Frederick, I liked this piece a lot. You clearly point out the vexed and confusing aspects of this issue. My position: I do not believe that non-human animals should be classified as "persons". It is not the way the word has been used for centuries and to do so only introduces semantic and intellectual confusion. Individual mammals and birds are, however, individuals and sentient creatures, with some cognitive abilities and feelings (by any reasonable extrapolation from their actions and reactions). People who want to regard animals as persons end up rating different species on certain human criteria and assigning special rights to certain ones they deem worthy of the honor and demoting others to non-person status. So, one can end up arguing for legal rights for elephants and whales while saying that sheep and cattle are only animals and lack those rights. Yet sheep and cattle are sentient beings, have feelings, a degree of sociality, etc. Where does one draw the line? It ends up being pretty arbitrary. Furthermore, we know that the human race as a whole is not going to allow status as persons to the animals we consume (and first kill) in the billions, no matter how much we appreciate that these animals can feel pain, are conscious, etc. Basically, I am in favor of treating our fellow creatures with as much kindness and humanity as we can, especially those who clearly have high intelligence, but let us not make the intellectual error of saying that they are people and must be treated as such. I could go on much further but it is best to stop here. I will look for part 2 and look forward to reading it.
Looking forward to part 2 to see where you’re going with this! In a world where a corporation can legally be a “person,” seems like anything is possible...
Frederick, I liked this piece a lot. You clearly point out the vexed and confusing aspects of this issue. My position: I do not believe that non-human animals should be classified as "persons". It is not the way the word has been used for centuries and to do so only introduces semantic and intellectual confusion. Individual mammals and birds are, however, individuals and sentient creatures, with some cognitive abilities and feelings (by any reasonable extrapolation from their actions and reactions). People who want to regard animals as persons end up rating different species on certain human criteria and assigning special rights to certain ones they deem worthy of the honor and demoting others to non-person status. So, one can end up arguing for legal rights for elephants and whales while saying that sheep and cattle are only animals and lack those rights. Yet sheep and cattle are sentient beings, have feelings, a degree of sociality, etc. Where does one draw the line? It ends up being pretty arbitrary. Furthermore, we know that the human race as a whole is not going to allow status as persons to the animals we consume (and first kill) in the billions, no matter how much we appreciate that these animals can feel pain, are conscious, etc. Basically, I am in favor of treating our fellow creatures with as much kindness and humanity as we can, especially those who clearly have high intelligence, but let us not make the intellectual error of saying that they are people and must be treated as such. I could go on much further but it is best to stop here. I will look for part 2 and look forward to reading it.
Looking forward to part 2 to see where you’re going with this! In a world where a corporation can legally be a “person,” seems like anything is possible...
Thanks... I appreciate the comment!