Dr. Adora’s argument claims animals are individuals entitled to nonhuman personhood and that holding animals in captivity, in zoos and in research, is morally wrong. Nonhuman personhood is extended to corporations, zoos, universities, and other entities. Personhood grants these beings rights like accepting monetary gifts, and making independent decisions. One of Adora’s most compelling pieces of evidence is her argument that animals, like human children, should be represented by an agent if needed. In a child’s case this is a parent or guardian, but for an animal it could be a human decision-maker or lawyer. This creates a specific purpose for granting nonhuman personhood to animals: having an advocate making decisions on their well-being will benefit an animal as an individual. Bruce Friedrich of the “Someone, Not Something” project makes this argument clear saying “we would never grant fewer rights to humans based on level of cognition or complexity of emotion and behavior.” This solidifies Adora’s argument that denying
…show more content…
Busch takes a moderate opinion supporting some of Dr. Adora and Mrs. Royal’s claims and denouncing others. Busch starts off his piece stating humans do owe welfare rights to animals, that we should not harm them, but sometimes have no choice. His best argument is that some welfare rights are not extensive enough to animals like Chimps who are capable of cognition. The support for this position is from Bruce Friedrich’s article about animal cognition, however, David Grimm’s article “Lawsuits Seek Personhood for Chimpanzees” explains that personhood for chimps is a slippery slope. Dr. Busch claims we can give different rights to different animals but does not explain how we will define which animals are worthy and which are not. He claims that a compromise of the two opinions is necessary but his largest flaw is not defining this compromise. Which compromise is the best? Where will the line be drawn? This is unclear in Dr. Busch’s
Busch takes a moderate opinion supporting some of Dr. Adora and Mrs. Royal’s claims and denouncing others. Busch starts off his piece stating humans do owe welfare rights to animals, that we should not harm them, but sometimes have no choice. His best argument is that some welfare rights are not extensive enough to animals like Chimps who are capable of cognition. The support for this position is from Bruce Friedrich’s article about animal cognition, however, David Grimm’s article “Lawsuits Seek Personhood for Chimpanzees” explains that personhood for chimps is a slippery slope. Dr. Busch claims we can give different rights to different animals but does not explain how we will define which animals are worthy and which are not. He claims that a compromise of the two opinions is necessary but his largest flaw is not defining this compromise. Which compromise is the best? Where will the line be drawn? This is unclear in Dr. Busch’s