Should Monkeys Be Considered Persons

1. Animals do not have an understanding of morals.2. Monkeys do not know what is morally right and what is morally wrong.3. Person or Personhood does not have a formal definition so the criteria of what defines a person are unknown or vary.4. I will define a person as a person who can be held accountable for their actions, has legal rights, and can make rational decisions.5. Assigning personhood is not necessary for establishing protection rights.6. Monkeys are given animal rights which protect them from human abuse and confinement.7. Therefore, monkeys should not be considered persons. Many of my premises are still the same because my opponent was not able to give much information to disprove them. I added my definition of a person to my premises and edited my third premise. It is still true that animals do not have an understanding of morals. Monkeys are unable to know what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Personhood or what would make a being a person has not been defined and is still being debated among today. Because there was no definite definition part of the debate was arguing about what would be a proper definition. My opponent said anything that is a sentient being should be considered a person whereas I defined person as one who can be held accountable for their actions, has legal, rights and most importantly can make rational decisions. I pointed out the flaw in my opponent’s definition that defining a person as any sentient being will include many different species of animals. I questioned whether all these animals should also be considered persons and should be given the same rights. My fifth premise has not been proven wrong, that assigning personhood is not necessary for establishing protections rights. Beings can still be given rights and not be considered persons. This leads to my sixth premise which is about monkeys having animal rights. Animals are given rights yet are not considered persons. There can be a push for a better understanding of animal rights or additions to it. This proves that a being does not need to be considered a person to be given rights. Many times my opponent would bring up mentally disabled humans as reasons why monkeys should be considered persons. My opponent claimed that mentally disabled people are unable to understand morals. A mental disability does not hinder most humans from thinking rationally, understanding morals or having higher levels of thoughts. In conclusion, monkeys should not be considered persons because they are unable to understand morals, assigning personhood is not necessary for establishing protection rights, and they cannot achieve higher levels of thought. We can still value them as beings and still give them rights but that does not mean we must consider them persons. Towards the end my opponent kept bringing in other claims that were debatable as proofs or facts, such as infants being considered persons or claiming that psychopaths do not have moral understanding. I felt this made us go off-topic. Infants are given rights because of humans understanding of morals. It is unknown as to whether psychopaths can understand morals, but it is known they have a different view of what constitutes right and wrong in the world. One of the sources my opponent provided was from an unreliable site for satire. This shows they did not background check the reliability of the source used. This debate was extremely difficult for me as being on con meant I was against most of my personal views on this subject. At first I had a hard time trying to put myself on the opposing side of my views but once I was able to it became easier. I pulled through and looked for many flaws or facts that I could to try and disprove my opponent and their claims. I looked at the sources she provided and tried to find faults in those. It was quite humorous to see an Onion article used as a legitimate source. I did my own research to try and better my argument.