Should Monkeys Be Considered Persons

As this debate comes to an end, I have decided to keep all of my premises. 1.Animals are not our (as humans) resources. (325.2.1) 2."Such beasts are not mere things to be used as cruelly as we like no matter how trivial the benefit we derive." (365.3.4) 3."Non-human mammals have essentially the same right not to be harmed or killed as we do." (344.1.3) 4."Mammals are not only sentient but have other mental capacities as well." (345.3.2) 5.All sentient beings have inherent value. (334.3.9) 6. "The basic moral rights of at least some non-human animals are in no way inferior to our own." (344.1.1) 7.Therefore, monkeys should be considered persons. As I have stated before, animals are not human resources. They were not evolved to partake in horrific lab experiments, or to become exploited for mankind"s own entertainment. Yet numerous people seem to believe that it does not matter that animals are harmed, since they are on this Earth to only benefit humans. An animal"s pain will only matter if it affects and troubles a human(s). (326.2.1-4) If such a system is believed, it can be concluded that humans have no duty directly to animals, but rather an indirect duty, which signifies only duties concerning them. This view also determines that since we do not owe anything to these animals, we cannot possibly wrong them; we can only commit wrongful acts involving animals. For example, if a person kicks your dog, they would be committing a wrongdoing towards you because they have upset you and/or damaged your property, which is immoral; but they would not be committing a wrongdoing to your dog. Your dog is no more harmed than an inanimate object would be harmed. To justify this view, some could say that your dog does not feel or care about pain and so it is not bothered by and unaware of the harm done to him/her. But this would obviously be false because dogs are mammals and mammals, including humans, are sentient beings. Claiming that a dog, or any animal, cannot feel pain would be saying that humans do not care about and/or cannot feel pain either, which clearly is not the case. After all, "pain is still pain wherever it occurs." (327.3.4-15 " 327.4.1-2 - 328.1.4) Also, as I have stated in the previous arguments, infants and very young children, along with brain-damaged, senile, and comatose, cannot sign contracts because they do not have the sense required to comprehend morality, which would mean that they cannot receive rights. Yet, these human beings indeed have rights because of the sentimental interests of their loved ones. The same goes for animals. They cannot comprehend contracts, so they cannot sign them, therefore they would lack rights. (328.3.3-5 " 328.4.1-2) If infants and children can receive rights without having to understand morality and signing a contract, then so should monkeys. Some animals are protected by rights because of the sentimental interests of their loved ones, but others are not fortunate enough. Monkeys being tested in laboratories for "scientific purposes" are examples of animals lacking rights. These animals are being put through excruciating pain, being tested over and over daily for unnecessary research, all for the benefit of mankind. (336.4.5-8) Whereas a human can clarify that they are willing to undergo such treatments in the name of science, an animal cannot refuse, and they are not given a chance to. (341.4.5-6) "If suffering is bad, then it is bad for any individual who suffers." (365.3.8) If we cannot put a human being through such torture without their consent, we should not be able to put an animal through such torture neither. There is no concrete moral distinction between animals and human beings. Just as human beings, animals can reason, communicate with each other, and care for their young. Animals also have things that they want and prefer, and characteristics of moral relevance, such as love, course of thought, and affiliation. (342.2.1-4) Monkeys are sentient beings with additional mental capabilities as well. These capabilities consist of feeling, recollection, belief, use of general concepts, deliberate action, and self-awareness. Due to these capabilities, these animals are subjects-of-a-life that have inherent value. And we as human beings have a duty to not harm those with inherent value. (345.3.3 " 345.4.1 " 346.2.3) Mostly everyone approves of animal rights, for protection against human abuse, so why can we not accept most animals as moral equals to us? (352.1.2) After all, human beings are mammals, a part of nature, we are only one species among millions. (372.3.2)