Should Monkeys Be Considered Persons

PRO: I still disagree with my opponent’s definition of a person and that whether or not an infant is considered a person is an entirely different debate topic. I say that it is a different debate topic for what my opponent argues about in the following paragraph. This is about monkeys not infants. There are people out there that believe infants are not people. I will refer back to my forth premise again, “Assigning personhood is not necessary for establishing protection rights.” By the legal definition no, an infant would not be considered a person. Yes, it is still given rights, so to be given rights and to be protected you do not necessarily have to be considered a person. Humans who have the ability to make these decisions are the ones who do it for the infant, but when would an infant be in court anyway? My opponent has not actually addressed the definition I gave them but kept referring to the legal definition which I explained was to show how the definition for what constitutes a person or personhood varies from person to person, or different societies. PRO: So why do infants and toddlers have rights, when they aren’t considered persons? Perhaps it is because they are given rights because people care about them, specifically their parents and family. (328.3.4) The same thing could go for animals. Because of the being’s loved ones’ sentimental value and interest upon them, they are protected by rights. Humans who are able to understand that these beings need rights are able to give it to them. Humans understand the morals and think rationally for why such beings need rights. Humans fight for animal rights because they see it that animals should be treated morally. PRO: Not all humans can necessarily, answer the question of “why we are here, how do we exist and where did we come from.” Take into account an infant once more. An infant is clearly a human being, but would not be able to answer that question for mostly two reasons Humans do not answer the question, they ponder it. After pondering the question they then attempt to answer it rationally. They do not need to have a definite answer but the ability to be able to think of such a question is what allows for higher level thought. Obviously an infant is unable to think about this because it is an infant and has not fully developed. It must wait until it is fully developed and then be taught the skills it needs. What human cannot ponder such a question or eventually ponder it? PRO: So in this case, levels of consciousness should not matter. It would be more appropriate to consider that both monkeys and humans are sentient. After all “pain is pain, wherever it occurs.” (328.1.4) To define a person as just a sentient being can include many species of animals. It will include insects, birds and fish. Would these species also be seen as persons? Would my opponent agree that they should be put on the same level of rights as humans? How would we go about creating rights for such animals? There is obviously a limit that must be made of what should be or should not be considered a person when defined as just a sentient being. PRO: This means that many mentally retarded individuals do not fully understand the consequences of their own actions, nor fully understand the emotions that other individuals may be experiencing. (http://www.theonion.com...) The source my opponent uses as support for their argument is from The Onion. The Onion is a site that posts satirical news articles about current events going on around the world. Many of these stories are false and should not be taken at face value. The article is said to be written by a man, Warren Lee Hill, who was in prison for murdering his girlfriend and while in prison he murdered his cellmate. His execution was postponed because of the controversy of him being qualified as mentally ill. My opponent either did not read the article or did not get the satire as it was very evident in the way he describes himself. The author of the article was also written by the man being executed. This is not a credible source and I will not take it seriously. PRO: In most cases of psychopathy, the individual has poor judgment, cannot decipher between the good and the bad, is unable to learn from previous mistakes, and simply is not able to experience emotions, such as, guilt, compassion, and sorrow. (http://www.cognethic.org...) In both of these mental illnesses, the individuals are unable to make moral decisions, but does this make them any less of a human being? Of course it does not, these people are human, sentient beings, much like monkeys who may not be able to make moral decisions, and they deserve rights as well. This is another entirely different debate topic. It is not known as to whether psychopaths do have morals. It is understood they have a different view of how their world operates. Most disregard right and wrong or just have no understanding of it which is why they are not held morally responsible for their actions in some cases. Some psychopaths do understand morals but just do not care for them. Usually when a psychopath commits a crime people will consider them not to be a human being or a person, they disassociate them as an evil object. The answer to this topic is something that has not been decided upon. My opponent cannot ask that question because my opponent is making the assumption that psychopaths have no sense of morality, despite us not coming to a conclusion on that. They are still considered human beings because psychopathy is a personality disorder that affects their judgment, not them being humans. Monkeys cannot make moral decisions or judgments because they do not have an understanding of what morals are in our society for they are animals and do not live in our society.