Should Monkeys Be Considered Persons

PRO: “I seem to disagree with my opponent’s legal definition of a person,” My opponent did not understand why I listed the several definitions of a person. The definition was put there along with the others to show that it varies from person to person and even the law, which is where the legal definition I provided came from. There is still a continuous debate on what the definition of person and personhood is. How I defined a person is as follows: “I will define a person as a person who can be held accountable for their actions, has legal rights, and can make rational decisions.” PRO: “A person should be defined as a sentient being. One with “the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.” In this case, anyone that can feel and distinguish any type of emotion, including pleasure, pain, satisfaction, and frustration would be considered a person. Among these persons would be infants, children, and the mentally disabled, as well as animals.” Yes, both animals and humans are sentient. However, that is where consciousness comes into play. In terms of consciousness, a human is significantly much more conscious than an animal. A human can beg the question of “why are here, how do we exist and where did we come from?” and proceed to make attempts at answering that question. An animal cannot because it has a significantly lower level of consciousness and therefore cannot perform higher level thoughts and beg the question of their existence like why are they here, how do they exist and where did they come from with attempts to answer it. Humans can also create and appreciate art. They can give meaning behind the art. There is no evidence that an animal can create a piece of art and then appreciate or give meaning to it. PRO: “I also disagree with the fact that all human beings are capable of determining what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Again, I will bring up the example of an infant, a child, and/or a mentally disabled person. An human being living the younger years of their lives does not necessarily know what is considered right and wrong according to morals; after all they are only children, who still have much to learn about the world and morals. A mentally disabled individual’s brain does not quite function like a fully functioning individual’s brain. They may not be able to distinguish between right and wrong any more than children or animals can. This doesn’t (and shouldn’t) mean that a child or mentally impaired human are less of a person for not being able to comprehend such morals and be denied of their rights, and the same goes for animals.”Whether an infant is considered a person or not is a completely different debate topic. Children are conditioned through operant conditioning while monkeys or animals are conditioned with classical conditioning. The child is able to tell you why it responded in the way it did and it can give you its reasoning while a monkey cannot. Though one child might respond that, “yes it was wrong for so and so to murder such and such because of this and that,” another child could respond with an opposing answer. Children can formulate reasons, but very basic ones. That is because their minds are not as developed as adults and therefore cannot provide more detailed and in-depth reasoning. A mentally disabled person can understand morals. The illnesses that cause one to be mentally disabled vary and some are not as severe as to cause their moral judgment and understanding to be impaired. https://en.wikipedia.org... PRO: “Not only are monkeys considered sentient beings, with response to painful stimuli because of their sensory neurons, but they are indeed capable of higher levels of thought.” My opponent does not understand what I meant by higher levels of thought. Higher level thought does not constitute making gestures based on very simplistic patterns that were taught to them. Higher level thought does not constitute making a tool in order to increase chances of survival. Cave men built fire for survival, but does that mean that they were capable of higher level thought? Only until much later into the evolutionary tree were they able to. This goes back to what I stated previously of classical conditioning. By higher level thought I mean they can raise questions about the universe, study it, question their existence, why are they here, what are they for? We do not know if animals can have these sorts of thoughts. As I stated previously humans can have these thoughts. PRO: “I do apologize about the misunderstanding about “perforations” it was a typo on my behalf. I meant to say things that they prefer.” Thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding. I will now address the claims my opponent made properly now. Yes, all life is important and should be treated as such. We should not be treating life well based on what we think their usefulness is but rather treat everyone as important because that’s what being moral is about. I agree with this. They are and can be valued as well as respected. Does this mean monkeys should be considered persons? No, being a subject of life with inherent values does not mean you should be considered a person. Many religions view animals as sacred and respect them but still do not see them as persons. Assigning personhood isn’t necessary for establishing protection rights. There is such thing as animal rights which are given to monkeys. Animal rights protect the animal from abuse, confinement, and oppression from humans. They have an intrinsic value separate from any value they have to humans, and are worthy of moral consideration.