Monkeys should be considered persons
Debate Rounds (4)
2.Pain is an emotion that a subject feels when something out of their control affects their feelings.
3.We cannot rationally ignore or dismiss the moral relevance of the pain that a person or an animal feels.
4.Morality consists of a set of rules that individuals voluntarily agree to abide by. Just as signing a contrast.
5.Non-human mammals (any animal) have essentially the same right not to feel pain or be harmed.
6.Animals have the same rights as human in terms of not feeling pain and being harmed.
7.We have the same duties directly to animals, just as we have some duties directly to each other.
8.This direct duty is to be kind to animals (or each other) and also a duty to not be cruel to animals (or one another).
9.For either of us to treat the other in ways that fail to show respect for the other"s independent value is to act immorally, to violate the individual"s rights.
10.Since there are rights that prevent us from harming animals, including monkeys, they are considered moral object.
11.All of us who have inherited value have it equally, whether they are humans, animals, and monkeys or not.
12.Animals- as monkeys- fail to act immorally, have inherited values, and have rights like all human beings.
13.Therefore, monkeys should be considered persons.
Premises 4,7 and 8 could be controversial. Premise 4 can be controversial because some people might argue that those are not voluntarily rules and not everyone is willing to abide them. Premise 7, is controversial because people might believe that we have no duties toward anyone but ourselves. And finally premise 8 is also controversial because we do not necessarily have to be nice to animals even though there are laws against it.
Premises 1,2,3,5,6,9,10,11, and 12 are non-controversial. Premise 1, 2 and 6 are so because they basically talk about give definitions about certain aspects like pain. The rest talk about how animals like monkeys are considered people and how they all have the same rights and values.
2.I do not agree with premise 2.
3.I agree with premise 3, because most people agree that animals or humans should not have to suffer pain inflicted on them.
4.I do not agree with this premise, please see questions and the controversial premise section for reasons.
5.I do not agree with this premise, reasons given below.
6.I do not agree with this premise either.
7.I agree with this premise
8.I agree with this premise,
9.I need some clarification on this premise, see questions below.
10.I do not agree
11.I do not agree
12.I do not agree with this premise
1. not controversial because pain always = pain.
3. not controversial because most people would agree that no creature should not have pain inflicted on him or her.
7. I agree with this premise.
8. Non-Controversial because I agree with the duties
2. Controversial because it depends on what kind of pain we are looking at. Is pain actually and emotion? Pain could come in either a physical form or an emotional form. Whether or not I agree with this definition requires you to define which form of pain you are referring to. Also, it needs to be added that we are talking about inflicted pain, because it is possible to suffer pain without it being afflicted on you.
4. Please make premise 4 an actual premise- two sentences not allowed. I do not think that morality depends on whether or not the individual voluntarily agrees to it. Someone could agree with a set of rules, and those rules could technically be immoral. I think that you need to find a better definition of morality- maybe one from a previous debate???? first say that what is ethical is moral, and then define morality based on the definition of ethics. This would make your argument much more clear, and then I would say that it would no longer be controversial.
5/6. These premises seem to be very redundant, and I do not understand the reasoning behind this premise. Can you please explain what you mean by what you said here.
9. I cannot immediately agree with this premise because I have no way of knowing what the independent value of others is.
10. I do not agree, because I don"t think that it is a given that we are not permitted to harm animals, but rather a passed law. What do you mean by the fact they monkeys are moral object? please define that, I do not understand what you mean.
11. I do not agree because I do not understand how this statement could be backed up. Please explain what you mean.
12. I don"t agree, because I don"t think that monkeys have the same rights as humans. Do you have a way to show that monkeys have the same rights, or even should have the same rights? As far as I can tell there is no way to say that they DO have the same rights, but if you have a way to show that they should have the same rights then it would be better understood.
2. What form of pain are you referring to- a physical pain or an emotional pain?
5/6. Why do animals have the same rights as humans? Can you provide logical reasons for this?
9. What is the independent value of something? Do we really all have the same value as humans? Wouldn't it be worse to kill a human than to kill a monkey?
10. Is it a law or a right to prevent harm?
11. How can you back this up, do you have any examples?
12. Are we arguing that they are humans or persons? How can you say that monkeys do not act immorally, if they are to be considered as persons. If this was the case, they could do no wrong if nothing they did was immoral. If this was the case, then I don't think that it would be logical to say that monkeys would be persons. Do monkeys really have inherited rights? What kinds of rights do you mean by this.
Can you please define "persons" as opposed to humans, and how their rights may or may not be different" What would being a person do for a monkey?
would you allow a monkey to vote?
In premise 2, i agree with what you had to say toward having different kinds of pain; however, it does not matter what kind of a pain a person is experiencing because even if it were physical or emotional it is still pain and it is still an emotion a person would feel (that is what i was trying to say). On the other hand, i will change premise 2 to be: there are different forms of pain like physical and emotional but pain is just an emotion that a subject feels when something out of one's control effect their feelings.
**In premise 4, i agree with what you had to say towards it. So i am going to add extra premise before premise 4 to clarify the definition of morality:
So after premise there i will have... What is ethical is moral.
Ethics asks us to take care for the basic need and legitimate expectation of others as well as our own.
To be moral means that there are several considerations or rules that must be followed in order to make considered an object to be moral.
Morality consists of set of rules that individuals voluntary agree to abide by, such as signing a contrast. **
The changes that are between (**) make the definition of morality more clean.
In premises 5 and 6 what i meant was, that humans and animals do have the same rights. For example, there are rights against harming animals just like how we have rights/ laws against harming humans or having them experience pain, no matter what form it is in (physical or emotional). Premise 6 says that if animals AND humans (or persons) have the same rights in terms of not feeling pain and being harmed. Also, to clarify my example further, we have laws against harming/ abusing animals that cause subjects to go to punished for it, just like humans. harming or abusing another human being also have the same consequences as any subject harming an animal.
In premise 9, by independent value means their own value or what they are worth. This independent value could be violated be causing harm which is considered immoral.
In premise 10, just like killing/harming a person is considered immoral, harming an animal, or a monkey, is also considered immoral; which explains why humans and animals are moral objects. Also, to answer your question we are permitted to harm animals but we choose not to, just like humans. We have rights to expect each other and not cause harm to one another but also we have laws that respect those rights, which is what i meant by we have rights that prevent us from harming animals.
In premise 11, this premise only shows that there are more examples that show how similar humans/ persons are how just like humans have inherited values so do animals and monkeys as well; which supports my conclusion that Monkeys are should be considered persons.
Finally, to answer one of you last questions... when i refer to humans that also means persons as well, because humans are considered persons.
1. I still do not agree with your definition of pain, because although you say that there are different forms of pain, you say it is just an emotion in the second half of the premise""pain is just an emotion"" So are we only inserting emotional pain into the debate, and completely leaving out physical pain. I would have thought that physical pain would have played an important role, but if that is not the case then we will simply leave it out. Also, you never answered the part about whether or not the pain is inflicted or simply just occurs as some sort of natural process. It could be either or, and it is important that this distinction is made.
4. I now agree with your definition of morality as outlined in the added 4 premises. This will help me to better understand your argument.
5/6. I think I could better understand what you are trying to say in premise 5 and premise 6 if you somehow found a way to consolidate them. As I read them now, even after your explanation, I still do not see the difference between them. Is there a way that you can either change the wording of these two premises to clarify what you are trying to say better? Or to combine them into one comprehensive premise? This aside, however, I still do not agree with these premises, because are the rights between animals and humans really equal, even in the examples of the laws you gave? I would find it hard to believe that the rights humans have are equal to the rights that animals currently have. If all animals had the same rights that humans had, we would all be required to be vegetarians, because killing animals would not be allowed. I understand that we can be punished for harming some animals, but I think that you need to clear up whether you are discussing ALL rights with ALL animals, or only certain rights, and some animals. I think it is also important that we know what consideration an animal must have in order to argue that they must be a person. I do not think it even logical to argue that a lizard could be a person, because lizards don"t do anything person-like as far as I can tell. I think that you ought to specify that only a certain group of animals could be considered for personhood, based on some guidelines.
9. How do we determine the independent value of a creature? I will be inclined to have to agree with this premise once I clear up exactly what you entirely mean by it. Also, are u referring to this value in all creatures, or just persons, or humans, or animals?
10. I now understand what you mean that animals are moral object, as well as humans. However, I do not agree that all animals have the same moral rights to life, or lack of harm, because, as stated above, this would prevent us from eating any meat at all, because if every animal had the same rights as we do, we have no right to kill them. I think again you need to narrow your premises to certain types of cognitive animals, so that I do not need to completely dismiss all of your premises.
11. I have no reason to agree with the inherited value of animals and humans being equal, because like I have said above, then we have no right to kill animals, ever.
1. what i mean when i say that pain is an emotion has nothing to do with what kind of pain i am talking about. What i mean is that pain is something a person feels that may or may not be inflicted. I defined that something by say an emotion, just like other emotions that we feel like fear and happiness. However, to make everything more clear when i say pain i mean all different kinds of pain no matter what form it is expressed in because pain is pain no matter where or how it occurs.
4. the changes that i made for the definiton of ethics and morality should give up both a clean point on what i meant by moralirty to begin with.
5/6. I will explain what i mean in here further; however, i do not agree with what you say about everyone being vegetrarian. Animals just happen to live a different live than people do, however they pretty much performe most of the tasks that we do on a dailt bases. There are people all around the world that do not believe in killing animals or eating their meat. Take Indians for example, they do not eat meat simply because their culture does not allow them to. This is the same for animals, not all animals feed off of other animals meat or skin, some animals just eat grass- just like how some people do not eat meat. Additionally, we can go in depth more for why some people eat the way they eat but that would require us to debate on something that is not really relavent to this case.
the difference between the two premises (5 and 6) is that premise 6 mostly points to animals having same rights as people in general, but mostly in terms of pain and harm.
to make my premises more clear i will change them to the following:
5: Non-human mammals (any animal) have essentially the same right not to feel pain or be harmed.
6: Animals have the same rights as people, especially in terms of not feeling pain and being harmed.
In premsie 9, there is no way to determine the value of a person because everyone should have the same value no matter what because we are all considered people and we all should have the same rights, just like animals as well.
for premises 10 and 11 i explain the confusion about the vegetarian aspect in the previous explanation( refer to above).
2. I am trying to clear up to you that pain doesn"t have to be an emotion. If someone stabs me, I would not say that the pain is only in my head, it is a physical pain. It would be an emotional pain as well if it was one of my friends that stabbed me, but it would primarily a physical pain. Ok, so if you mean to indicate all pain, please switch premise two to something of the effect as follows, "Pain is something that a subject feels when something out of their control affects their feelings." However, stating this still doesn"t agree with me totally, because I also believe that there can be pain in control of a person, if you think of the example of someone cutting their wrists, or something to that affect. Please adjust the premise to reflect this as well.
5./6. If you do not believe that we can kill or harm any animals in any way, how do you say that we wouldn"t all have to be vegetarians? How could we not be vegetarians without killing or harming any animals. I cannot be lead to agree with your argument that all animals should or even do have the same rights as humans. As an example of this, humans have a right not to be killed, unless it is in war or in cases of the death penalty. However, the deer that wander NJ don"t have a right not to be killed, or we would not be able to have hunting. I know many people that hunt deer. If the deer had the same rights as us, we would not be morally allowed to kill them for meat. This is just one example of how animals don"t have the same rights as us, especially in the right to life, and I could think of many more. However, I think that you might have a leg to stand on if you stated that the animal must not feel pain in being harmed. I understand that there are laws against killing certain types of animals, but you do not have any reason or backing to state that all animals have the same rights as humans to not be killed or harmed.
9. I cannot agree with your statement, because there is no reason for me to believe that animals have the same value as humans. I could bring in a lot on morality, and the fact that humans have cognition, thought, feeling and independence, which animals do not have, as far as has been scientifically proved. These factors alone in humans would lead me to believe that humans are much more valuable than humans. Unless you have a way to prove that animals do actually have the same value as humans, I will have to completely discard this premise.
10. I don"t think that your argument for this has standing. Because you say that all animals have the same value and rights as us as people, I am still inclined to state that you cannot say that we can still eat meat. If you told me that I couldn"t harm any animals, I would immediately believe that I would not be able to kill any animals for meat. If there was a way that you could show me that I would be able to eat meat without an animal being harmed, then I would understand. You could tell me that we could eat animals that were already dead, but if animals have the same rights as humans, don"t animals deserve a proper burial instead of being eaten? If a human dies, we bury him or her, or cremate them or whatever the family choses, but it would be a total violation of the person"s rights to eat them. However, you are saying that animals have the same rights as us, so we cannot logically eat animals then either.
1. pain is pain wherever it occurs.
2. There are different forms of pain like physical and emotional but pain is an emotion that a subject feels when something out of their control affect their feelings.
3.We cannot rationally ignore or dismiss the moral relevance of the pain that a person or an animal feels.
4. what is ethical is moral.
5.Ethics asks us to take care for the basic need and legitimate expectation of others as well as our own.
6. To be moral means that there are several considerations or rules that must be followed in order to make considered an object to be moral.
7. Non-human mammals (any animal) have essentially the same right not to feel pain or be harmed.
8. Animals have the same rights as people, especially in terms of not feeling pain and being harmed.
9. We have the same duties directly to animals, just as we have some duties directly to each other.
10. This direct duty is to be kind to animals (or each other) and also a duty to not be cruel to animals (or one another).
11. For either of us to treat the other in ways that fail to show respect for the other"s independent value is to act immorally, to violate the individual's rights.
12. Since there are rights that prevent us from harming animals, including monkeys, they are considered moral object.
13. All of us who have inherited value have it equally, whether they are humans, animals, and monkeys or not.
14. Animals- as monkeys- fail to act immorally, have inherited values, and have rights like all human beings.
15. Therefore, monkeys should be considered persons.
1.Pain is pain wherever it occurs.
2.Pain should be defined as something that a subject feels, whether it is an emotion or a physical sensation, when something pain inflicting occurs against them.
3.We cannot rationally ignore or dismiss the moral relevance of the pain that a person or an animal feels.
4.What is ethical is moral.
5.Ethics asked us to take care for the basic needs and legitimate expectations of others as well as our own.
6.Non-human mammals (any animal) do not have essentially the same rights not to feel pain or be harmed, though they have some rights against this.
7.Animals do not have the same rights as people, though in terms of feeling pain or being harmed there is some semblance of rights given them, though not in equality with people.
8.We do not have exactly the same duties to animals as we would have duties directly to each other.
9.The duties that we do have to animals is that we must be kind to them, and not be cruel to animals, just as we should be kind and not cruel to other people.
10.For any person to fail to respect another person"s independent value is to act immorally, by violating the individual"s rights.
11.There are rules and regulations that prevent us from harming some animals, including monkeys, which makes them to some extent moral objects.
12.Animals and people do not inherit value equally.
13.Monkeys and other animals cannot act morally/immorally, do not have the same amount of inherited value as people, and do not have the same exact rights as all people.
14.Therefore, monkeys should not be considered persons.
I am lead to conclude such, because the pro premises to not necessarily indicate that monkeys must be considered persons. I found the argument very vague and hard to follow, because I could not see how just because a monkey may feel pain, and has some rights against pain and harm that people may have, that this necessarily indicates that monkeys should be considered persons. I believe that the argument given by the pro side could have been much more effective if it had considered the cognition of monkeys and their behaviors/emotions that make them comparable to people.
Also, much of her argument was based on the fact that she believes that animals have the same rights as people not to be harmed or hurt or killed. However, though I believe that animals should definitely have some rights against such, to have the rights of animals completely equal with the rights of people would prevent us from eating any animal that had died intentionally. The only time we would ever have meat would be if an animal died on its own. If animals had the same rights as people, there would be no hunting, there would be no fishing, there wouldn"t be beef, chicken, turkey, veal, fish, etc. in the grocery stores. This is because people have the right not to be killed or harmed (unless in the case of death penalty/some valid cases of war), so we would have no right to kill any animals. For this reason, I think it is safe to say that it is rather illogical to say that all animals should have the same rights as people, regardless of the situation. This brings about another questions-If an animal died on its own we could eat it then, correct? However if we consider the rights most people seem to have, almost every culture has some sort of ritual that involves the dead. Though I know there may be, whether in past or present, some cultures that eat their dead, I think it is safe to say most don"t eat the dead. So if animals have the same rights as people, we would have no right to eat the dead either, unless of course we lived in a culture where the dead were normally eaten.
Based on the information given in the debate, I do not think we can conclude that monkeys should be considered persons.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both debaters had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Neither had major spelling or grammar errors. Arguments - Con. This debate was a pretty straight-forward back n' forth. I believe both sides held up well against the rebuttals presented by their opposition. In the end though, Con had three points which I believe won the debate: 12.Animals and people do not inherit value equally. 13.Monkeys and other animals cannot act morally/immorally, do not have the same amount of inherited value as people, and do not have the same exact rights as all people. 14.Therefore, monkeys should not be considered persons. This was a solid conclusion to draw based on sounds premises. With Con showing the flaws remaining in Pro's logic, I must award arguments to Con. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.