Do you think any non-human animals should be awarded personhood status?
dat sum peter singer?
No.
Damn that was easy. Pitch me another one OP.
>>7397844
Well, Peter Singer does believe some animals are persons, most notable chimps, I believe.
no. i dont think humans should have it.
Yes.
AI
>>7397842
What would that even mean? I think there are animals that it is in the interest of humanity to preserve, and that it's not smart to kill those animals under different circumstances than those where you'd kill a person, but I'm not going to say we need to find out how Tigers would vote in congress and give them a representative.
>>7397842
Even if you do, even chimps are so alien,compared to humans, that no one would really consider them as actual people.
You could argue that's how people used to think about blacks and other races in the past ,but, you know, they're actually homo sapiens.
>>7397854
I think personhood status for animals would entail the kind of treatment we give to infants, or young children, so no voting. I personally think chimps, and dolphins would be appropriate due to their seemingly high intelligence, self-awareness, and so on.
>>7397852
Not really an animal...
>>7397850
Why not?
>>7397842
I think they ought to have a status as something between full personhood as things. In this way, we would be morally obligated (a) not to kill a person to save non-human animas and (b) not to sacrifice animals to save non-living things. Dat modified formula of humanity.
>>7397842
As no species of animal has as complex a language system as us, and, by extension, as no species of animal is as conscious as us, it would be incorrect to qualify any species of animal as our equal.
>>7397998
Are infants not human?
>>7398027
They are human, as there is the possibility that they will think as adults do.
Great apes, elephants, corvids & cetaceans are cool. I'd be more interested in returning humanity to a biocentric mindset than awarding nonhumans arbitrary titles under the destructive narrative of anthropocentrism, though.
>>7398036
This
>>7398030
ah so now you've added another qualification. you're trying way to hard to be clever with something that is very simple.
>>7398027
How are infants a different species? KYS
>>7398049
Not adding it, just didn't feel like fleshing out every detail of my argument: I'm very tired. And I'm not trying to be clever or sophisticated; I just feel that a purely physiological argument is a tad too shallow. It kind of reduces humans to bags of meat, distinct only in their shape or form, which is too pessimistic for my current disposition.
Dogs, monkeys, jungle cats, capybaras, and roos should all get human rights.
>>7398072
Any reason why them, and not others?
>>7397878
I'd agree, but nobody would find my reasoning convincing because I think ethics is basically a matter of aesthetics and I prefer a world without chimps in cages and dolphins in tanks.
I think it's a moot point in many cases because I want us to scale back human populations and environmental degradation in a way that would do far more for any wildlife than any special personhood status.
>>7398072
Define and justify "human rights."
>>7398027
Not fully
>>7398081
Prove, explain, give warrant, tell me why I should act on your claim, why it holds water.
>>7398086
"Justify" (as per your definition) why I should explain myself to you.
>>7398090
cuz im bored n so r u :p
>>7397998
i fucking hate this retarded argument lol. what is it about any of our 'higher functions' that makes us better than animals? seriously, we are doing nothing just the same as they are. all life is worthless.
>>7398098
>>7398098
True.I was just 'avin a giggle, m8.
But I think all animals which aren't solely produce material (pigs, cows, chickens) deserve life because there's no valid reason to deprive them of the only thing they have, since there's no justifiable reason to kill/eat them, or destroy their habitats. (Unless in the case of Africa, where they have paid hunting grounds where they use the money to sustain animal populations on reserves, away from the hands of poachers and criminals.)
>>7398109
I didn't mean to imply that we are "better"; I just meant we are different. Even babbys know that claims of value are unprovable.
>>7398072
Roos are pests in much of Oz m8.
If we start giving gays and women rights, we should do so for dogs and cats
>>7397842
/lit/ - literature
>>7397842
Koko the gorilla lied to her humans and said that a cat broke the sink. That's pretty borderline.
>>7398216
>>7398216
>kangaroo's habitat is turned into a farmland
>thousands of introduced sheeps and goats graze pasture 24/7
>kangaroo barely has anything left to eat
>eats cultivated plants
>FOOKING PEST LET'S KILL'EM ALL
>>7397842
if it means I legally can fuck goats, yes
>>7398030
In any animal there is the possibility of their developing intelligence over aeons of evolution
>>7398980
i've never got this, UK isn't even in the top 5 with sheep population so i doubt Wales would even be in the top 10
>>7399140
But not within an individual animal's lifetime. Unlike babbys, an individual animal of this current time has no possibility of becoming as sentient as humans within the time it will live.
