Monkeys should be considered persons

1.I agree with premise one, because it is only logical to say that pain=pain 2.I do not agree with premise 2. 3.I agree with premise 3, because most people agree that animals or humans should not have to suffer pain inflicted on them. 4.I do not agree with this premise, please see questions and the controversial premise section for reasons. 5.I do not agree with this premise, reasons given below. 6.I do not agree with this premise either. 7.I agree with this premise 8.I agree with this premise, 9.I need some clarification on this premise, see questions below. 10.I do not agree 11.I do not agree 12.I do not agree with this premise Non-Controversial Premises: 1. not controversial because pain always = pain. 3. not controversial because most people would agree that no creature should not have pain inflicted on him or her. 7. I agree with this premise. 8. Non-Controversial because I agree with the duties Controversial Premises: 2. Controversial because it depends on what kind of pain we are looking at. Is pain actually and emotion? Pain could come in either a physical form or an emotional form. Whether or not I agree with this definition requires you to define which form of pain you are referring to. Also, it needs to be added that we are talking about inflicted pain, because it is possible to suffer pain without it being afflicted on you. 4. Please make premise 4 an actual premise- two sentences not allowed. I do not think that morality depends on whether or not the individual voluntarily agrees to it. Someone could agree with a set of rules, and those rules could technically be immoral. I think that you need to find a better definition of morality- maybe one from a previous debate???? first say that what is ethical is moral, and then define morality based on the definition of ethics. This would make your argument much more clear, and then I would say that it would no longer be controversial. 5/6. These premises seem to be very redundant, and I do not understand the reasoning behind this premise. Can you please explain what you mean by what you said here. 9. I cannot immediately agree with this premise because I have no way of knowing what the independent value of others is. 10. I do not agree, because I don"t think that it is a given that we are not permitted to harm animals, but rather a passed law. What do you mean by the fact they monkeys are moral object? please define that, I do not understand what you mean. 11. I do not agree because I do not understand how this statement could be backed up. Please explain what you mean. 12. I don"t agree, because I don"t think that monkeys have the same rights as humans. Do you have a way to show that monkeys have the same rights, or even should have the same rights? As far as I can tell there is no way to say that they DO have the same rights, but if you have a way to show that they should have the same rights then it would be better understood. Questions: 2. What form of pain are you referring to- a physical pain or an emotional pain? 5/6. Why do animals have the same rights as humans? Can you provide logical reasons for this? 9. What is the independent value of something? Do we really all have the same value as humans? Wouldn't it be worse to kill a human than to kill a monkey? 10. Is it a law or a right to prevent harm? 11. How can you back this up, do you have any examples? 12. Are we arguing that they are humans or persons? How can you say that monkeys do not act immorally, if they are to be considered as persons. If this was the case, they could do no wrong if nothing they did was immoral. If this was the case, then I don't think that it would be logical to say that monkeys would be persons. Do monkeys really have inherited rights? What kinds of rights do you mean by this. Can you please define "persons" as opposed to humans, and how their rights may or may not be different" What would being a person do for a monkey? would you allow a monkey to vote?