Monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law

1) I can agree that both humans and monkeys, in the example that you used, share certain traits. As you mentioned, a monkey who is simultaneously the mother of an infant monkey would defend said infant from danger, just as a human mother would defend her own child. 2) However, I cannot agree that this maternal instinct would make a monkey a moral, rational being -- and therefore worthy of the rights that we, as humans, receive. 3) Contrary to what you have argued, maternal instinct and morality are not one and the same. Morality refers to the measure of right and wrong, in regards to a certain action, or lack of action. Maternal instinct, however, refers to an innate, almost fixed pattern of motherly behavior in regards to its child -- or, to put it differently, the bond between mother and child that causes a mother to behave as, for lack of a better way to put it, a "typical mother". 4) So while I will admit that it may be immoral in most cases for a mother not to protect her young from whatever dangers threatens it, it does not necessarily follow that all those creatures with a maternal instinct, human or otherwise, would also be "moral" creatures. 5) Morality is the measurement of either the help or harm that an act brings about; maternal instinct would be the act itself. 6) Similarly, morality relies heavily on the creature in question having a conscience -- a rational mind, capable of logic and reasoning. 7) For one to be a "moral" creature, one must be able to comprehend whether or not their act is helping or harming those around them. In the case of human and monkey mothers, both mothers would have to be able to comprehend, rationally, the moral consequences of their actions -- be they good or bad. 8) It is relatively simple to prove this in the case of the human mother, but it is not so for that of the monkey. 9) There is absolutely no proof that monkeys can think in the same way that humans can, -- that is, morally -- therefore, in the instance you mentioned, the mother monkey acts on instinct, and instinct alone. 10) There is nothing "moral" about acting upon instinct; and seeing as how most, if not all, of monkeys" (and more broadly, all animals") actions are made on instinct, -- the instinct to survive -- it is not terribly difficult to then argue that monkeys do not act, nor think, in a moral manner. 11) In light of all this, I feel that I can yet uphold my original conclusion, seeing as how rights require a moral mindset, and the ability to rationally comprehend right and wrong, and animals -- or monkeys, if we wish to be more specific -- can not actually do this. 12) I feel that this also applies to your example of a pack of lions, hunting and killing other animals to bring about the best balance of satisfaction and frustration for all -- and it being "morally just", in turn. 13) Perhaps in the view of the utilitarian, this is the case; I cannot exactly disagree with the fact that this would bring about the best "balance" of both satisfaction and frustration for all parties involved. However, it is debatable as to whether or not this is "morally just" -- or a moral judgment at all. 14) And the reasons why go back to my mention of animals acting upon instinct. It is a lion"s innate instinct, for example, to hunt and kill other animals. Not because it would bring about this utilitarian condition of a perfect balance, but because it would sustain their pack and keep them alive. 15) In the wild, it is not about being "morally just" -- it"s about the survival of the fittest. 16) In regards to the matter of children, I would again disagree; because, to a certain extent, children -- especially young children -- do not have the rights that, say, a young adult would have. 17) It is for this reason that we do not allow children to make their own, radically life-changing decisions, at least until they are of a certain age. Rather, these children rely on the decisions and the rational mind of their parents, because their parents are of a sound and developed mindset; thus, they are capable of thinking morally. 18) I suppose that it would have negative connotations to say that, in this regard, a child is their parents" property, but essentially, this is what it comes down to. At least, it is so, until they are of the legal age that allows them to become independent, and think for themselves. 19) But to call them this does not necessarily entail that they are "lifeless", and even besides for that, they are not of this status forever. 20) You argued that we have a direct duty to keep our children from harm, and I wholeheartedly agree with that; what I have proposed, to this end, is just one way of how we, as human beings, manage this. 21) Would you have it differently? If we allowed five-year-olds to make their own decisions based on their own, undeveloped perceptions of morality, do you not agree that there would undoubtedly be an eruption of chaos in society -- to say the very least? 22) I mentioned nothing about animals not being capable of feeling pain, thus, I agree with you when you say that when animals feel pain, it is their own -- inflicted upon them by someone who meant to injure them. 23) However, in the same regard that I spoke of young children, I feel I can also speak of animals. To some degree, domesticated animals are the property of the person whose home they belong to. 24) In addition, it is because of both the lack of communication in animals, as well as their incapability to make rational, morally sound decisions, that we protect these animals in the same way that we would protect our young children, until they are of age. 25) And, in the case of the K-9"s and their police partners, it can be argued that they protect their partners simply because they"ve been trained and brought up to do so. 26) If one has been trained to do something, they do it for the simple fact that it is all they know; that it is their job, and what they have been brought up for. 27) There is nothing "moral" about, nor is there any necessary "moral judgment" or "knowing" required in doing the one job you"ve been trained to do. 28) Animals may function similarly to humans, yes, but not in the ways that would satisfy the conditions necessary to obtain the rights of humans. 29) Therefore, I uphold my original conclusion, that monkeys should not be viewed as persons in the eyes of the law, because they very clearly do not have the moral capabilities required to be viewed as such to begin with.