> _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_

Finally, something we agree on.

~~~
pluma
I'm talking about informed, legal consent.

A child isn't able to give that, much less any non-human animal.

~~~
itistoday2
Here's an example of a grizzly expressing non-consent to being caged up:

[http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-zoo-bear-slams-rock-
int...](http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-zoo-bear-slams-rock-into-glass-
pane-shattering-it-like-a-windshield/311777801/)

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.

