Task 4

Should Champanzees Be Considered Persons?

 Position:
 I think that defining an animal as a nonhuman person can and should encompass a recognition of differences in moral/ethical understanding, especially as it is compared to humans. Unfortunately, we know no other standard by which to judge the behavior and intentions of other species.

Disagreement:

 Personally, I would confer greater protections to all of the above, and more. But I am not sure I would give any of them equal right

Argument:
The idea of nonhuman personhood might seem confusing at first, since we tend to use the terms “human” and “person” interchangeably. But they are not equivalent. “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.

Discription:
I once held in my arms
Nim Chimsky, tiny Chimp,
With warm and furry charms
Tightly embraced not limp.

One of God's creatures, he
Learning sign language then,
A real signer to be
Wish I held him again.


Agreement
 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.