John,

You changed the message topic to an all caps (shouting) "I DO NOT CARE" and stated, "I will swim with the Dolphins if i want to." I believe you. Nevertheless, your post disturbs me and when I'm distressed I try to work my thoughts through in writing. In this case, my thoughts have led me to a somewhat lengthy argument that is likely boring to most but it is written with deliberate care from one human animal (me) to another (you).

Most humans seem to agree that there are things with different degrees of value in nature. We deem trees more important than rocks because, among other things, trees are alive. Because trees live and die while rocks seem to merely exist, we prop up weak saplings, replace trees we harvest to make lumber and paper products and legislate protection for some trees that exist in very limited numbers. We may move rocks when they interfere with our goals or crush large rocks when we need gravel but we do not worry that moving or crushing rocks will disturb the rocks or kill them because we do not attribute any life to rocks. We deem animals more important than trees because, among other things, animals can express their pain in terms with which we can viscerally identify. Because animals have the capacity to express their pain in terms with which we can viscerally identify while trees can only react to their environment by flourishing or failing to thrive, we anesthetize pets before they undergo surgery, kill wild animals whose injuries leave them unable to fend for themselves, and nurture newborn creatures abandoned at birth. We may worry that moving a tree will disturb its roots or kill the tree but we do not attribute any self-conscious feelings about the quality of its existence to the tree.

It is silly to speak of natural things like rocks, trees, and animals in terms of their morality. Rocks, trees, and animals have no intrinsic goodness or badness and they do not have morally relevant behavior; they are only good or bad in relation to the goals of humans. In order to distinguish between actions that are morally good, morally bad or morally neutral a being must have the capacity to understand the distinctions. Only humans have the capacity to distinguish the morality of an action. Of course, some humans are damaged to the extent that they are unable to understand these distinctions but we nevertheless extend to them a regard that we do not extend to animals, in part because we acknowledge, "That could be me." Most humans, however, are able to make moral distinctions and their ability to do so may justify privileging their interests over the interests of animals that are unable to understand the distinctions.

One difference between humans and other beings that may justify regarding human interests more important than the interests of beings is that humans can be held responsible for their actions. Boulders and pines may be undesirable things in a farmer's field but these things are not responsible for their detrimental effect on the farmer's ability to use the land because they did not choose to impede the farmer's efforts. Animals like gophers may be equally undesirable in a farmer's field and though they may have chosen in some sense to infiltrate the farmer's field we do not hold them responsible for their effects on the farmer's ability to use the land because we deem them unable to assume responsibility for their actions. Humans are the only beings we hold morally responsible for their actions; a human can choose whether or not to steal the farmer's equipment so we hold humans who do so morally responsible for the detrimental effect their decision has on the farmer. We make a distinction between the choices of animals and humans and deem that only humans have moral responsibilities.

Another difference between humans and other beings that may justify regarding human interests more important than the interests of other beings is that humans can be motivated by moral reason. Recognizing that animals in factory farms suffer painful existences might provide a moral reason for humans to refuse to eat animal flesh from factory farms. Other beings, including animals, cannot be motivated by such an abstract concept. If a rat is discovered treading water in your toilet bowl, you cannot reason with it hoping to persuade it to return from whence it came; you can only attempt to get rid of it. Though the rat's capacity to suffer may provide you with a reason to kill it painlessly, the rat's interests can justifiably be accorded a lesser moral status than your interests.

Responsibility for behavior and the ability to be motivated by moral reason make humans accountable for the quality of their being relative to other humans. One plant may be better or worse than another in virtue of the amount of rain it received during a crucial growth spurt. One animal may be better or worse than another in terms of its ability to tunnel underground. Nevertheless, plants are not held morally responsible for their decision to send their roots in a sub-optimal direction and animals are not held morally responsible for destroying a neighbor's vegetable garden. Only humans are judged better or worse than other humans based on the morality of the actions they choose and the degree to which, when their self-interest conflicts with the interests of other beings, their self-interest is tempered by considerations of those other beings' interests.

Some humans defend the "rights" of animals by denying that the different degrees of value among living beings in nature makes it morally permissible for humans to use animals to serve human ends. They contend that animals have interests because they have a life so animals should be accorded rights to protect those interests but I don't think that having interests is a sufficient ground for having rights. I may have an interest in CostULess carrying Edy's Espresso Chip Ice Cream but I have neither the right to that ice cream nor the right to force CostULess to provide me with it; all I can do is shop elsewhere. It is the capacity to direct one's actions toward and away from the fulfillment of interests that is relevant to having rights and that capacity is evident only in human animals. Some animals may be able to direct their actions toward their interests but animals are not generally able to direct their actions against their interests. Furthermore, rights impose obligations. Only humans have the moral capacity necessary to understand and strive to meet obligations.

Some humans contend that it unjust for humans to discriminate against the interests of animals because to privilege the flourishing of humans over the interests of animals is "speciesism." They equate speciesism with racism and sexism but there is an important difference; there is no morally relevant difference between black people and white people or men and women but animals differ from humans in ways that may be morally relevant. Humans, for example, can be taught complex reasoning skills that animals cannot learn. Reason may be considered a morally relevant capacity in virtue of its relation to the capacity for moral responsibility and altruistic behavior. Humans may share 97% of their DNA with some animals but the 3% that differs is responsible for all of human civilization including language, science, art, philosophy and the moral nature of humans. Humans require more than biological survival to flourish, as achievements in the arts and sciences attest, and it is our capacity to reason that may morally justify subordinating the interests of animals to the development of some human potentials.

The capacity to desire self-respect is another uniquely human capacity. Self-respect demands dignity which entails a certain awareness of what one is doing or not doing, a realization of one's purpose in acting or not acting, and the ability to choose to act or refrain from acting on one's interests. The intellectual capacities inherent in the concept of self-respect exist only in humans. It is an affront to the dignity of a human to be a slave but it is not undignified to an animal to serve human interests because animals do not understand the concepts of dignity and self-respect. Our treatment of animals must consider their interests but only where such interests exists. Recognition of the different interests of humans and animals may allow, or even require, their different treatment. Thus it cannot be undignified for an animal to be used for entertainment by a human.

The desire for self-respect may provide humans with a moral reason not to patronize dolphin encounter businesses. Humans are morally special because they have the ability to reason complexly, the capacity to distinguish the morality of an action, are morally responsible for their actions, can be motivated by moral reasons, can direct their actions toward or against their interests, and can understand and strive to meet obligations. It is precisely because humans have these abilities that humans who consider the issue of dolphin encounters may determine that they cannot morally justify patronizing dolphin encounter businesses. They may discover that patronizing dolphin encounter businesses has a negative impact on the way they feel about themselves, on their self-respect. Perhaps some humans will be disturbed by the idea that wild animals are confined solely so that they may be used as entertaining diversions for prosperous tourists. Perhaps some humans will find that captivating wild animals just because one has the ability to do so is offensive to some humans they love. Whatever the reason, the desire for self-respect may provide a sufficient moral reason for humans not to patronize dolphin encounter businesses.

Since only humans are subject to moral evaluation of their behavior, only humans are charged with the responsibility for determining what it is morally permissible for them to use to serve their ends. Most humans deem the flourishing of humans important and use rationality to determine what is necessary for humans to flourish. Certain capacities that seem to be unique to humans may provide humans with moral justification for privileging the flourishing of humans over the interests of animals but those capacities, coupled with the desire for self-respect, may provide humans a moral reason not to patronize dolphin encounter businesses.

Here's a link to the Humane Society's website. It gives their perspective on dolphins in captivity:

http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/what_are_the_issues/marine_mammals_in_captivity/index.html

John
In an earlier post I asked you to offer your comments after visiting the Tortola facility. I hoped (and still do) that you would see the conditions for yourself and realize the issues at hand.
Unfortunately, your statement above says it all. The point is we would prefer the dolphins be left in the ocean to begin with. If you want to swim with them...

I will not be looking forward to any comments you have to offer. It's the human thing to do.

i find that those who don't worry about the conditions of animals are usually less likely to care about their human counterparts as well. I am a person who loves dolphins & have always wanted to swim with them, but I feel that when the time comes, then they will meet me on their terms in their ocean..not in captivity...but that is just me ;0)---by the way...i no longer visit zoos either--it's painful to see them caged and not free.

So many can be seen at sea. I know a few people that have jumped in and swam with them. It can be an adventure to seek them out in their own environs.

RL

I read about the "dolphin encounter" facilites in Tortola and the word "sewage" was what really turned me off. If John and his daughter want to swim with the dolphins so bad that they will swim in sewage than that's what I call karma.

What I don't understand is his immature replies. And I'd like to rescue any pets, even neighbors pets, he may have in his vicinity. Eek!

However, I do need to say that not all animal captivity is bad. Autumn, zoos have a history of being horrible and a lot of them still are. But, those in the zoology community who actually care about animals have used past experiences to create a better environment for captives and sometimes endangered species. In these new environments research can and is done regarding the continuation of certain species that we have almost wiped off the planet. A lot of zoos also offer educational programs geared toward children outlining the environmental impact we have on the animals on this earth. I haven't been to a zoo (I do go the Boston Aquaruim though) in years cuz the zoos in my area have not really updated (they've tried but have limited budgets). But I definitely would go to a zoo that cares and commits to it captive flock and continues research on theirs and their wild counterparts lives.

Would I swim with the dolphins? Only if I knew they were well taken care of. Dolphins are social animals and are not "forced" to interact once you are with them. But, I would research the company running the encounter before I went. Would I swim with the dolphins in Tortola? Not on your life. Dude, "sewage".

Perhaps Islander can create a sticky file or page on ways for travelers to engage harmonously with the VI environemnt while there-
like not walking on the coral, feeding dog biscuits to the fish at Coki (BTW, I used to do this before someone educated me), taking part in the dolphin enslavement, feeding fries to the iguanas, etc...

I really believe most visitors mean well and don't understand the impact of their actions - especially the harmful actions that are supported and encouraged by VI enterprise (dolphins, dog biscuits).

I know that some zoos have certainly come a long way...including the one in my town..the world famous san diego zoo...i just don't like seeing them like that..it is great that the zooligists do so much for them...like that pandas..but it just is not for me anymore ;0)

Oh please, let them come to you if they choose to, on their own terms and in their own natural habitat offering their own natural behaviors. Dolphins are the most AMAZING ceatures on earth. They are not just dumb animals. Their inteligence and social interaction is awe inspiring and their family bonds and motherly instincts are close to those of humans.

For those of you that do choose to support these organizations, I can't help but believe that once you do the swim, you will bond so strongly with nature's most beautiful animal on earth that your eyes will open and your heart and mind will understand why some of us think these swims are detrimental to you, the dolphins and the environment. There's always hope...

A former dolphin swimmer