Task 4: Identifying Some Critical Thinking Skills from an Opinion Post and its Comments- The New York Times

Should Chimpanzees Be Considered 'Persons' ?

By: Jeff Sebo 

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/opinion/sunday/chimps-legal-personhood.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront 

"You might be aware that chimpanzees can recognize themselves in a mirror, communicate through sign language, pursue goals creatively and form long-lasting friendships. You might also think that these are the kinds of things that a person can do. However, you might not think of chimpanzees as persons."(Introduction)

"The Nonhuman Rights Project does. Since 2013, the group has been working on behalf of two chimpanzees, Kiko and Tommy, currently being held in cages by their “owners” without the company of other chimpanzees."(Background Information)

"In response, the Nonhuman Rights Project is taking a bold position: It is arguing that if every being must be either a person or a thing, then Kiko and Tommy are persons, not things. I agree, and many other philosophers do, too."(Position)

"If you are a person, you have the capacity for rights, including the right to habeas corpus relief, which protects you from unlawful confinement. If you are a thing, you do not have the capacity for rights. And unfortunately, even though they are sensitive, intelligent, social beings, Kiko and Tommy are considered things under the law."(Point of View)

  

"One view is that only humans can be persons because humanity is the basis of personhood. However, this view is implausible. There is nothing special about species in and of themselves. They are morally arbitrary taxonomic categories. There is a great deal of variability within species, similarity among species and change in species over time."(Argument)

"When we think about the basis of our own personhood, we do not think about how we happen to be classified in a biology textbook. Instead, we think about features of our lives such as conscious experience, emotionality, a sense of self and bonds of care and interdependence. When it comes to whether one should be treated as a person or a thing, these kinds of features, and not their genetic bases or evolutionary histories, are what matter. This is why we can all know that we have rights without having to check our genes."(Explanation)

“Human” is best understood as a biological concept that refers, at present, to a member of a particular species, Homo sapiens. In contrast, “person” is best understood as a moral and legal concept that refers to an individual who can hold moral and legal rights."(Description)

"But now suppose we accept a more inclusive view of personhood, according to which humans are persons because we have some or all of the features mentioned before: conscious experience, emotionality, a sense of self or bonds of care or interdependence."(Summary)

"Sometimes when we are overwhelmed by the complexity of an issue, it can help to start by stating a simple truth and going from there. In this case, the simple truth is that Kiko and Tommy are not mere things. Whatever else we say about the nature and limits of moral and legal personhood, we should be willing to say at least that. The only alternative is to continue to accept an arbitrary and exclusionary view about what it takes to merit moral and legal recognition. Kiko and Tommy deserve better than that, and so do the rest of us."(Conclusion)

Analysis of Some Comments from the Article

ARGUMENT:

The difference between humans and chimpanzees is not morally arbitrary. We judge other humans according to moral standards. We do not judge non-humans, including apes, according to moral standards. One could not trust an ape around children, or even adults. That's why they are kept in cages. Chimps may have 97% of the same DNA as humans, but we do not expect them to follow moral rules.

Morality is what really differentiates humans from all other animals. We lock up people who refuse to be moral, we call them psychopaths. Whether or not chimps can use sign language to communicate, they have no sense of moral obligation. Adult chimps are far stronger than adult humans and fully capable of dismembering a human with their bare hands. The difference between moral and amoral is not arbitrary, it is a fundamental distinction that characterizes humans. Evolutionary bi

ology may suggest that the evolution of species is gradual and not discrete, but there is no logical reason for there not to be this fundamental distinction.

By: Charles Justice.

AGREEMENT:

I agree with Sebo that "Kiko and Tommy are not mere things". I have never had a pet dog or cat that was a "mere" thing. The birds at our feeders, whether starlings or hawks, are not "mere" things. But if Sebo wants to not reject the dichotomy of people vs thing that he bases his essay on, chimpanzees are not people but are things.

By: Marvant Duhon 

SUMMARY:

Watch the documentary "Jane." Its subject is Jane Goodall who studied chimps for decades. Chimps are more like us than some of us care to admit. I believe they should be protected from the cruelty and destruction human beings bring to them.

By: Susan

DESCRIPTION:

In “YOU SHALL KNOW THEM” by Vercors, a group of creatures was discovered. The name “tropis” was applied to them. The tropis possessed many abilities, and were able to perform simple repetitive tasks useful in industry. Those tropis were affectionate with humans, and sought approval. Some of the tropis, however, refused to work, and remained aloof from humans.

By: Ruth Cohen

INTRODUCTION:

As Barry McKenna touched on, corporate personhood exists even though, in truth, corporations, per se, are not living biological organisms. Indeed, there is concern that AI systems will also achieve the level of personhood. Given the many similarities between human and other primate behaviors and psychologies, it does make sense to extend personhood to these biological organisms.

By: Duke.