Nicker on 12/12/2013 at 19:44

---

Some interesting cases which just worked their way through three courts in New York, over the question of animals, in this case chimps, deserving to be classified as persons under the law. As the claimants expected, all three cases failed but only one was dismissed without oral arguments, the other two received more vigorous examination.

Here is (http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2013/12/judges-deny-chimpanzee-personhood) one article on the cases and the (http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/12/12/granting-rights-and-personhood-to-animals/) CBC segment that brought it to my attention.

Although historically, being human was not a guarantee of personhood, at present, being human and being a person are not synonymous under the law in much of the world. In many countries, corporations are persons (at least as far as rights go it seems, but not responsibilities), as well as other organizations, cities, holy texts and even idols. Put simply and generally, a person is an entity deserving of representation, or even presence, in a court of law.

Eschewing barbs aimed at political and ideological opponents, should certain animals be classed as persons? If so, what is the test? I.Q.? Self identity or recognising others (theory of mind)? Semantics and abstraction?

If great apes are clearly sentient, what about whales and dolphins? Dogs, yes - cats, no or vice versa? How about hive minds, social insect colonies?

Is this a slippery slope? Do we just need to legislate more respect for animals without elevating them in the eyes of the law?

Food for thought.

Queue on 12/12/2013 at 20:29

---

I don't know.... I swear that the gorilla at the Detroit Zoo had tons more intelligence -- and better manners -- than most of the "animals" that paid to get into the zoo.

SubJeff on 13/12/2013 at 00:55

---

Yeah but they are humans who have medical conditions, it's not the default setting and we treat them according to special rules.

demagogue on 13/12/2013 at 03:23

---

I should point out that legal personhood (and actually there are more than 1 legal personhoods) is a different concept from ontological persons, so you could have the first without having the 2nd... It depends on the legal regime. Eg fetuses were originally not declared persons because the laws of inheretance don't trigger until after birth, which is a very different thing from issues of personal identity. But even on that, humans don't have a very stable personal identity themselves, cf Parfit. I'd have to get on my laptop to elaborate more on it though.

Nicker on 13/12/2013 at 05:23

---

As I summarised and as the articles explain, from a legal standpoint, not all persons are people. It's not about classifying them as humans but as legal entities with inherent rights for due process.

(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person) Here are some definitions. Of especial interest is the final one on the page, dating from 1856.

Great apes, elephants, cetacians and corvids are demonstrably capable of reasoning and abstraction as well as being self aware. They also show awareness of the distinct and individual identities of other of their own species and individuals of other species. They understand that those individuals are having thoughts and emotions not dissimilar to their own. AKA - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) Theory of mind.

As to morals. What do you mean by moral reasoning? We can rationalise about morals but morals themselves are instinctual. They are emotional responses to behavioral stimuli. All social creatures have morals. There would be no social carnivores without morals, e.g. no human culture.

And yes, humans are not the only creatures with culture and language.