Monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law

1) I cannot dispute that there are some mothers that act in such a way that the public eye would not consider moral; those that abandon their children, for example, and those that put their children through both physical and mental abuse. 2) These are not moral acts -- far from them, in fact. Yet, in order to commit a moral act, one must have the capacity to discern between those acts which are "right", and those acts which are considered to be "wrong". Then, after weighing the pros and cons of their act, they commit the act. 3) This capability to discern whether or not an act is right is what makes a human being morally-comprehensive, and thus, deserving of rights. 4) Thus, the actor in this case -- an abusive and/or abandoning mother -- is still technically deserving of the rights that would be bestowed upon any human being. This doesn"t excuse their actions -- far from it, as whatever actions they would take in the hypothetical scenario are both unreasonable and immoral. But it is the act itself that is immoral; an act that they clearly had to have both weighed the good against the bad of, and comprehended what they were doing, and the consequences and presumptions that would follow in its wake, in order to commit. 5) This goes back to the notion of mens rea, which I discussed in the first round of our argument. 6) The act and the actor are two separate things, just as I argued maternal instinct and morality to be. Thus, while the act itself may be immoral, or frowned upon in society, the one committing the act is still technically a moral-comprehending human being. 7) Since they are a moral-comprehending human being, they are still entitled to whatever rights have been bestowed upon them. 8) But going back to the case of monkeys, and whether or not they deserve the same rights as any person would deserve under the rule of law -- it is precisely because we cannot communicate with them, and thus, cannot discern whether or not what they do is moral, that I have difficulty in jumping to the assumption that animals, namely monkeys, do act in a moral manner, and thus are deserving of the rights that you and I, as human beings, both share. 9) It is true that monkeys that have been detained in labs have been known to react to their human captors; however, it can be argued that is merely due to the stimuli of an unfamiliar environment, and not necessarily because they "sense" anything about the people that have captured them. 10) There is absolutely no evidence that animals can feel emotions the way that humans do. Thus, one might claim, for example, that the monkeys react to their human captors due to fear or anger, but we cannot say for certain that this is the case, assuming that it is at all. 11) True, humans and animals both have territorial instincts, and true, animals may have a way of communicating with one another that is synonymous with the way we humans communicate with each other, but these two similarities alone are not enough for one to be able to go on to claim that animals deserve the same rights as we do. 12) Communication skills are important, as are territorial instincts, but neither of these things can prove to us that animals can reason, and can comprehend right and wrong, just as humans do. 13) Instincts come naturally depending on the external stimuli one is born and raised in, and communication skills are something that are learned. Morality, however, is something that is innate and developed. 14) And if animals do have an embedded sense of morality, we have no way of knowing for sure. They may be able to communicate with each other, but they cannot successfully communicate with us -- with human beings. 15) Assigning rights to something that cannot actually put these rights to use, simply because they cannot (as far as we know) comprehend them, seems foolhardy -- not to mention, it degrades entirely the meaning of the word "rights". If we would go as far as to assign rights to monkeys when we hardly know that they can assess them, then we may as well assign them to innate objects. In my opinion, it would be just the same. 16) I will concede that not actions are moral; but to say that not all actions are based upon morality is false. 17) The basis of morality is to weigh, or at least recognize, the difference between one"s perception of right and wrong actions. You may not believe, for example, that a thief is acting in such a way that is "morally sound", but to the thief, it is. 18) For the thief to commit his act of crime, he would have to have weighed either his perceived rightness or wrongness of his actions against each other, and then commit the act. 19) There is a very clear difference between a person"s sense of morality, and the morality of actions, as I"ve argued before. 20) I will concede that in my assessment of children, and how they should not be allowed to make their own decisions, I overlooked people such as comatose persons, or persons that are mentally disabled. 21) These people are well over the legal age, in some cases; but due to their disability (or incapacity, if the person is comatose), they aren"t truly capable of making decisions on their own. Yet, these people are moral human beings all the same. 22) And, of course, in the case of domestic animals, I would not disagree to the fact that we would not want to bring harm upon them. No animal owner would. 23) However, whether we refer to them affectionately, think of them as our children, or treat them in such a way that makes them seem like a "member of the family" -- we are not changing the fact that the animals is, in fact, an animal; and that, regardless of our sentimental feelings, animals are incapable of thinking rationally or morally. 24) Thus, though we may care for them deeply, it doesn"t necessarily mean that they are entitled to the rights that we have. 25) If nothing else, because we have the rights that we do, we need to protect them from whatever imminent danger they may face. 26) The same is said for monkeys, because they are animals -- regardless of how they are able to communicate with each other, or feel territorial. 27) Therefore, I sustain my original conclusion.