Monkeys should be considered persons in the eyes of the law

Amina Amjed Round 3 1.I agree to your point that having maternal instincts is not the only requirement for proving that someone is a moral rational being. 2.To that end, mothers that are human, at times lack these same instincts which are present in an animal but not in humans. 3.This is evident in the actions of those mothers who abuse their children and/or abandon them. 4.That only goes to show that not all humans are moral, rational being but are regarded are such just the same due our society"s shifting standards. 5.I do not argue that maternal instincts and morality are of the same. But, I do believe that without lack of morals one could not be seen as maternal. Thus, the lack of morality thereof would not signify a woman as having maternal instincts rather make her an individual who is unjust. Unjust humans are those who lack morals. 6.I fail to see why morality does not play a role in what is defined as maternal instincts in this instance. If one does not have moral values, then how is one able to assess what is right and/or wrong for their child. 7.It is hard to assume the action of either a human or an animal before the action has actually occurred be it good or bad. We cannot preempt the action of a human mother who wants to harm her child until she has done that harm. In the same way we cannot anticipate that an animal mother, a monkey in that case would bring harm to her child until after that is done. 8.To that end, we would have to forestall our judgment each and every time regarding the morality of an individual, human or animal, till after their actions. 9.There is in fact proof that monkeys can think the same way as humans can in some aspects of life, if not in all. 10.Monkeys that are detained in labs are at times able to respond to their human captors. Not only that, but there has been scientific research done which proves that animals have a way of communicating with each other which is analogous to how humans interact with one another. 11.It has also been proved that animals, just as humans have territorial instincts. 12.Animals share many characteristics with humans but denying them their freedom as individuals would seem that we are actually not moral beings. 13.Because we are unable to actually communicate to animals, in this case monkeys, we are unable to accurately examine if what they do is moral or not. 14.Humans on the other hand, we can communicate with, and are able to empirically determine, that they also at times, if not all, act upon instincts. 15.Not all human actions are based on morality. 16.To that end, we cannot say that these humans, who rely on instincts rather than morality, are not persons. 17.I do agree that children who are under the age of five should not make their own decisions especially if they entail life changing circumstances. 18.But, viewing children as property, is not a legal belief in all moral societies, it is only a social belief and does not stand true in all societies. 19.If I were to agree that it is our duty to protect our children because they are underage and cannot and should not make decisions for themselves than what should we asses for a person who is mentally impaired or one that is a comatose patient but in both instances these people have surpassed the age where one is considered a child. I present this point in a circumstance where a person was not born with a mental disorder but due to an unfortunate event came to this state. These patients are then unable to make moral decisions for themselves and are unable to communicate with us but we feel that we must make decisions on their part; decisions that would be morally just and rational. 20.In the case of domestic animals, it is true, that we have a duty to protect them as we do our children. I may have misspoken my point by not elaborating upon it. 21.To amend that point, I would insert that it is our duty to ensure the safety of all animals just as we do the security of domestic animals. Animals we regard as pets such as cats, dogs, birds, hamsters etc. are almost like humans to us. Somme people refer to them as their "babies". These sentimental attachments make them almost humane. We then would not want to bring harm to them in any way, which I am sure you would not disagree upon. 22.In the same way, hamsters and/or mice which are experimented on for scientific purposes are the same creatures but only because they are not domesticated we fail to regard them with the same sentiment and causing them harm. But if these animals were in our homes we would feel a direct duty to protect them. 23.It is true that a K-9 is trained to protect but then it is also true that just like the K-9, his/her human counterpart is also trained. The human individual also goes through extensive training to join the task force along with the dogs. 24.I agree with you that by receiving training for a certain task that training is all they know but that once again is one in the same for task force dogs as it is for task force humans. 25.These dogs, when they are required to use their senses to sniff out an object of interest, apply rationality and/or instinct to determine the location of that object. 26.I once again fail to see why animals are not regarded the same rights as humans when at times they can be prosecuted as human standards. 27.If an animal attack a human being, that animal is "put down". 28.This is similar to our criminal justice system where when one human individual brings life threatening harm to another such as committing murder, they are given the death sentence. 29.If animals can be put through certain aspects of human interactions than who is to say that they cannot be given the same rights in other regards. 30.Hence, I assert that monkeys should be regarded as person in the eyes of law.