Florence 1

Sandra Florence
October 15, 2015
PHIL-2300-F15-Drexler
Apes as persons: Habeas Corpus

The line of Liberty and Equality arguments for granting habeas corpus to Hercules and Leo are:

They are autonomous and self-determining beings.

They are cognitively advanced beings.

They are conscious that they are conscious.

The line of argument against granting habeas corpus to Hercules and Leo are:

The venue is not the proper place to make this argument.

This ruling would create a slippery slope for other animals.

The court should not rule on personhood, its the legislatures responsibility.

There is no precedent to grant animals habeas corpus.

If the judged rules in favor, they would be essentially trading one type of confinement for another.

They have no ability to partake in human society. The being has the ability to communicate with
some form of language that can be mutually understood. They have the ability to make rational choice
and decisions. They have the ability to be reflective and understand their current condition and their
desired future condition. They have the ability to understand actions and reactions and they can have
relationships with other beings.

What is a "person?" -- Not "what is a human" but what are the qualities of being a "person" that
makes humans fall under the category of "persons". Do Hercules and Leo have any of those
qualities? Enough of them? Humans fall in the category of persons because they have the ability to be
rational, reflective, responsible and accountable. Humans can shape their future by setting goals, making
reasoned choices and course correct when necessary. They can communicate with advanced language
skills. Hercules and Leo have some of these abilities. It is clear they have impressive cognitive ability for
animals. But they do not have enough of the characteristics necessary to be considered persons.
Cartesian thinking comes out in the arguments that the chimpanzees have the ability to reason. Its clear
by watching the videos that the chimps have cognitive thinking. Singer believes that animals should have

Florence 2
equal consideration. Singers beliefs closely align with the notion that Hercules and Leo should be
considered legal persons versus legal things because legal things have no rights and other persons can
do whatever they want with legal things. Steven Wise and the NHRP challenge the Cartesian or Kantian
conception of persons by making the argument that chimps are extraordinarily cognitive and complex
beings. In other words they are arguing that the chimps have the ability to reason and should therefore be
considers persons. I believe that Sylvan would support Steven Wise in his argument that chimps are
sentient and have the ability to think and feel.

The qualities of personhood that I see being advanced or challenged are:

If Chimps or other cognitively complex animals like Koko are granted the status of
"persons"--what rights do you think that should entail? This is a difficult question to answer
because I dont believe they should have the right to be classified as persons any more than I think a
river should be classified as a person. I think animal cruelty laws cover the types of things chimps
should be entitled to. I dont think they should be used for animal experimentation and I truly dont
believe they should be held out of their natural environment in cages.

To what extent does it open up the status of personhood to other animals? Which ones? If
this suit were to gain traction, I believe it would be a slippery slope in terms of animal rights. Once
they are classified as persons, arguments could be made that they are entitled to the same rights as
humans. I can see this stretching to a point where arguments are made that they are entitled to health
care, welfare benefits etc. If that were the case, humans would pay the price. Animals could not
contribute in any meaningful way. Humans would carry the burden.

Is this a good boundary marker for the moral circle? Why or why not? Are any of Regan or
Singer's criteria left out of the concept of "person" as you see it being defined in this legal
case? That is, between the concepts of Autonomy, reasoning, Sentience and Subject of a life
are there animals or other parts of nonhuman natural world left out of the moral circle that you
think should be included? If so, how would you broaden the circle? Or, alternatively, do you
think the circle is getting too large? If so, how would you narrow it? This is not a good
boundary marker for the moral circle. Animals should not be classified as persons. It is clear that
chimps have the ability to do cognitive and complex tasks and I found the videos to be interesting and
endearing. Animals come in all shapes and sizes; some are more advanced than others. Some
people have dogs and cats that can be trained to do highly entertaining things. I believe that they
have the ability to feel and have relationships. My daughter had a teacup poodle that followed her
wherever she went, he was sad when she wasnt around, he was clearly happy when she was. One
day my daughter went to church across the street. The dog watched her leave through the glass front
door and waited for 3 hours at the door until she came back home. He knew that she was going to
church and that she would came back and he was willing to wait for her. But that doesnt mean the
dog should be classified as a person. He cant take care of himself, he cannot be accountable and he
cant go out and make a living to support himself. Domesticated animals need humans to care for
them. They have the right to be treated humanely and I am highly supportive of laws about treating

Florence 3
animals humanely, but that doesnt extend to giving them the classification of being a person. It
seems to me that we could have solved the plight of Hercules and Leo by pursuing animal cruelty
versus trying to classify them as a person. If this law suit is successful, then what? Once they have
rights, they havent told anyone they want to move to Florida. Thinking, reflective, ration humans have
decided that they would be better off in Florida. Personally, I think they belong in their native
environment where they can thrive, not in a manmade tract of islands even if it is better than the
cages. We should respect the chimps as sentient beings, but we should not classify them as persons.