> See, this is what we get when we confuse science and activism. Should a "researcher" have any more weight with the public about what they consider "morally acceptable"?
There is something to be said about a scientific approach to morality but for the purposes of this discussion, is it not sufficient to posit that the scientists are merely making a logical connection?
Given 1. Prevailing morality protects persons (humans as of writing);
2. Dolphins show a significant amount of person-like traits.
Therefore, by prevailing morality, dolphins should be protected.
It is obviously not quite as straightforward but neither does it require a great faith-based leap in logic.
…
As a sidenote, this is interesting to see on such an entrepeneurship-focused site:
> This is like when your chiropractor tells you that you have a bad back -- and need many more chiropractor visits.
Should "founders" not try to sell their product either?
There is something to be said about a scientific approach to morality but for the purposes of this discussion, is it not sufficient to posit that the scientists are merely making a logical connection?
Given 1. Prevailing morality protects persons (humans as of writing); 2. Dolphins show a significant amount of person-like traits.
Therefore, by prevailing morality, dolphins should be protected.
It is obviously not quite as straightforward but neither does it require a great faith-based leap in logic.
…
As a sidenote, this is interesting to see on such an entrepeneurship-focused site:
> This is like when your chiropractor tells you that you have a bad back -- and need many more chiropractor visits.
Should "founders" not try to sell their product either?