For years now, people have known that plants and animals are to some degree sentient. Does this give them the right to personhood? In the articles “ Are Animals Persons?” by Margaret Somerville and “Are Plants Intelligent? New Book Says Yes” by Jeremy Hance this topic is brought up. While both Hance and Somerville write about having respect for these species, Somerville is not willing to grant animals personhood just based on the fact that they have emotions, whereas Hance is all for plant rights. After reading these articles, it was clear to see that we are not as different from our fellow species, plants and animals, than we think we are and they deserve to be treated with the same respect that people are treated. Stricter laws should be
…show more content…
This adds to his credibility tremendously, his own background also gives his audience reassurance with him being a wildlife blogger, journalist and a published author. Additionally, he incorporates Charles Darwin, a renown biologist, into his article. Hance mentions, “Moreover, Darwin – who studied plants meticulously for most of his life, observed that the radicle – the root tip – ‘acts like the brain of one of the lower animals.’” (Hance), to increase support for his belief that plants can indeed think. He later goes on to explain that plants don’t have one brain instead they function and smaller networks that work together for problem solving (Hance). Is it possible that plants know more about teamwork than all of mankind? Research says …show more content…
She speaks about how if species were given the right to personhood, what characteristics would qualify them to that title? She touches on the idea that some humans don't fit the title of being a person such as people with extreme disabilities or babies and how this would make euthanasia acceptable. And how some species like dolphins are intelligent and have emotions and would be considered “speciesism” or “a form of wrongful discrimination” (Somerville). Somerville notes that if animals were granted personhood this would mean that the consumption of animals would be held to the same liability of the consumption of humans, whether it would be allowed or
This adds to his credibility tremendously, his own background also gives his audience reassurance with him being a wildlife blogger, journalist and a published author. Additionally, he incorporates Charles Darwin, a renown biologist, into his article. Hance mentions, “Moreover, Darwin – who studied plants meticulously for most of his life, observed that the radicle – the root tip – ‘acts like the brain of one of the lower animals.’” (Hance), to increase support for his belief that plants can indeed think. He later goes on to explain that plants don’t have one brain instead they function and smaller networks that work together for problem solving (Hance). Is it possible that plants know more about teamwork than all of mankind? Research says …show more content…
She speaks about how if species were given the right to personhood, what characteristics would qualify them to that title? She touches on the idea that some humans don't fit the title of being a person such as people with extreme disabilities or babies and how this would make euthanasia acceptable. And how some species like dolphins are intelligent and have emotions and would be considered “speciesism” or “a form of wrongful discrimination” (Somerville). Somerville notes that if animals were granted personhood this would mean that the consumption of animals would be held to the same liability of the consumption of humans, whether it would be allowed or