Human Rights Should Be Represented By An Individual Essay

1044 Words Apr 2nd, 2016 null Page
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 animal’s personhood rights would be comparable to subjecting humans to have to “qualify” for personhood status.
Adora’s claim that animals are individuals because they “feel like a person” is her weakest point. To Adora this may be true, to feel a connection with an animal in a very human way, but not every average person visiting a zoo will experience that feeling. There are many advocates, however, that do feel as though animals are people. Bruce…

Related Documents

Qualcuno salvi il Natale (2018) streaming | My Brother Loves Me Too Much (Movie) | IMDb: 7 S1E12 Devil's Line - Season 1