Today's discussion focused on an article about dolphins' intelligence and status. The article begged the question, "Should dolphins be called 'non-human persons' because they can be as intelligent as a four-year old human?" While the conversation could have turned silly at any minute, it actually hit on a lot of interesting issues, such as what it means to be a "person" and what rights go along with that distinction. We asked if those rights extend beyond the rights not to be abused and killed (similar to the animal rights we are familiar with). Do humans have a right to eat? To vote? What are these rights, and how does one (person or animal) go about getting their hands (or flippers or tentacles or paws) on them? Are there unalienable rights, or are they always cultural?
The latter portion of our noon hour addressed the nature of logic, or more accurately, logical fallacies. We discussed them as argument strategies and identified some of the more popular fallacies. I questioned my own "logic" and definition of logic (reasonable, down-to-earth, "good head on my shoulders") and my own unintentional use of fallacies in discussions. While it is a good idea to be aware of our argumentative strategies, we shouldn't be paralyzed or silenced by the knowledge that such strategies exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think there should be a test that needs to be passed to get certain rights. So, if we want all humans to have certain rights, it needs to be a test that infants can pass. And if dogs or dolphins can pass this test then give them the same rights as infants.
ReplyDeleteThe older you get, the more tests you take to get more rights (driver's license, etc.) If a dolphin can pass a driver's test, then the dolphin should be allowed to drive. Period. End. Of. Disc. Ussion.
SWAP Consensus: Dolphins, like other large and/or precious non-human animals (especially mammals non-mamillian pets), inherently deserve:
ReplyDelete1. to live without worry of abuse and neglect by human,
2. to think and communicate freely, as long as that communication does not bother humans,
3. to participate in any spiritual or religious ceremonies they choose,
4. to be guaranteed adequate food, health care, and shelter while working for humans,
5. to not be arrested without probable cause, or
6. to peacefully protest any questionable decisions by dolphin government.
We can not, however, give them the rights to:
1. vote in human elections,
2. live without fear of sharks and whales,
3. own land,
4. learn in human schools,
5. become citizens, or
6. bear arms. Or even thumbs.
It is a logical fallacy to say, "All the dogs I have ever seen have barked, so all dogs bark." The fact that this is a logical fallacy makes sense to me. I can also see how dangerous this particular fallacy can be when it is applied to weightier topics: "All black people that I have seen are lazy, so all blacks are lazy." Eek.
ReplyDeleteAs I think about this, though, I am having difficulty seeing when it is NOT a logical fallacy to make conclusions based on observation. For instance, I have never heard a cat speak English. In my experience and in my observations, I would then claim that no cats speak English. Is that a logical fallacy? (Silly example, I know, but I want to see the difference between the examples of logical fallacies - the dog and black people examples - and this one.)
On a related note, if a person has spent his whole life on an apple farm that produced Golden Delicious apples, then it wouldn't be surprising that he might claim that all apples are yellow. Now, of course, we know that apples can be green, yellow, red, or pink, but is it a logical fallacy for him to make that claim in the first place? Or is he just incorrect? Would he be innocent of using a logical fallacy if he hedged his claim by saying, "Based on my experience, all apples are yellow"?
I welcome your insights.
Ahh, yes. One of my favorite paradoxes:
ReplyDelete"One of the most popular proposed resolutions is to accept the conclusion that the observation of a green apple provides evidence that all ravens are black but to argue that the amount of confirmation provided is very small, due to the large discrepancy between the number of ravens and the number of non-black objects."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox