The Infamous Dolphin Rights Episode

Life Audio.

On today's episode of Timeless Wisdom. You said that the deliberate killing of a dolphin is, quote, ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being.

That's right, that's what I— and I stand by that.

Deliberately killing an individual dolphin is, I would say, as bad as killing a human being.

As bad as deliberately killing an An individual, right?

So, all right, so then I go back to the same thing. Yes. So if somebody deliberately killed a whale and somebody deliberately killed your child, if you have a child, forgetting the emotional pain issue, or for— all right, how about my child? Because then you're— then we'll remove the emotional pain. You would see that as, as, as bad as the person, right? Okay, then, uh, if you really believe that Do you want the penalties to be the equivalent, to use your term? Should we send people who kill whales to prison for the rest of their life?

No, and that's because we're at— it's really too early to say what we need to do about this kind of thing.

That's coming up on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager.

Right now, a woman just searched online after finding out she's pregnant. And abortion clinics are racing to be the first voice she hears. For just $50, Caring Network can get there first with compassion, real support, and real hope. Go to caringnetwork.org and give $50 today, because who reaches her first changes everything.

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. Programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to DennisPrager.com. Hi, my friends, you're listening to The Dennis Prager Show. If you missed the male-female hour, you missed a really, really important hour. That's why people subscribe to the show, PragerTopia.com, $5 to $6 a month, unless you're counting every dollar, and I mean literally every dollar. It's pretty close to free, but I appreciate that some do, and I, uh, will not bug you anymore at this moment. Uh, talking about, uh, bugs and animals, I read to you in the first hour a BBC, uh, report: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists. And It was about a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and it quotes a number of scientists, specifically an ethics professor, Tom White, Loyola Marymount University, who has written— is that a— is Professor— first of all, Professor Tom White, welcome to the Dennis Prager Show.

Thank you, Dennis. I'm very happy to be here. Thanks for the invitation.

Well, great, thank you. I, I, oh, it's, it's a one of the great perks of my life that I get to speak to people whom I cite on the air, whether I agree or disagree. But it's, it's, it's shaped my life being able to bounce these ideas off people. So thank you for responding so quickly.

I appreciate that because frankly, one of the great joys of my life is being able to talk to interesting people. So I always Lovely opportunity.

Well, great. Well, I am interesting. I may be wrong, but I am interesting.

Well, most of us are wrong a whole lot more frequently than we'd like to admit.

Well, who knows, who knows. Who's counting? Other than our wives, who's counting? So Tom White is a— now, are you a professor of ethics? Is that your title?

Strictly speaking, excuse me, so that the foundation who supports my work is appropriately thanked, I'm the Conrad Hilton Professor in Business Ethics at Loyola Marymount.

In business ethics? How interesting. And yet you've written a book in defense of dolphins.

Well, it's a long story, but I could actually, if you have the time, I can actually explain how they all connect.

Alright, we'll do that another time. In any event, this is obviously an area of great concern to you, animal rights, and specifically the dolphin and the whale. So I really just have a couple of questions that I'm dying to get your answer to. You're quoted as saying in— they— what they've done is that they have pushed, and you call it as well, dolphins, you say, are non-human persons, correct? I mean, they got you right.

Okay.

And you're quoted as saying 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, Mike, that— I— it's hard for me to believe that you said that to be understood literally. Do you truly believe in your conscience, your heart, and your mind that If somebody kills a whale or a dolphin, it is ethically identical to killing you.

Well, I'm glad you read the quotation. Well, first of all, I'm especially glad that you read the title of the story because we were misquoted in the title of the story. We never said dolphins deserve the same rights as humans, which is the title of the—

Right, of the BBC piece.

We said, um, they deserve rights. And in the interview— I mean, it was a great interview, a number of British scientists— but we were very clear in saying, look, we aren't saying dolphins are humans and they deserve the same rights. They deserve rights, but rights related to their— no, but right, but to your question, I don't say that it's ethically identical to killing a human.

Well, you say it's ethically the equivalent. Well, what is the difference between identical and equivalent?

Thank you for asking. The issue would be that we say that when you talk about rights, it really— and we aren't talking about legal rights at this point, just we talk as philosophers, we talk about as moral rights, that we're talking about the basic conditions that have to be met in order for a being, given the nature of that species, to grow, develop, flourish, to experience a satisfying life. And that one of the things that we've discovered, which is why I claim that dolphins are non-human persons, is that despite what we had thought for eons, scientific research over the last 30 to 50 years has shown that dolphins and humans have some, not all, have some similar abilities such as self-awareness, personalities, the ability to look inside and reflect on one's life, very rich subjective emotional experiences, very tight relationships. And that what that means, so for philosophers, you then can say, well gee, if we have similarities, how do we describe that? We can't say they're the same species. So what philosophers have done is to use the concept of person, not in the sort of the normal way that we do in everyday English to mean it's synonym for human, but we use person to refer to any being that has these abilities no matter what their species. And the reason for that is that— it's those abilities that let us say as humans that we need to treat one another differently from as though we were chairs and tables. So the argument then becomes, if dolphins have those things, they have, as we do, an intense vulnerability to certain kinds of pain and suffering that other animals don't. And so since that becomes the basis of our claim, for example, that we just can't kill one another willy-nilly and that each individual for us counts because that combination of traits that we have make us unique as individuals. What I'm saying is that over the last decades, the scientific research on dolphins has shown that they have a similar kind of— excuse me— consciousness and internal life. And so if we say that's what makes it is required for us not to kill one another, and that it's wrong then for us to deliberately kill one another, then the argument would be then—

Okay, well, alright, there are— There are many problems in my view here, but let me begin though with what I asked you and I don't think you did answer. You said that killing a— the deliberate killing of a dolphin is, quote, ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being.

That's right. That's what I— and I stand by that.

So then I— well, I asked you that, and then I got a very long and eloquent answer about how you came to that decision, but I, I still need an answer.

Yeah, the question you posed to me was, is there a difference? That it was ethically identical. Yeah, I never said it was that.

Okay, what is this? So we go back to that question. What's the difference between identically and equivalent.

Differences as it relates to the differences in the species that you're talking about?

No, no, but between the words. If I say, uh, if, uh, if I say, uh, uh, I don't know, stomping on an ant is ethically equivalent to stomping on a person, or stomping on an ant is ethically identical to stomping on a person, I don't think anybody Anybody would see any difference between those two statements. So I don't understand what— how you're distinguishing between equivalent and identical.

Well, maybe we're just— we're just debating terms, but let's put it this way. I'd say it's as bad as, but not the same as.

Okay, I, I don't understand that.

Okay, killing a dolphin— deliberately killing an individual dolphin is, I would say, as bad as killing a human being, as bad as deliberately killing an An individual, right?

So, all right, so then I go back to the same thing. No, if it's— all right, so it's fine. Forget that. I, I don't understand the difference, but it doesn't matter. I may be— okay, what matters is the first part. It's as bad as. So you were— so in other words, if you knew, would you regard then somebody who deliberately killed a whale— you include whales because those were the two species?

That's right.

Yes. So if somebody deliberately killed a whale and somebody deliberately killed your child, if you have a child, forgetting the emotional pain issue, or how about my child, because then we'll remove the emotional pain, you would see that as bad as the person. That's right. Okay, then if you really believe that, do you want the penalties to be the equivalent, to use your term? Should we send people who kill whales to prison for the rest of their life?

No, and that's because we're at— it's really too early to say what we need to do about this kind of thing. All— the group of us who are working on it, all of us are trying to be very careful and trying not to sort of dictate what we think because we don't even know what the appropriate way to do is because this is basically new science. We would say that what we would ask is that people not do that anymore.

No, no, no, but it's not our job to say what should happen. My problem is that if you really mean it's as bad as— and we'll take a quick break here and give you time to respond— if it's as bad as, then the penalty should be as serious as. I don't believe you believe it's as bad as. That's my point. We'll be back in a moment. I'm speaking to Professor Thomas White. I'm Dennis Prager. This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

We live in a time where the moment you question the narrative, you're told to stop thinking and start complying. That's why what Angel is doing matters. With eye-opening documentaries like Thank You, Dr. Fauci and RFK: Legacy, Angel is willing to explore the issues others avoid in a culture shaped by gatekeepers, Angel offers something rare: a platform for truth-seeking storytelling that isn't constrained by fear or conformity. Go to angel.com/prager, join the Angel Guild, and watch these films today.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom. You're listening to The Dennis Prager Show, and I, I was struck by the article on BBC News which I mentioned to you. It's up at— by the way, it's up at DennisPrager.com. Struck by comments by two— the two professors mentioned here, a psychologist in Atlanta and a professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, who has written In Defense of Dolphins: The New Moral Frontier. And Professor White said to me just before the break that killing a dolphin, deliberately killing a dolphin or a whale, is as bad as killing, deliberately killing a person. So I raised a number of questions, including you said you hadn't worked through the question of what to do to such a person, but if you really did believe that it was as bad as, Why wouldn't the punishment be as serious as?

Well, that becomes a question of how law gets applied, you know, for crimes. That's a whole other legal issue.

But you know, not legally, morally, if you believe that's as bad as, what would you like to see? Forget what is possible at this time.

Well, the first of all, before the break, you and I had a disagreement, and I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do, because I don't think that you I think, I think you, given, particularly given your, your strong allegiance to the family and emotional relationships, I think that you, you're, you're probably closer than you think you are to saying that it is as bad as killing another human being. For example, assume for the moment that the science, the science is accurate. That is, that it says that they have personalities, they have individual consciousness, they have personalities, they have emotions. Take the example of a killer whale. Killer whales, you know, live their entire lives with their mothers. They're very strong, they have very strong connections. They help one another when they're sick, they grieve over death, they have culture, they have rituals. How would you describe the deliberate killing of a being like that?

Well, as perhaps wrong, but a moral universe separate from killing a human. Why? Well, be— for many reasons. In— they begin with my belief that the human being, uh, it's— and, and a lot of this, you— for you and for me, is ultimately a statement of belief. Uh, your belief is that, uh, they deserve the same respect that a human being does, and that the killing of them is as painful Uh, the— I, I can't believe that you believe that the, the, uh, the intensity of awareness— you certainly don't believe that they are as self-conscious as we are, is that correct?

That's in fact been demonstrated that they are as self-conscious. Absolutely. Okay, scientific data.

Well, okay, so let's go to the scientific data part, which I also found, uh, I have my whole life been reading in the New York Times and in the BBC and so on scientists telling me that this gulf that I, that people like me, old-fashioned folks like me, think exists between humans and animals is just an old-fashioned and now scientifically disprovable idea. So they tell me how much monkeys can really read and so on, and then you have professors who finally write this is bunkum about monkeys reading. They're just taught to react in a certain way based on a certain reward and punishment system and so on. So what does it even mean if, by the way, if it is self-consciousness, I am curious, do you make that distinction among people? Because nobody would argue that a 3-week-old is as self-aware as you or I am. Do you think then that killing a 3-week-old human is less of an evil than killing an adult human?

No, in fact it's more evil because of the vulnerability of the baby.

Alright, alright, but then— wait, wait, wait, forgive me, then self-awareness is not the determinant of value.

No, it is, because when you see the baby, what happens with the baby at ages 18 months to 24 months is that they're now able to recognize themselves in a mirror. Their brain develops in a way in which they develop the sense of self. And so what we've observed is that the same thing happened, the same ability is there with dolphins. That is, they acquire that ability.

Right, so would you say—

Which is what ultimately allows us, allows you and me to have this conversation.

All right, so wait, so, but obviously an 18-month can't have this conversation, and not only because they can't speak, but because they're not nearly as as self-aware as you and I are. So would you say that a dolphin is on the level of an 18-month-old human?

No, because I'd say that their consciousness, as yours and mine, develops in a much richer way. And the issue is, you know, the issue isn't drawing the, you know, sort of the bright line in the sand. The issue is really getting to one you said just a minute ago, pain, and the ability to experience pain, and the quality of the pain Then why don't you apply this to dogs? Dogs experience pain in a different way. Now, I, my wife and I have cats, we are devoted to them, but it's a different reason for saying that we should be compassionate and how we should deal, because the pain and suffering in dolphins and whales is the same sort of thing as that you and I experience.

How do you know that?

Because we have self-awareness.

Wait, wait, wait, but wait. Is the gulf between us and a dolphin less than between a dolphin and a dog?

Absolutely. Humans and dolphins— and you can look at, for example, the brain science.

So dolphins suffer far more than dogs do, but far less— far more than dogs do, but as much as we do?

That's right. Wow. And you know, in some ways, in some situations, dolphins probably suffer more than we do. You know, the, the, the report— you've probably, since you've been— you're an intelligent person, you've been following, I'm sure, then you hear about the strandings of dolphins and whales.

Yeah, go on.

One of the explanations for that is that the relationships among these communities are so tight that it's, it's literally unthinkable when one of them gets sick and beaches themselves that One of the explanations is that their relationships are so tight that it's literally unthinkable for the group to abandon the other because it would be so painful to do so.

How do you know that's not all instinct? How do you know it's— there's any self-consciousness or awareness? I, I saw a National Geographic video of killer whales, which you mentioned as being on a particularly high level, throwing a baby seal for fun while it was squealing from terror. Uh, do you think there's any way to, uh, to compare a conscienceless being, which is what they are, to a conscious being, which is what we are? Does conscience not matter, or only consciousness?

So you're saying that if I can, if I can give you an example of a human being doing the same kind of thing—

Oh no, we punish people who torture. We talk— we, we punish people who torture, uh, animals or, or humans.

But we do that.

But we— would you punish killer whales?

It's not my job to punish a killer whale. It's the killer whales' jobs to punish one another.

But they don't, obviously, because they don't have a conscience. They don't think it's wrong to torture a baby seal. That's my point. I will continue. I think it's just too important not to continue. 1-8-PRAGER-776, and you are listening to The Dennis Prager Show. I'm speaking to Professor Tom White, professor of ethics and Business, Loyola Marymount University. This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

We live in a time where the moment you question the narrative, you're told to stop thinking and start complying. That's why what Angel is doing matters. With eye-opening documentaries like Thank You, Dr. Fauci and RFK: Legacy, Angel is willing to explore the issues others avoid. In a culture shaped by gatekeepers, Angel offers something rare: a platform for truth-seeking storytelling that isn't constrained by fear or conformity. Go to angel.com/prager, join the Angel Guild, and watch these films today.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom. Hi everybody, welcome back. Dennis Prager here. And I had cited in the first hour a number of quotes from ethicists and scientists regarding the latest thinking among many about dolphins and whales. And one in particular stood out, and I'm very grateful to the professor for agreeing to come on and discuss it and answer my challenges, actually, which I do have. He's a professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, Professor Tom White. And it was the statement that the deliberate killing of individuals, and this is a direct quote, is quote, ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being. So I was asking you about conscience. Do you say that their consciousness is as virtually as fully developed as human? Which I don't, I don't agree to, and I'll challenge that in a moment. But what about conscience? Do you think they have a conscience that they choose between good and evil?

I think they do. And I mean, that's a great question because, you know, right before the break, you know, we were talking about issues of punishment. They do punish one another. And they, um, one of the best examples that I know of is that there's some great long-term, sort of 25, 30 years of research being done by the scientist Denise Herzog, who brought a great book out on her research called Dolphin Diaries this past year. And so she's been following this community of wild Atlantic spotted dolphins in the Bahamas. Now in the same area, there's this community of bottlenose dolphins. Now bottlenose are a whole lot bigger than the spotted. Spotted's maybe 3, 4 feet long. The bottlenose are like 6, 7, 8 feet long. They're just really big guys. And every now and then, you get these tussles between the two the two groups. Generally, you know, it's peaceful coexistence, but bottlenose, it can be really aggressive. And there's this episode that Denise documents in the book where there's this one bottlenose that basically really goes after and sort of really beats up in a very bad way one of the small spotted. And yeah, it kind of disappears. The next day, a group of spotted get together track down the bottlenose and basically, you know, sort of— it's not— it's either, you know, whether it's revenge or justice. And it's not revenge because they don't kill him, but they, they sort of, you know, give him a— give him the same dose of the, you know, of his own medicine, and things quiet down after that. So there's— yeah, it sure looks like, you know, punishment.

No, it looks like, uh, protection of the group. The, the, the, if he—

wait, wait, wait— if—

No, no, no, not true, because we punish members of our own group. You're talking about a punishment of a member of another group.

Well, they all live in the same area.

No, but you—

but they're— they do punish within one another. For example, fathers disciplining the youth. And, you know, here, one of the most important points here is that I really understand and appreciate your concerns, because, you know, Before I got into this, you and I thought, I mean, I thought pretty much the same way that you do right now. And after 20 years of looking at scientific data and observing whales and dolphins in the wild, my opinion changed, not because I had any great epiphany, it was because of the data that you could see. Now, it takes a long time. I mean, I wrote a book on this. It's not the snappiest of reads, but that's why I honestly believe that if you saw all of the data that I've seen, your, your thinking would have changed the same way that mine did.

Yeah, no, I'm sure you believe that. How could you not? I mean, if you think that I am reasonable and you're reasonable, then I would come to the same conclusion as you. On the other hand, I obviously, I haven't immersed myself in this arena as much as you have, but I have learned to have a very, very skeptical view of experts in the course of my 30 years of broadcasting. Because they're usually wrong when they make some new pronouncements. I mean, experts have told us so many things that have ultimately turned out— the number of experts, and my listeners know I use this example so often, the number of experts who warned that there would be a heterosexual AIDS epidemic in this country, and it took non-experts like Michael Fomento, who just observes with common sense and some basic knowledge of science, that this was drivel, absolute drivel.

I'm saying that it wasn't the case that the Earth was in the middle of the universe. That new bit of information, he was wrong on that score.

No, no, that there are people who are sometimes saying something new or right. By the way, that was not new. It was— there were a lot of people who believed that.

Right, and what I'm saying is that sometimes it's right, and I'm not the only person who says it.

You're right, that's correct, but all I'm saying is I'm not intimidated by the fact that that a person has been immersed in this subject for, for 20 years. That's all I'm saying, because I, I, if you were, you would have an answer. What do we do to a person who kills a whale? Hello, my friends, Dennis Prager here with a fascinating discussion here with someone I differ with, and it's to his credit that it's on as high a level as it is. And by the way, it is to your credit that I'm keeping you on so long, because you're doing your side a service. I obviously don't agree, but it's important to me that those I differ with are good. You're good.

I appreciate that, and I do recognize that we're going on as long as we are, and I really want to thank you for that.

Well, it's one of the many, many advantages that radio has over television. Uh, television, if it gives more than 3 minutes to a subject, it is considered to be deep.

That's right. And you know, I got my— in college, I got my start in radio. I worked on the college radio station, so I've had a long, you know, sort of love of radio. So really, that's one of the reasons I love doing this.

Well, wonderful. Uh, so we're talking about, again, for those just tuning in, and if you're just tuning in now, Naughty, naughty. The professor has said that killing, deliberate killing of a dolphin or a whale is, quote, ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being. So again, I have, and so do my listeners, and God, it just goes so fast even when you devote all this time to it. But I have a number of photos, it's about a photo, that's why I said that. I have a number of questions. You said that when dolphins, for example, see themselves in a mirror, they exhibit to scientists a level of self-awareness. Is that correct?

That's correct.

That's how we know. That's right. Would a dolphin, uh, would a dolphin seeing a photo of itself respond?

You know, that's a really good question, and I'll have to ask researchers who work on that because I don't know that anyone has tried that. That's a, that's a really good question. Thanks.

Good. Please do ask because that's really good because I'm not impressed that they have some reaction in a mirror. I don't, I don't believe that they know themselves by sight. I don't. Okay, I think that the scientists are engaged in wishful thinking, and it would be very interesting if there were, so to speak, a dolphin lineup, uh, uh, how they, uh, if they would react specifically to themselves. Second, I'd like to ask you, uh, and that is when you say— I don't know if you said, but others cited, have said that an aquarium, for example, where a dolphin would be maintained is like, is a form of slavery. How do we know, and this is truly an open question, how do we know that dolphins do not regard it not rather, not as slavery, but as having, so to speak, died and gone to heaven? They have no predators, no worries, food is supplied to them, pretty women ride on their backs. I mean, that sounds like a great life to me.

As a human, it probably is. The arguments, as I understand it, on this is that primarily comes from two things. First of all, blood chemistry, which shows that the stress level is very high, higher than blood chemistry that might be taken in the wild. So there's some chemical evidence that suggests that they're experiencing the despite what you say, no predators, guaranteed food, that it's a very stressful situation. And indeed, you talk to trainers at facilities, they'll talk about treating them for ulcers and regular sorts of stress symptoms of humans. Second issue is sort of evidence of, I mean, there's really no good way to put this, but emotional instability that's been brought on by the stress. You're probably aware of the deaths that have been related to this, Male orca Tilikum?

No, I'm not.

Well, there's this— it's a very sad story.

All right, wait, but you know what? I believe you. You answered it and that's fine. Let me ask you the next. What is your take, and there's no right or wrong here, I'm just curious in light of this. I asked this to Ingrid Newkirk, the head of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, because she said that humans are chickens, chickens are humans. And, and who are we to make a moral distinction between the value of a chicken and a human? So I then asked her if chickens have rights. She said yes. I asked her, in fact, even I believe cockroaches have rights. She said yes. So I said, so what is PETA's position on abortion? And she said, we take no position. So I said, well then, you believe that a cockroach has more rights than, than a human fetus or an unborn human? So I'm, I'm curious, what is your view in light of your belief in the, in, uh, essentially almost infinite value of a dolphin? What is your view of a human fetus?

Well, first of all, I want to make clear, since you brought up PETA, that I, I really do not subscribe to their, to their point of view. Uh, I believe they have good intentions, but, um, I really think that, that their, their approach tends to be too extreme and sort of heavy-handed. On the issue of fetus, you know, I'm one of these people who says that this is an issue primarily of— sort of a private issue as it relates to the woman and her husband, and it's not— I can't know enough to legislate into someone's private life.

No, no, I didn't ask you to legislate. If there is no issue of a woman's health involved, which is 99% of the cases, What do you think of— of, let's begin with the easiest, a third-trimester abortion?

Well, I still think that's a matter— it's a private matter.

I think— why is it a private matter?

You and I agree that one of the problems with, you know, our current society is, is that we have too many, you know, too many forces in the society trying to run individuals' lives.

Well, you, you are— you want to run our lives vis-à-vis whales and dolphins, and you may not be wrong, but, uh, there's a certain privacy about sexuality. And well, what does it have to do—

wait, wait, wait.

—why is that sexuality? I mean, why isn't there privacy then with a born human? Do you think Peter Singer at Princeton believes that parents should have 30 days to kill a child if they think that it's too ill to have a good life?

Well, but see, even when you say a child, you're making a judgment that many, many people of good heart, and I think that's—

No, no, a child. One to— no, no, no, born.

No matter what spectrum, you know, that we are, that this is one of those issues where truly good people can disagree, and I think when we have those situations, if we're really committed to, you know, personal liberty, we have to back off and say, you know, there are zones that we have to leave to the individual, as much as in our hearts we might want to say something different.

Okay, all right. Well, listen, it— I'm deeply appreciative of your time, Professor, and it was a pleasure to speak to you.

You too. And yeah, I really want to thank you because also I was listening to the Male and Female Hour, and one of the most important points you made is the importance of talking. And that's what you and I just did. And so I really want to thank you very much for, for doing that.

Well, it's very kind of you. You're very welcome, and thank you again. I'll take some of your calls if you— I know some of you are giving up because the professor's going, but I'll summarize and take calls. Episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

We live in a time where the moment you question the narrative, you're told to stop thinking and start complying. That's why what Angel is doing matters. With eye-opening documentaries like Thank You, Dr. Fauci and RFK: Legacy, Angel is willing to explore the issues others avoid. In a culture shaped by gatekeepers, Angel offers something rare: a platform a platform for truth-seeking storytelling that isn't constrained by fear or conformity. Go to angel.com/prager, join the Angel Guild, and watch these films today.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom. Well, at Prager University, we do teach a different, uh, a different take on this matter. Dennis Prager here. This has been a— I did not expect it to go the hour, but that's the true beauty of radio. You have the time to flesh out such significant subjects. I, I'm saddened actually by this movement toward the equation of humans and animals. One of you was calling in. I could summarize some of them. They were great calls. There were great calls all time. I, I— you have to forgive me, folks. It's, it's a tear that I feel, uh, so often, as you know, because I have so much to deal with and then can't take all the calls, or sometimes any. Nelson in Texas says, this is a Walt Disney science. People want animals to have human-like qualities. I agree with you. I do agree with you. And, and a creature that has no conscience, and they have no conscience, that I think that, that, that consciousness, uh, one can argue that, uh, a dog has consciousness, but there were no animals with a conscience. A conscience means I know that this is wrong and therefore will desist from doing it. I don't believe that they know something is wrong or right. They are not capable of it. And that, by the way, is what being created in God's image is about. It is about— God knows— that's why, you see, this is— see, I believe Judeo-Christian values have more insight on these matters than the contemporary scientists who argue that human and animal are equivalent. The difference is that we know good from evil, and God does, but animals do not. The day that a— see, those National Geographic whales that tossed a baby seal while it was squealing in terror back from one another, had one of them stopped thinking, you know, this baby is terrorized What I'm doing is wrong. It's, it's, it's, it's really cruel, and I shouldn't be cruel. Then I will rethink my position. So to Brian and Benjamin and Bob and Nelson, whom I just cited, and Andrew and others from Idaho, to Brooklyn, who called earlier and finally gave up, forgive me, but I hope I handled— I hope I hope I expressed some of your questions. No, there is an, I believe, an infinite and unbridgeable gap between the human and the dolphin, the human and the whale, the human and the great ape, and the human and the dog. You are listening to The Dennis Prager Show. Tomorrow on Timeless TV. Real Housewives with Dennis Prager. Now I have a topic today which inverts, reverses— exactly, it doesn't undo, it just reverses everything I always say about how we have a moral obligation to be happy, right? Because happy people do more good. Now I'm going to turn it all the way around 180 degrees and tell you that the opposite is also true. That good people are more happy. Join us tomorrow to hear more on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. This has been Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles. We want to take just a second to thank the team at Life Audio for their partnership with us on the podcast. Go to lifeaudio.com to find dozens of other faith-centered podcasts in their network, including shows about prayer, Bible study, parenting, and more.

We live in a time where the moment you question the narrative, you're told to stop thinking and start complying. That's why what Angel is doing matters. With eye-opening documentaries like Thank You, Dr. Fauci, and RFK: Legacy, Angel is willing to explore the issues others avoid. In a culture shaped by gatekeepers, Angel offers something rare: a platform for truth-seeking storytelling that isn't constrained by fear or conformity. Go to angel.com/prager, join the Angel Guild, and watch these films today.