Of Primates And Personhood Summary

In the article, “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and ´Dignity´ to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?¨, written by Ed Yong, who explains the moral but unclear delma of granting Great Apes rights. Extending from Spain to the U.S., the Great Ape Project (GAP) fights for these basic sets of moral and legal rights for apes. The problem is that apes, although genetically similar to humans are still viewed as simple animals. Which makes the ability to give these non-human animals, human like rights unnecessary as it would to give rights to dogs or rats. The U.S. has also passes the Great Ape Protection Act, which stop any harmful experience to apes. Consequently also stopping any further understanding of underlying biological mechanisms,

In the article,”Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?”, author Ed Yong implies that different types of primates such as apes should be treated more like human beings. He starts by stating a claim the there is some type of schism between different types of scientists and the world. Yong also explains the the Swiss law and how it protects the “dignity” of organisms. He also states that the apes are basically in “battle” Yong then starts to talk about what measures the GAP tries to take in order to give the apes some type of rights. He also explains the different measures that other countries have taken to help the apes within their country, and then he makes another claim in which

“Of Primates and Personhood” is an op-ed piece written by Ed Yong. In Young’s op-ed piece he talks about the Great Ape Project (GAP) happening in Spain and a Swiss law that wants to protect the dignity of the original organism, and questioning if primates should have a set of basic rights. On his op-ed, Yong provided good information on the Great Ape Project and talks about what is happening with the Swiss law. The GAP wants to set a law demanding that all apes should have legal and moral rights. This law will protect all apes from experiments and they will have a better living conditions.

“Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?”, by Ed Yong, is an article that explains the intentions of the Great Ape Project (GAP). The project demands a basic set of moral and legal rights for chimpanzees,gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans. Many countries have taken part of this project such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The message of the GAP is that the animals are not property, therefore they believe apes should not be used for experiment or entertainment. However, not everyone agrees with GAP’s rights-based approach. Frans de Waal, from Emory University believes that if we give rights to the apes, why not give rights to other animals such as monkeys, dogs, and rats? Singer says, “Speaking personally, I feel we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals” and he also says, “All creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status.” In the EU, Jane Goodall wants experimentations on apes and all animals to end. Many people are in favor of the GAP

As a college student, I have seen things over the years that has concerned me on the world's approach to animal rights. Animals are still not treated fairly as humans are. In Vicki Hearn’s article, “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights”, she did not provide the audience with strong examples of ethos and logos but provided her audience with a numerous amount of pathos. People who own, work or care about animals and their opportunity to live as equal as humans do.

In the article “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research,” Ed Yong helps support his claim whether or not great apes deserve to have certain rights by giving examples of programs involved. He states that the Great Ape Project (GAP) is the main project battling for these rights. There goal is to obtain a basic set of moral and legal rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans. He also backs up his claim by giving of other countries involved.The United Kingdom and New Zealand are examples of countries who have taken steps to protect great apes from experimentation. He also states reasons others may object to GAP’s project.Primatologist Frans de Waal of Emory said, “I do

Not only does it talk about great apes having equal rights but all animals should. It explains how animal experimentation is cruel and it should not be done to any animal. I completely agree with Yong on how animals should have equal rights. Why should animals suffer? I’m very happy to see that great apes will be protected way more now.

When a cause is brought up and given light, it has a way of splitting people in how they react to it. And such has been true when it comes to granting new rights, because it’s brobdingnagian in our society that is always hungry for freedoms. We are split down the middle on whether, or not to consider animals, just like us, and thus deserve the rights we hold in our society today. On the other end, are people who don’t believe such rights should be given to animals. While the pro-arguments hold value, there is much more to see on the other end. As to why animals shouldn’t have a “Bill of Rights” like we as humans do. It’s shown in various different ways, even the most popular arguments held by the opposing side. Such as cows hurting the environment, zoo’s being inhumane, and pets. There are other factors as well to take into consideration such as food, psychology medicine, and even culture.

Without a doubt creating an Animal Bill of Rights would affect not one but many sources that indeed we need. It goes against human culture, would tragically affect medical research, and last but not least important our food source.If our nation is not capable of taking care of all its people it should not be worrying about

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs. We need to acknowledge a problem. After identifying the issue, we must recognize that there is a need for change in society. In addition, he also reiterates the importance of the populace changing the way they view animals. The way society views animals will create a snowball effect that will influence politicians to also believe in animal rights.

In every culture known to human there are different forms of musical expression. Although nonhuman primates can’t produce music, they have very similar auditory structures, perception and behavioral responses. Humans say that music has an effect on social arousal and mood, similarly chimpanzees show an increase in social behavior and a decrease in agonism when music is played to them. Evidence shows that human and nonhuman primates have an ability to distinguish music properties such as the types of rhythmic or melodic organization. Although primates exhibit and ability to distinguish between rhythmic structures and show a preference for slower tempos, it is unknown if they have a preference for rhythmic patterns. Humans and Chimpanzees prefer consonant music over dissonant music.

For many years there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not animals should be given rights, even there own bill of rights. Some who are against the animal bill of rights argue that testing products on animals is important to the safety of humans. Others who want the new bill of rights claim that animals have feelings and that science is treating them inhumanely. Animal activists also add that animals are intelligent beings and are aware of how they are treated. Based on science proving animal activists correct on many of their points, this calls for a new bill of rights, in the United States, especially written for the protection and care of wild and domestic animals.

Animal rights is the idea that all animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives. It’s important to have animal rights because it prevents animals from living horrible, tortured lives for human benefit and entertainment. They have feelings and emotions too, they should be treated as humanely as possible at all times, they are not on this earth for human benefit and usage.

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.