Great Ape Personhood

Post Reply New Topic

Orangutans are like the aspies of the great apes, and probably the smartest of the lot. And they are being wiped out! They should be persons, because they are beautiful, intelligent creatures.

http://www.tropical-rainforest-animals. ... gence.html

I think great apes could be seen as people, not in the "human being" sense (because they have different species duh, although we are apes ourselves) but their mental and social capabilites are what you would find in a person, albeit a slightly dimmer one. Also many primatologists have said that if you catch the eye of an ape, it is a very unsettling and quite amazing experience because you see a person looking back. And they weren't wrong, when I went the the zoo last week when I looked at the apes I kept thinking to myself "person", just a person that looked slightly different to human people. And to a lesser extent when looking at monkeys too.
For so long there have been many atrributes that have been seen as uniquely and universally human, but of course most of these attirbutes are actually a primate thing, not just humans alone, but a common feature of primates in general. And that includes culture, and in some species of monkey their calls have some sort of grammar.

But I also don't see why "personhood" would be seperate to being an animal, because aren't human people animals too? Of course we are! So why can't we see other animals as being people, since personhood doesn't automatically set you apart from the animal kingdom.

In my book, "Animals are people too".

^^ Yup and vice versa.
Let's not keep the 2 categories seperate.

People are animals, but not all animals are people. I don't understand why some have this need to personify animals. It's like looking at a dog and saying "He is now a rat."

It isn't personifying. Human's are animals. And those are other species. They have the same basic needs and wants we have. And why shouldn't they be given the rights?
That's always the face of discrimination, because another person doesn't understand a certain said group they do not get rights.

And also, if you take a species like an orangutan for example, and then declare it a person, it doesn't make it any less of an orangutan because they haven't changed from orangutan to person, they are both orangutan and a person. So calling a dog a rat isn't quite the same.

With rights come responsibilities. Other animals cannot understand this. It's rather like throwing a 2 year old in jail for taking that toy that looked cool.

No. It just affects the way humans treat them. Animals have their own societies, giving certain kinds of animals rights does not mean we have to interfere with anything they do.

The only rights any animal should have is the right not to be abused. Personhood goes far beyond this.

Yes, it does. Probably giving them more protection than under standard animal cruelty laws. However, it still does not mean that humans have to interfere with what they do or put them in jail or something because they would still not be part of our society and have their own societies. The issue with personhood is something has the qualities, such as sapience (intelligence in the self-aware sense) as well as sentience (the ability to feel emotion etc.) which we would normally associate with a person. That's the issue. It does not mean that if we grant a specific kind of animal personhood, that they have to abide by our rules. Animals can have their own ethics especially in the form of altruism.

Personhood comes with responsibility. Plain and simple.

There are other ways to help protect animals. We do not need to personify them... because that's what we're doing by saying they are a person.

That's such b.s.

Earlier this year a pregnant cow and her baby were killed because she was "rampaging". She was frightened and afraid and pregnant. She wanted a safe place to give her child and obviously she was uncomfortable being in her pen at the state fair. This is where personhood should have came into place and they should have given her some rights.
She wasn't rampaging, when they weren't chasing her down with a truck she was simply walking around. She was just trying to find a safe place to give birth.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Clyde. That is such a sad story and unfortunately it happens all the time.

Also cows in dairy farms should be given personhood.

Dairy farms keep a cow pregnant most of her life. They milk her so much she tends to have sores on her utters. They take the baby calves from their mothers.
The boy calves go to straight for veal. And the females baby calves are just put back in the system.

The calves and the mothers never get to see each other and she never has the experience of being a mother. That is also when personhood comes into play.

Don't tell me she has no right because she can't have responsibility or human responsibility. She does have responsibility her own responsibility.

Its stupid because even as humans we have responsibilities that differ from each person. Or are you trying to say we all should have the same responsibilities?

the cow shooting happened at the california state fair. california has arguably the best animal protection laws in the usa. i live in kentucky where about 30 of the 120 counties do not have any sort of animal shelter/'dog pound'. animal control is the responsibility of 'dog wardens', many of them just way too happy to shoot any stray non-human animal. yee-haw.

question for friend picard.....personhood comes with responsibility? by my estimation, your requirement means that approx. 40 % of humans cannot be classed as persons. 'cause 40% of humans are certainly not responsible. is this not true?