Monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law

Amina Amjed The Case of Animal Rights Round 2 1.If it is true that we have to comprehend who is entitled to the rights of morality, then we must also assess who is moral. 2.Not all humans follow the regards of morality. 3.Those who commit murder are not moral beings. 4.Should they not be regarded as persons? 5.It is evident that animals have the ability to feel similar emotions as do human beings. For instance, the mother of a baby monkey would safe guard her baby just as would a mother who is human. 6.The sense of protection for one"s child comes can be considered a moral stand. 7.If an animal has moral maternal instincts that are reciprocal to that of a human, then that animal is also moral therefore should be considered a person. 8.I would disagree as to the fact that it is necessary for one to be able to comprehend one"s rights, regardless of the circumstances present. If that were true than we would be forced to agree that children, up to a certain age, do not have rights because they are unable to understand the complexity of those rights therefore they are not to be considered person(s). 9.We have a direct duty to safeguard our children from any harm. 10.They are unable to protect themselves so we have a direct duty to protect them. For instance, if I see my neighbor"s child, who is under the age of 5, in any harm, it would be my direct duty to ensure the safety of that child because it is my duty to humanity. 11.We do not assume that our children are our property. In simple terms property is a lifeless object, one that cannot function on its own and we can agree that someone who is living and breathing is in fact not a thing. 12.Similarly, domestic animals are considered human property. If an instance occurred where my neighbor"s dog was in danger, and I saved said dog, it is my indirect duty to my neighbor to ensure safety of that dog. Any wrong done to a domestic animal is a wrong done to its presumable owner, not to the animal. 13.Is it acceptable to assume that animals do not feel pain? Is there pain not their own but the property of their owners? 14.To this end, your claim that the only beings who are competent of making moral claims are only and human beings is disputable because if that were the case than adolescents would not be regarded as human beings. 15.Furthermore, animals, in their natural habitat are able to make certain moral judgments. If seen from the perspective of utilitarian, in a lion"s pack, it is imperative for members of that pack to hunt another animal to eat. Killing another animal would be seen morally just because this act brings about the best balance between satisfaction and frustration for everyone affected by the outcome. 16.In the case of a conflict between what is morally just and those who govern it, it is true that some complications may occur. But that can be analogous to what is moral and just for those who are incapable of making decisions for themselves such as children, comatose patients and those people with mental retardation. 17.It is our duty to make protect and ensure the rights of the people mentioned above and should be similar to our duty to ensure safety and rights for animals. 18.Animals are like children; they cannot properly communicate with us by using words that are comprehensible to human beings. But their actions and their emotions can enlighten us human beings as they would if they were human beings. 19.In your argument you state that just because something is animate does not necessarily imply that it has a right to life. Who makes the decision about who has the right to life? 20.The right to life is awarded to all creatures, animals and human alike, but to claim that animals cannot attain this right is to an extent a moral wrong. 21.I agree that animals cannot posses all rights that human beings do but it is disputable what rights they can and cannot posses. 22.Right to life is a right which is equally an animal"s right as it is human beings. 23.Their ability to function similarly as a person who is human should be sufficient enough evidence for them to be declared a person as an animal. 24.I would then again argue, that animals, just like humans have special relationships. Animals, just as do humans, mate and reproduce and show kindness to their off springs and are empathetic to their own kind in some instances. 25.I agree to your point that there is a general obligation to do no unjustified harm to living creatures while others may hold that there is a general obligation to do good to living creatures (which includes animals) when such a thing is reasonably within one"s power, or when someone is capable of doing so. 26.It is not imperative to be human to be considered a person. A human can be regarded a person but a person does not necessarily have to be human. 27.Some humans such as murderers and rapists do not adhere to what the norm is for morality. Then people such these not be regarded as persons because they lack the ability to make moral decisions and abide to what the human society has underlined as moral rights. 28.A K-9 working for the law enforcement would almost always protect its human partner because the dog is aware that it is his or her duty to protect the life of those around him/her. In the same way, police officers would protect their partners from any harm befalling them. In regards to human partners protecting each other, we would see this as a moral duty and this is also true for a K-9 dog or most domestic dogs because they know it is their duty to protect those around them. 29.Therefore, I conclude that monkeys should be regarded as persons for their evident ability to make moral decisions as do humans.