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. Personhood does not have a formal definition so the criteria of what defines a person are unknown or vary.4. Assigning personhood isn’t necessary for establishing protection rights. 5. Monkeys are given animal rights which protect them from human abuse and confinement. 6. Therefore, monkeys should not be considered persons. My opponent does not give a definition of what a person or personhood is. A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood. The definition of personhood is constantly changing and defined differently by many people. Lori Marino views all other animals with a brain as persons. Bioethicist Joseph Fletcher’s definition of personhood included such things as self-awareness, self-control, a minimum level of intelligence, a sense of time (including a sense of the past and future), concern for others, curiosity, and so on. The legal definition of a person is as follows: “An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.” http://www.duhaime.org... What defines a person and personhood varies from each individual. 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: “Rights are “valid claims, claims to certain goods and against certain beings, i.e., moral agents. Moral rights generate duties not only to refrain from inflicting harm upon beings with inherent value but also to come to their aid when they are threatened by other moral agents.” (346.2.5-6)” Animals do not have an understanding of morals. They do not know what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Many animals are entirely instinctual. But we as human beings, capable of distinguishing what's morally right from morally wrong, know that it would be wrong to harm them unless they have brought harm to us. Moral is of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Monkeys are unable to claim their own rights. It is us humans who give them the rights. Until monkeys are able to tell us they deserve the same rights as humans then they will not be given them. Animals are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong and in order to be moral one must know how to distinguish the two. Humans have rights because rights imply responsibility and an understanding of how society and the law works. All of human civilization is built on us not only understanding our own rights but also understanding the rights of others. Letting animals have rights equal to humans completely shatters this: Not only are they not human, but we have no idea if they can even comprehend this status and these rights that we've given them. Pro: “One’s value as an individual is independent of their usefulness to another. To treat someone in a way that neglects to show respect of that individual’s independent value, is to act immorally and violate the individual’s right. To act morally is to be “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character”, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary. (333.4.8-10) This concludes that every interest matters and each interest must be counted as equivalent importance.” If monkeys are made to be persons would they be held accountable for violating the rights of other persons? What if a monkey harms another monkey? Will they go through court or be put into jail? Yes, we should treat everyone as equally important and not base them on their usefulness to us, but does this really constitute that monkeys should be considered persons? Just because we view them as equally important does not mean they should be considered persons. Pro: “Whether it is in the case of a human or an animal, everyone’s pain or frustration is significant, and is just as significant as any other being’s pain or frustration. This also concludes that animals are indeed sentient beings with other mental capacities in addition. These capacities contain emotion, memory, desire, the use of general concepts, deliberate acts, and self-awareness.” Yes, monkeys can feel emotions. That is because they have what neuroscientists call, an amygdala. http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu... This is what allows us to have very basic and instinctual emotions. Yes, they can feel pain. That is because, like every other animal and human on this planet, they have sensory neurons. Does that make them any more or less a person? No, it does not. They are not considered people because they cannot talk and they are not capable of forming higher level thoughts, other than very basic and instinctual thoughts such as the need for food, shelter, and sex. Because they are incapable of defining a right, they are incapable of intentionally demonstrating that they wish to claim some version of rights, and they cannot take moral responsibility for their actions. Animal rights are given to monkeys. Animal rights is the belief that animals have an intrinsic value separate from any value they have to humans, and are worthy of moral consideration. They have a right to be free of oppression, confinement, use and abuse by humans. There is no need to label monkeys as persons if they are already given a right to be free from human abuse. Pro: “A subject of life is a “conscious creature having an individual welfare that has importance to us whatever our usefulness to others.” (334.3.6) This means that subjects of life have wants and perforations, beliefs and feelings, recollections and expectations.” What is meant by subjects of life have perforations? Perforation is defined as a hole made by boring or piercing; an aperture passing through or into something. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Pro: “This concludes that animals, including the ones that are eaten, hunted, and experimented upon, must be considered experiencing subjects of life with inherent values.” With this sentence my opponent says all animals are to be considered subjects of life. So insects would be considered subjects of life with inherent value that should be given the same rights as humans? The way my opponent defines “a subject of life” can include any animal.