Ngati Whatua and Maui
Recent statements by Naida Glavish, chair of Ngati Whatua, are extremely worrying for those of us who care about the survival of the last of the maui dolphins. The maui are being killed by set nets but restrictions on set nets would affect some fishing. It would not be the end of fishing but just the end of inshore set netting. Glavish has bought into the line being promoted by the Seafood Council, a line that will lead to the inevitable extinction of Maui’s dolphin.
Naida Glavish says that plans to stop inshore set netting will have a detrimental impact on commercial fishing.
The plan has horrifying consequences for the iwi’s commercial fishing prospects as well as most other iwi…. The estimates include the loss of millions of dollars in fishing revenue, which will also reduce the ongoing value of the Maori Fisheries Settlement quota, loss of jobs and up to 200 set netters out of work.
Glavish repeats the Seafood Council’s nonsense. She says:
the proposal says there have been no verified reported sightings of these dolphins in harbours and yet it proposes a complete ban on all harbour set netting.
Yet as Metiria points out:
“The Council falsely claims Maui’s dolphins do not come into harbours, but the draft Hector’s and Maui’s Dolphin Threat Management Plan describes recent verified sightings of Maui’s dolphins inside the entrances to the Kaipara and Manukau Harbours.
Glavish says that the death of maui have nothing to do with set nets:
The document states there have been four reported mortalities of Maui’s dolphin since 2003 and that none of those deaths were attributed to fishing
But as Metiria again points out:
The draft Threat Management Plan states: “The DOC incident database indicates that 32 percent of the total reported incidents, and 63 percent of incidents where the cause of death was able to be assessed, are attributable to set net entanglement; indicating that set netting is the greatest known cause of human-induced Hector’s dolphin mortalities.�
We are down to the last 100 maui. We need to protect these remaining dolphins. If there needs to be some adjustment to the fishing settlement to take this in account then, fair enough, let’s talk about it. But don’t oppose the only (slim) chance we have to save the maui. As Meyt says…
The Green Party is not against fishing, however, when fishing threatens biodiversity, we must act according to the principles of kaitiakitanga and preserve our taonga for the future. Surely none of us, Maori or Pakeha, want our precious marine mammal species to become extinct at our own hand.�
October 17th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Will someone please tell me what inherent value these dolphins acctually have?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
> Will someone please tell me what inherent value these dolphins acctually have?
Oh dear. Inherent value is just that, value in and of itself, i.e. it needs no instrumental reason like food value, tourist value, etc. Value is always human-assigned, but I think the idea that a dolphin has inherent value would be supported by the vast majority of NZers. BTW the Conservation Act 1987 says it has such, if the law counts.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
This issue is about a choice that we as NZers need to be comfortable with. are we comfortable with seeing the species disappear in front of our very eyes, when we had the opportunity to do something? All so we could continue that oh-so sustainable food gathering practice of fishing? If so, then be it upon our heads, and let’s think of what to tell our grandkids when they say “Poppa, how come there’s no more dolphins?”
We wouldn’t allow pig hunting on Whenua Hou (where the Kakapo are), i’m not sure why we continue to make a sacrificial lamb out of our highly endangered marine wildlife.
it’s now become internationally embarrassing - so much for clean, green Aotearoa…
http://www.careforthewild.org
October 17th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
“Think the idea that a dolphin has inherent value would be supported by the vast majority of NZers.” q, so are customary rights
“Are we comfortable with seeing the species disappear in front of our very eyes, when we had the opportunity to do something?”
These are all arguments based on nothing but emotion. No one is suggesting that we go on a massacre of dolphins, however this is only one species. We must consider the customary rights of the tribes involved as well. So i say again, what value do these dolphins have that make them worth sacraficing customary rights to save?
October 17th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
What are rights exactly? Whose customary right to kill indiscriminately, versus my customary right to see a dolphin, simply because I decide I want to see one…such rights are empty phrases based on some notional view of property.
Get your hands and nets off my dolphins…
October 17th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Nick : The net present value of a Maui’s dolphin, in accounting terms, is probably not very great. Such a rare animal is not capable of supporting a dolphin-spotting industry, for example… because it’s, well, rare. It might be able to do so in the future, but rates of natural increase are low, so an accountant would discount such a prospect pretty heavily, in fact probably wouldn’t consider it at all.
Is that the answer you wanted?
Tigger : What about the dolphin’s customary right to exist? What about the inherent rightness of the existence of the dolphin?
(just muddying the waters)
October 17th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Well Alistair, there are no rights unless we say so. And if we say so, we still don’t have em unless we can enforce em. Or you can pretend we have em, and then when some-one kills you, not only are you dead, but you get to say “hey - someone took my right to life”.
Is it important for dead people (and Dolphins) to know their rights have been violated? It might be important to some live people that knew the dead person of course - those are the kind of people that needed to define things in terms of rights because they couldn’t quite understand that killing was bad. Hmm, not sure killing is bad. But violating a right to life…that’s a capital offense. Unless its abortion. Or a Dolphin.
This I say with a strong sense of irony given I ate a piece of cow tonight. I was very thankful for the gift of cow, if that helps…
but I digress…I would like to see the Dolphins saved.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
For the slow of mind the bit Hmm, not sure killing is bad. But violating a right to life…that’s a capital offense. was meant to be quoted, italicised, set in a different font, in blue, with bolding and placed within satirical tags.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I’m trying to give up eating pieces of cow. I prefer to be thankful for her gifts of milk, butter, cheese, and fuel to cook my chapatis.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
q,
I’m having difficulty understanding this statement:
Value is always human-assigned, but I think the idea that a dolphin has inherent value would be supported by the vast majority of NZers.
You have just said that intrinsic value is impossible (an opinion with which I agree) … but that the vast majority of New Zealanders think that dolphins have intrinsic value.
Perhaps you (or someone else with an interest in the concept of intrinsic value) could clarify this?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:11 am
I think Tigger is saying that the vast majority of NZers are wrong in assigning inherent value to a dolphin, because value is always human-assigned and not inherent (not sure I share this opinion on this)… but the corollary to this is that if the vast majority of NZers assign value to dolphins, then dolphins do indeed have value, whether inherent or not.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Nick C, I don’t know if maui dolphins have any inherent value. However their intrinsic value can be calculated the same way the intrinsic value of human life is calculated by Land Transport NZ. Conduct a random survey asking “What is the maximum we should spend to save the life of one of these creatures?” The answer, for human creatures, a mere $m2.5
October 18th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Set nets are banned in many countries because they are not discriminatory - they pretty much kill everything.
These nets lead to a rapid decline in fish size and supply - therefore, those who use set nets one year, can find themselves out of work the next. Or soon enough to be open to charges of depriving others of their customary rights.
Having fished (rod& reel) the Kaipara, Taupo and other former New Zealand World Class fishing spots for some decades, I find it quite sad to see people getting all excited over catching a minimum size fish for dinner - we were taught to put the small ones back for next year. Current (!) fish numbers and size
are no longer a Tourist Attraction, or even a reliable food source, unless you are a professional (and are cleaning our future out).
This country used to be World Famous for its fishing
Exhausting any resource like this is false economy, as well as being very silly.
Ecoterrorism?
As for their Value - e-mail some of Florida’s Acquariums to see what they would pay for a mating pair from the last 100 of a species - then stand well back! Dolphin Defenders there can get downright militant - and rightly so I reckon.
We are still trying to decode the 3-d holographic images in which they communicate - perhaps we might learn something before carelessly rubbing them out…
If extinction fishing is a ‘customary right’ - that right should be reviewed without delay. Heaven forbid that we should ask someone to change destructive programs.
Also, a lot of folk seem to demand ‘hard science’ in all discussion. I have found such info available on the Net with a little work - is this then a Forum for Issues - or a purely scientific interchange.
I am mindfull that Students of all kind read these pages and therefore purposely keep language, ideas and scientific matter in an accessible domain (ie simple terms) - links to ’scientific proof’ can be posted but, well, so many Scientists not only disagree, but are paid to disagree.
So which white-coated wizard to wegard?
Young Nationals need not reply.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I think Tigger is saying that the vast majority of NZers are wrong in assigning inherent value to a dolphin,
That was a comment by q.
My comments concern the concept of rights, not inherent value. I’m staying away from that one. My concern for the Dolphins (and indiscriminate fishing via set nets) is more around a ‘custodianship of the planet, starting with the Dolphins (and leaving Cows to way near the end, sorry Daisy)’
But that’s just me. And I’m not even a Greenie.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:32 am
This stuff is really really simple. Go check out the IUCN Redlist of endangered species. There, Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins are listed as endangered. The main threat is noted as entanglement in gillnets. This is then backed up by EXTENSIVE references to peer-reviewed scientific papers. this is not a fuzzy debate about the emotive connections people make with dolphins. This is about science. The species is in trouble. We know why. The threats relate to human behaviour. We can manage that behaviour and therefore the threats. The emotive aspect actually relates to people who believe its their inherent right to indiscriminately fish because ‘we always have’ and bugger the consequences.
NZ is one of the last remaining Western countries in teh world that allows recreational set netting.
For further FACTUAL information, based on science, and not emotion, please visit here
http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/4162/all
October 18th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Nick C Says:
Will someone please tell me what inherent value these dolphins acctually have?
Nick C is a plant ? Or maybe training web-bot. designed to keep us on toes. If he is a bot, can someone turn up the training level as he seems to be set at age nine at the moment.
FH
October 18th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Nick, what inherent value does making lots of money have?
Livelihoods can be replaced, but extinction is for ever.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Come to think of it Nick, what inherent value do you have?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I think Nick’s point is a valid one. The dinosaurs are extinct, but we got over it. Well, other than the guys who like Jurassic Park.
If 100 Dolphins die, and they are of type Maui, then no more Maui. But so what? The Japs kill a few thousand Dolphins every year, and their lives are just as valuable as the Maui. Except that we are deciding to say “now that we are down to 100 we need to keep the last few alive”
I don’t have a problem with that, depending upon the solution of course, but there are many species that have left the planet and (if you pardon the pun) life goes on.
The end of a species is more significant for the warning it brings - that that eco-system may be in danger for it to suffer total extinction of the Maui, and maybe we gotta look at the big picture here and take the plight of the Maui as the rallying point to restore this area to a better balance.
And emotionally and morally, I’m happy to try to save the Dolphin, with or without scientific reasons. Life is more than an economic formula or a bleating about ‘customary rights’.
If we haven’t found a solution, we (all) haven’t tried hard enough.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Well instead of getting bogged down in philosphical debates, for those of you who really WANT to help make a difference for the dolphins, your grandchildren or otherwise, then please visit this site, so that you can comment on the Hector’s Dolphin Threat Management Plan. Submissions (they don’t have to be long) are due by Oct 24.
Dolphin Threat Management Plan
P.O Box 11-146
Wellington 6011
Or
Hectorstmp@biodiversity.govt.nz
October 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Actually to be pedantic, we didn’t get over the dinosaurs’ extinction, we were not around to “get over” anything. If you genuinely think a species has no inherent value then there is no point arguing, but the point I was making before is that we attach inherent value to a lot of things, individual humans are given inherent value, though there is no logical argument that says they should be.
The point with the Maui dolphin is that the inherent value of fishers to make as much money as possible regardless of consequences is given priority over the inherent value of the dolphins both as individuals and as a species. Again if you think the marginal value of the extra cash has more inherent value than a species or a sentient individual then I can’t argue, but you need to make it clear that this is what you are asserting.
The Threat Management report notes that some fishers may lose their livelihoods as a worst case scenario. But on the other hand an entire species could lose its existence - for ever - as an alternative worst case scenario, and furthermore a number of intelligent individuals whose life means just as much to them as mine does to me, will have that life taken away from them - again for ever (leaving aside such arguments as re-incarnation).
Livelihoods can be replaced. Fishers can be retrained, and they can get government assistance to study (not as much as I would like them to get but tertiary education policy is another issue). The dolphins however, as individuals and as species get no second chances.
There is also the argument, used in response to slave owners, “Satanic mills”, factory farmers and others, that it is not the government’s responsibility to prop up businesses that are too immoral or too incompetent to comply with legislative standards or acceptable standards of behaviour.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Sure ain’t a Greenie Zen!
We ‘got over’ extinction of the dinosaurs hey? - well I’m not old enough to remember their ‘extinction’ that well.
But we do have their sole living, land based descendant living here and here only - and, no you can’t put them in your lunch box.
That, at least, contravenes a rigorous and punitive Law.
And so it should.
The question is: can we survive our own attitudes and behaviour?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Actually to be pedantic, we didn’t get over the dinosaurs’ extinction, we were not around to “get over� anything.
What? Careful, soon you’ll be suggesting “The phenomenon of Post Colonial Traumatic Stress Disorder and its effects that are now culturally integrated in to the psyche and soul of Maori” may be going the way of the dinosaur.
Deep down, we all fear the return of the T-Rex, and that is why violence is endemic in today’s society. That is why some people are driven to kill Dolphins, their fore-fathers the only known natural predator of mer-people and the Atlantians, of whom we are all descended….
Geez, in defending these Dolphins I’m even beginning to sound like one of your more fringe Greenies..
October 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Higher up the thread, Nick C said: “We must consider the customary rights of the tribes involved as well”. I don’t disagree with that statement, although it is odd coming from a National Party supporter. However, is an undiscriminating non-biodegradable nylon mesh set net a customary method of catching fish, especially if it endangers dolphins and threatens the fishery sustainability?
October 18th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Stuff the customary rights!….years ago my ancestors hunted whales, does that mean that I should be able to claim it as my customary right to continue the barbaric whale hunt?
The sooner we stop being so PC the better, no customary rights to hunt dolphin and no customary rights to set nylon nets, it really annoys me that the Greens go all weak at the knees whenever maori rights are introduced into the argument, we are talking about the extinction of a species here people, and unlike the climate change con this subject does have scientific proof backing it up.
If maori must have customary rights then give the sods a bit of bone, weaved flax and a stick
October 18th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I actually agree with BB regarding customary rights. They are used to justify all sorts of atrocities. Muslims regards female circumcision as a “customary right”, Indians suttee, the French foie gras, the British fox hunting, the Japanese whaling, the Chinese foot binding, and so on…
October 18th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
q: The issue isnt what the nets are made of, but whether they are allowed at all. If the nets were made of flax then they still wouldnt be allowed.
ZenTiger: You seem to be confused about the definition of customary rights, which is something humans assign to eachother for historical gevences. Animals therefore dont have customary rights, or any rights for that matter.
Mark52: I would not have any problem if this species became extinct, although i wouldn’t ofcourse support them being killed off unnessassrly. I’m not sure what you mean by “can we survive our own attitudes and behavior” but i would not feel guilty one bit if this species were pronounced extinct.
The value of the lives of humans and animals are different issues. The value of human life is immesurable because we have assigned ourselfs rights which we consider inalleinable. Govt organisations “put value” on human life because they have to, they have limited resourses. Maui dolphins however have no such rights and therefore we can measure their value against customary rights. If you could however prove that their extinction would have an impact on the ecosystem then it would be an issue worth considering.
October 18th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Nixy: Good point and i apologize for being both vague and generalizing at the same time.
It was just an overall observation given the price that many pay for bad decisions made by others (and ourselves too).
Scientifically, environmentally, medically, economically, legislatively, militarily - we oft do not discover our mistake til some ways down the track. I seek to recommend caution, not to place blame. Humans are fallible.
The flip side of Due Care is Negligence. Even reasonable care sometimes doesn’t seem good enough.
Specifics? - things we might take back if a bell could be unrung?
Well; cigarettes are sexy; a small war in Vietnam seems right; leaded petrol won’t hurt you; build big hotels with huge car parks, and then tell people not to drink & drive…. etc etc
Wipe out this or that species, or race of people?
Doesn’t always sit comfortably, but then I’ve been physically crippled by ‘an information gap’ in the science of an issue.
cheers and regards mark
October 18th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Sorry, why do Maui’s dolphins not have rights, you have lost me there. You say humans have rights because we have given ourselves rights, but the argument is circular. What gives us the right to give ourselves rights to give ourselves rights etc…
For most people a non-circular argument for humans having moral consideration (aka rights) is that they are sentient individuals whose life means something to them. Or to use religious terminology, because they were made in the image of a personal God. But if we accept that premise then we have to accept that the same applies to at least the more intelligent animals, and as we learn more and more about animal behaviour we are discovering that more and more animals have advanced cognitive abilities that should qualify them for consideration.
The rights of ecosystems and species is not so clear cut, but it generally again starts from a non-circular assertion that they have inherent value, ie value independent of a human valuer. In religious terms again, they have value to God who put them there for a reason.
And what do you mean by not supporting them being killed off “unecessarily”. It is a tautology. What is means is you would not support them being killed off unless you wanted something that necessitated them being killed off. You need to define what you mean by necessary. Necessary for what. For fishers to make money? For you personally to make money? If so, you are agin asserting a value judgement that the inherernt value of making money is worth more than the inherent value of the dolphin as a species or as an individual.
It is a bit like those to say so self righteously that they do not support “unecessary” animal cruelty, but then make excuses as to why any slight indulgence, any whim, any taste sensation has to be “necessary”.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
BBsaid: Stuff the customary rights!….years ago my ancestors hunted whales, does that mean that I should be able to claim it as my customary right to continue the barbaric whale hunt?
Good on you BB. We often disagree, but not on this one. As I’ve said before, the Green Charter preamble and principles are not absolute, and often political issues of the day will exhibit a conflict between them. I usually stick up vehemently for Maori being able to exercise their customary rights in accordance with the preamble to the Green Charter re te Tiriti. But in this case, if it means the extinction of a species in a manner that also means a cruel death to the members of that species, the non-violence and ecological sustainablility Charter principles outweigh this.
Green politics is not fundamentalist - there are often conflicts within the Green Charter that require a balance to be achieved. Just like mining more coal on the West Coast and in Southland will create heaps of jobs, and therefore support the social justice Charter principle. But imo this is outweighed by the detrimental impact burning that coal will have in the context of the ecological sustainability Charter principle.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
A large point is missing here, recently China lost the Yangtze Dolphin, and this was international news, although hardly surprising given China’s environmental mismanagement.
If we loose a species of Dolphin New Zealand stands to be exposed as the fraud that is is, trading on a “clean green image”, that is only in existence due to the relatively short time of human inhabitation. Its time to walk the talk.
And what about your children and grandchildren? will they also hold your selfish views? Well maybe once they become as jaded and cynical as some of you are, because you failed to give them hope, like you yourselves were failed.
Break the cycle aye, try caring, its great. But you have to be strong, and its so much easier to be weak and cynical.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Kiore, this is a complex arguement as to why we have rights that dolphins dont, might be hard to explain over the net, but ill try.
First you must realise that rights have responsibillities. We as humans have certian inalienable rights, we forfill our responsibillities to these rights by being moral beings. i.e. we are able to be held accountable for our actions in a court of law. More importantly we are able to tell right from wrong in our minds, something even a comparitivly smarter animal like a dolphin cannot forfill. Put more simply we are able to recognise the rights of others, and thereforethey give us rights. A dolphin, no matter if it is the second smartest animal behind us simply cannot recognise rights, tell right from wrong or make moral judgements.
Toad: You talk about disagreements in the green charter. Isnt it true that these disagreeements nearly always result in policies that lead to less jobs, more regulations (which the poor cant keep up with) and a weaker economy to sustain the enviroment.
McTap: I think you have a point as to the clean green image thing, if it could damage our tourism industry then that is a factor we need to consider. But what really ammused me was the cynical selfish attack! First of all you are blowing the lives of 100 dolphins way out of proportion. But more importantly, from a very general left-right perspective if anything is destroying weastern civilisation it is the decline in morality that is happening all around us. It is resulting in people needing pornography to satisfy themselfs, more divorces meaning kids are missing out on a mum and dad, the best start in life and ulitmatly the break up of the family unit. This is an agenda being advanced by progressive politics destroying us much more then any amount of dolphins, so dont call me cynical when your parties civil engineering agenda is destroying weastern society.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Goodness, why are people misquoting me on this thread? NickC said: ZenTiger: You seem to be confused about the definition of customary rights, which is something humans assign to each other for historical grievances. Animals therefore don’t have customary rights, or any rights for that matter.
When did I talk about that? I’m not confused in the slightest, and I suspect you are quoting p, q or s or k1 or someone.
As for intelligence and the ability to grant rights, I’ll let you off with a warning since I realise you probably don’t realise Dolphins are more intelligent than us, and can even spell better. Here, from this tome of knowledge, for example:
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.
–Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Zen, No more mousetraps then?
October 19th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Or is it “be nice to mice, they own the world”?
October 19th, 2007 at 4:25 am
Gee… the Green Party’s “civil engineering agenda” (tram lines… windmills… bicycle lanes) is destroying western society! Who’d a thunk?
October 19th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Nick, good to see you are actually engaging in a in intellectual discussion. I disagree that rights entail responsibilities. Very young children, the comatose, the mentally incompetent, even psychopaths are all given rights, but do not have responsibilities. It is always ironic to hear people going on about how only humans can tell right from wrong, then using that as an excuse for not doing the right thing. By their own logic they cease to be human at that stage and therefore no longer become subject to rights.
Being able to recognise rights is also not a prerequisite to having them. Only humans (to my knowledge) can recognise DNA, but that does not mean only humans have it.
I also dispute your assertion that animals cannot tell right from wrong. I think you must be aware of times where dolphins have rescued humans from sharks, and the scientific literature is now full of reports on true disinterested altruism among chimpanzees and other animals.
Some dismiss the notion that dolphins are being truly altruistic by saying it is only instinct. But how do they know that. It is not a scientific statement because it is multiplying hypotheses. If a human engages in altruistic behaviour we say it is genuine. If an animal engages in identical behaviour we say it is instinct. How is that logical? It is a tenet of science and philosophy that like should be treated with like. Either humans and animals are only motivated by instinct, or humans and animals are both motivated by true altruism.
October 19th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Endangered/Native Species Legislation Needed Urgently:
” Did you wipe out that Dolphin Grandad?”
” No Darling - I kicked and fought and tried as hard as I could to save ‘em - but heck, the boys ate the last one for lunch - now they’re drunk and racing the car up and down the road. Stay close to me Darling”.
“But the Jap’s are using this example as proof we don’t care, and are wiping out the pilot and minkie whales”
“Aw Geez - I feel sick - all that fish…..”
“That’s Dolphin son, Dolphin.”
October 19th, 2007 at 10:42 am
ha nice one Alistair
of course if Nick had used the correct word it is equally as laughable an idea, that the Greens’ social engineering agenda (supporting diversity of family arrangements, stopping child disipline that borders on abuse, stopping people from being forced to breath others’ smoke, etc) is destroying western society.
Personally I’d have thought that “business as usual” policies on a finite planet would have been more likely to destroy western society, but obviously I’m just a dirty hippy tofu eating communist anarchist so what would I know?
October 19th, 2007 at 10:43 am
well if you reconise human rights as arising from the ’social contract’ and you recongnise how a simple form of the social contract is required for any sort of society to work and then take into account that dolphins, apes and many other mammels display societies with resonably advanced sturctures and hierarchys, it stands to reason that they would have some sort of socialy acceptable norms and as such a social contract of sorts, which means to say they would have a similar entitlement to rights as humans do, except their comprehension of such rights may not be so self-important. i dont think its so much a matter of what rights a species assigns themselves that justifies their existance so much as the fact that they exist in the first place. after all, what inherant value does a human life have? i would sugest less than a dolphins, after all a dolphin doesint activly destroy the environment around them and bring about their own extinction. an interesting thing is even the most basic of mamalian societies seem to display levels of complexity on par with a human monarchy, in most cases more advanced :P.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I don’t think it’s about rights - I just think, in so many ways, they’re a lot Smarter than us.
I can respect the facts, the science of that, and they are technically amazing creatures.
I respect the fact that I’m lucky enough to swim with them.
Incidentally - they’re better at that too!
I’ll be sorry when they’re gone - they were heaps of fun!!!
October 19th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Yeah I don’t think so much about “rights” either, but it is a convenient shorthand. A “right” is really a reverse of an obligation. So if I have a right to an education, then you have an obligation to provide me with one. Similarly with animal “rights” what it means is that we have an obligation to leave them alone and not to kill them or destroy their habitat. And for someone to be a subject of a right, it is not necessary for them to have any obligations themselves, it is only necessary that the person with the obligation to know about obligations, and to know right from wrong. So animals are subjects of “rights” from humans but not necessarily from each other. Though some animal societies such as chimps do have some rudiments of a justice system so maybe they can claim “rights” from each other as well.
October 19th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Come on, intrinsic value or not, customary rights or not, New Zealand driving a dolphin to extinction?
I could pick a few holes in previous postings, but most of all - of course its rare, we want it to not be rare, that’s why protection is needed across its habitat, not just where people happen to have seen it.
Take a look at http://www.stoptheirextinction.org.nz and sign up to support WWF’s campaign for its protection.
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Sapient: Can an Ape be held accountable in a court of law, and make moral judgements? Of course not!
If you still sont get it another reason we give human lives value is because, just in case you havent noticed we ARE humans. Animal species do tend to give prefrence to the lives of the same species above their own, so why should we be any different?
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
“we ARE humans” are we nick? Well I know I am… not so sure about you, son. You don’t seem to have achieved humanism yet.