Michael Smerconish is a thoughtful commentator who hosts a generally interesting, sometimes provocative weekly program on CNN.  A popular feature of his is to ask viewers to weigh in on a topical question-of-the-day, with results announced towards the end of the hour.  These can sometimes be surprising, and here is one such.  The question was whether young people should be required to perform some kind of mandatory community service for a year or two, soon after high school.  Not whether they should be encouraged to do so, or empowered to do so.  Required. 

Viewers responded in the affirmative by a margin of 71% to 29%.  This was quite surprising, and not in a good way.  

It seems that, as a society, we are very comfortable defining for others how they would be better able to live a good life.  We’re prepared to make good choices on someone else’s behalf.  To impose our will on someone for the good of all.   

I respectfully disagree that this is a good thing.

My position is that we don’t get to decide for someone else what acts he will be required to perform, what path she will be required to take in her life.  This isn’t just a moral question, but also a practical one.   Speaking to the specific example above, my belief is that young people I know who are very active in social or humanitarian causes do so because they are highly motivated to make the world a better place.  And we should be delighted that there are such people, whether young or old.  My guess is that adding an element of coercion will make these particular young people less motivated, and certainly not more.  It’s the difference between a conscript army and a professional, all-volunteer one.   You needn’t wonder which is likely to be more effective.

Okay, so having stated that we shouldn’t assume the right to decide for others, let’s focus the discussion on one of CCA’s central premises – the admonition to not attend a dolphin show (or to swim-with-the-dolphins).  Isn’t this making a moral choice for others?  Let’s challenge ourselves on this point.  How is it possible to defend the individual’s right to choose on the one hand, then to then turn around and demand that people shouldn’t view dolphin shows if they want to?  Isn’t this a contradictory position?  Is there a reason we can’t let every person decide for themselves whether this falls within their moral compass? 

The answer has to be a resounding, indignant “NO”.  And the reason is that sentient, thinking, highly-cognitive beings cannot be property.  At least not in a moral sense (though legally they can still be property in most countries, for the time being).  When you view a dolphin show, someone’s rights are in fact being violated.  It happens to be a nonhuman who is the victim, but that is in no way relevant.  They may not be human, but given their essential nature, we don’t get to decide that life in a concrete tank is good enough for them.  

Concepts like the need for conservation, or the desirability of avoiding the infliction of harm on an animal that is capable of experiencing suffering are pretty well embedded in the public mind.  However, an appreciation for the essential nature of these animals has not really penetrated into our collective psyche.   Even to the extent that I have been challenged over the fact that I don’t have a problem with fish being kept in an aquarium.  “What’s the difference?”, I’m sometimes asked.  A fish, even a big one, has a brain which is miniscule – kilo for kilo, white sharks have about 240 times less brain mass than humans.  Unless someone presents evidence to the contrary, I suspect that a fish is perfectly content spending its life in an aquarium, provided it’s well cared for, if indeed a term like ‘content’ can even be applied to a fish.  

Not so for a dolphin.  Compare the brain of a bottlenose dolphin to a human’s, and you’ll see what I mean.  This is an animal which experiences captivity as a torture that never ends.  It’s surprising that they don’t all go insane, though many of them clearly do.  I think it’s entirely likely that once we’ve come to really understand them, it will be unthinkable to us to deprive dolphins of their liberty.  It’s CCA’s position that we know enough already to adopt this policy now.  Maybe the question of personhood can wait until science has moved us forward sufficiently, but we should end the practice of cetacean captivity – now!

How far out do we want to extend our moral frontier?  The Nonhuman Rights Project draws on “common law and evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience” to help determine which qualities and characteristics of other species would constitute a case for recognition of their fundamental rights (including, arguably, rights to personhood).   CCA agrees with this approach.  Which species will ultimately be included within our definition of personhood, and all the rights that entails, will develop over time as we follow the facts that emerge from an honest inquiry.  Personally, I believe it may extend to all cetaceans, the great apes, and possibly elephants.  Dolphins, with their extraordinary intelligence, are just the most obvious example.  

If we want a just and compassionate world, we have to consider who we include in our moral framework, and why.  Recognition that the ‘other’ is not so different from ourselves defines much of the progress we’ve made throughout history.  New knowledge has always driven us to push out the boundaries of our moral frontier, which is effectively the same as pushing back against the limitations of our own ignorance.  

For The Orca’s Voice, 

Phil and the CCA Team