Skip to main content

On human rights for dolphins?! (Or the ethics of killing)

Don't get me wrong.
 I like dolphins as much as the next man.
Scientists and philosophers have joined together to call for a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans. The declaration, which they'd like to see enshrined in international law, would put an end to the captivity of whales and dolphins, their use in entertainment, and guarantee their right to life. According to the BBC, those calling for the declaration 'believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans.' Although not human, they are arguing that whales and dolphins are so intelligent that they must be considered 'people' in the philosophical sense.

The quote in the dolphin story which particularly struck me came from 'Ethics expert Prof Tom White, from Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles' who said, regarding the killing of dolphins: 'A person needs to be an individual. If individuals count, then the deliberate killing of individuals of this sort is ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being.'

So, the ethicists are now telling us that killing a particular type of animal is the moral equivalent to killing a human being. The implication, of course, is that killing dolphins is bad. Now, I'm not arguing for the killing of dolphins (let's just clear that up before I get a reputation as a dolphin-hater), but Professor White's statement quite simply isn't true. Dolphins are not people. There is a very big difference between the killing of a dolphin and the killing of a human being.

How can I be so sure? Because the Bible says so. The book of Genesis makes clear that there is something different about man. Unlike the other creatures (including dolphins), man was made in God's image (Gen. 1:26). In fact, it's this very aspect of human beings that makes it wrong to kill a human being (Gen. 9:6). That's why there's a moral difference between killing a spider or a cow and killing a human being, because humans are made in God's image. Humans aren't animals, because God has made us with that key difference. But that also means that animals aren't people.

However, the thing that really got my attention about Prof. White's statement was that, if such arguments are accepted, then many people would be giving greater rights to dolphins than to a particular group of human beings. How could anyone possibly accord human rights to dolphins while denying human rights to unborn children?

Perhaps all the scientists and philosophers pushing for cetacean rights are also personally opposed to abortion, but even so, if society were to accept their case, we would end up with a society which is opposed to killing dolphins because of their personhood, yet in favour of aborting people. How could that possibly make sense? How could it be so morally abhorrent to kill a dolphin, but morally neutral to abort an unborn child?

Popular posts from this blog

These are the Bones of Elisha (Declaring the Word of the Lord)

One of the most curious events in all of Scripture is found in a single verse in 2 Kings 13. That chapter records the death of the prophet Elisha, and yet, there’s still one more story of Elisha here some time after his death. 2 Kings 13:21 tells us:
So it was, as they were burying a man, that suddenly they spied a band of raiders; and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha; and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet. Elisha was dead. And yet when a corpse was thrown into his tomb hastily in an attempt to hide from marauding bands of Moabites, the man came back to life simply by his corpse touching Elisha’s bones. Even as miracles go, that one’s quite impressive.

On the Church and On Sin: With a (former) Tory MP and a Catholic Priest

What with the Extraordinary Synod going on in Rome this week, the Roman Catholic Church has been in the news a bit of late. And as a result of all this pre-synod hype in the media, two Roman Catholics wrote two of the best articles I read last week. One was an article in the Catholic Herald by a priest. The other was an article in the Spectator by a former MP. You should read both of them. (But if you're not going to read both, then please at least read the second one!)

Now, maybe that seems a bit odd. I am, after all, both a Pentecostal pastor and an Ulster Protestant. And as such, I'm convinced that very significant aspects of Roman Catholic theology are seriously wrong. I still believe that justification by faith alone is the article on which the church stands or falls. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't read, and even learn from, Roman Catholics. Although we are justified by faith alone, it is by faith in Christ alone, not faith in the right formulation of the doc…

Money, Money, Money (Must Be Funny, in a Rich Man’s World!)

‘Not the Pentecostals! Watch out – they’ll be trying to get all your money.’
     – The reaction when a new Christian told her Muslim uncle that she’d got saved and           started attending a Pentecostal church. ‘Hello, I’m calling from [“Christian” TV channel]. We have some great deals on advertising during our broadcasts and wondered if the church would be interested.’
     – A phone call yesterday. ‘$11,150’
     – the amount one American church is appealing to raise to produce a worship album $750 plus expenses
     – an American amount recommended as a gift for visiting preachers ‘US pastors paid up to $300,000 - are Church of England vicars getting a raw deal?’
     – recent Headline in Christian Today

£5.75 million
     – the amount of money an evangelical church down south is trying to raise for               building improvements.$25,000
     – the amount two American pastors are raising to produce a six minute teaching video Money has been on my mind a bit of late. Not my …