|
The Balearic Islands granted personhood to great apes! quote:In its ruling, the judges wrote: "So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. I agree with the OP. Under this definition children and the mentally infirm are not persons. Grogquock posted:I may not be understanding your statement, but many jurisdictions do restrict some of the rights of personhood on the impaired groups that you mention, particularly in terms of equality under the eyes of the law and personal liberty. Now these restrictions are often tempered to weigh the "best interest" of the impaired person and usually err on the side of preserving rights where possible. Guardianships and conservatorships over incapable adults are a prime example. Right, but I don't think that the personhood of apes is substantially different; even with the restriction of some of their rights of personhood, this should be balanced against their best interest. I think at very least a ban on testing and experimentation should be reasonable.
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:55 |
|
|
Ethiser posted:There are very clear delineations between categories of organisms. That is why Taxonomy exists. Humans are special compared to every other known life form because we are the dominant animal on the planet so for better or worse we get to decide things. No, taxonomy is a system we have created for understanding the relationship between organisms. These "very clear delineations" do not exist outside of a constructed intellectual framework. Humans are "special" only in the sense that we have the most complex brain, just like mantis shrimp are special because they have the most complex eyes. "Dominant" doesn't mean anything...what are you basing dominance on? Population, environmental impact, etc. Main Paineframe posted:Just as children don't get full, unrestricted human or legal rights, and the severely mentally ill sometimes don't as well (though that is an incredibly delicate subject for historical reasons), apes can't seriously claim them either. But the people arguing for personhood aren't arguing they should get unrestricted legal rights. Like someone said earlier, there's a confusion in this thread between the legal and philosophical definitions of personhood.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:Yeah, it is. It's not really communication on the level of intelligence. An anthropologist explained to me once that it was closer to how a dog communicates then a human. What does "on the level of intelligence" mean? What were the anthropologist's arguments? Would the gurgles and gestures of a baby be not "communication" on the level of intelligence. Note that some academicians have this weird attitude towards nonhuman language and behaviors like tool use, where they keep redefining them when every time a nonhuman animals displays something like language or tool use.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 07:12
|
|