Should nonhuman persons have the same rights we do?

[lnrw]

[exploited]

The nature of humanity. Perfect.

What particular design feature of humanity makes us deserve particular legal rights?

[lnrw]

[exploited]

So let's just skip the stuff about human nature, since you are clearly saying that our intellectual capacity is what sets us apart.

Chimps build tools, have elaborate social structures, communicate with one another, form alliances, engage in trade, etc. They have even taught them sign language, so they can communicate their needs to human beings. Hell, in a recent study, they were able to be teach chimps how to use a currency... And not long after, the first chimp prostitute was observed. Amazing really.

Would you say that a chimp thus has more or less rights than a human person who cannot do those things, due to a mental or physical defect?

[lnrw]

[exploited]

Again, there are plenty of humans who can't lodge a complaint about rape, who can't communicate their desires, who can't pay taxes, stand trial or serve on a jury. Just like there are plenty of people who would die almost immediately if not provided for by more intelligent people. They wouldn't know how to hunt, or build a shelter, or how to build tools. The worst ones aren't even able to feed themselves or remain conscious. Yet there is an abundance of evidence that higher level primates are capable of understanding concepts such as fairness, sharing, cooperation, time, self, etc. They use tool building, lying and deception, language, money, trade, etc. They are actually smarter than many human beings.

You're done here. How embarrassing.

[lnrw]

[exploited]

Intelligent animals should have certain basic legal rights: the right to life, the right to liberty (no more illegal, arbitrary confinement) and the right to be free of physical violence from humans. Beyond that, there would be no need to extend them more rights. Although I do find it humorous that you are essentially forced to engage in ridiculous hyperbole in order to make up for the massive, gaping holes in your logic.

"Why, if we ackmowledge that these animals have the right to not be tortured or killed, we'll have to give them firearms and voting privileges."

[lnrw]

[exploited]

Bears are not intelligent animals. I thought we agreed that intellectual capacity was the basis. Further, every person has the right to self defense - that a chimp has the right to life doesn't mean we can't kill it to prevent it from eating a baby.

Non human persons do exist. You just aren't educated. What is really interesting is that by your own logic, I have a greater right to life than you do, and I would be entirely justified in killing you for sport.