Please note that this is asking about whether there are any animals that are actually persons. Not asking about things being considered persons. Not asking about legal personhood. This prompt is asking about actual personhood. A "person" is a being that deserves legal rights because they have the morally relevant properties that make them a person.
Also, you should know that the distinction between "metaphysical", "moral", and "legal" personhood is not at all useful here. "Metaphysical" personhood just seems to be a synonym for "actual" personhood, so the use of "metaphysical" her. Moral "personhood" seems to be an obscure concept that adds extra requirements to the regular concept of being a person, so if you want to talk about moral personhood, you will have to explain how it is different from just plain personhood and then explain why we should care. The same applies to legal personhood, which is even less relevant, since laws are not always logical.
To think about this topic, analyze the following questions in order. First, what is it that makes a person a person. (DO NOT consult any dictionary!) Then, are there any non-human animals that have all of those things. (You might want to think about the chimpanzees and gorillas who have learned sign language and taught it to their children, the gorilla Koko who had a pet cat and grieved its loss, and who made up new sign-language words, the gorillas and elephants who paint pictures, the chimp who tried to save a colobus monkey from being attacked by other chimps, the gorilla Binti Jua who fetched a keeper to help an injured human child, and so on.) Explain the best case you can for some non-human animals being people. Explain the best case you can against those non-human animals being people. (Make sure you do not state these cases as if they are both your personal opinion. You must indicate that these are arguments that someone might make, and not necessarily your personal opinion.) Say which case is better and explain why.
Don't attempt this topic unless you can accept at least the possibility
that the meaning of the word "person" doesn't automatically
include the meaning of "human." If you think that the word "person" is just
another word for "human," or "human being," or "human body," don't pick
this topic unless you are prepared to either come up with reasons
why we should define the word person so that it only includes
humans or to possibly change your mind about the definition of a
person.
Remember, the topic here is to determine whether or not there are any
non-human persons, not to decide beforehand that there aren't any, and
then bend logic and evidence into whatever shape is necessary to make it look
like that conclusion is true.
If you are reading this and thinking to yourself that there can't
be any non-human people no matter what the facts turn out to
be, and that you can fulfil this assignment by "explaining" that this
unexamined conviction has to be right, you should pick another
topic. (Of course, if you've spent a lot of time thinking about it, and
have come to that conclusion after seriously considering the other
side of the issue, you're fine.)
Students with the unexamined assumption usually start off by thinking of
various differences between human and non-human animals and then claiming
that because humans and non-humans are different in this way,
non-humans cannot be persons.
This strategy usually fails.
Sometimes it fails because the "difference" isn't a difference. The thing
that humans have turns out to be something at least some animals have too.
Other times it fails because the student cannot come up with any reason why
that thing is necessary for something to be a person. (Especially since it
is often the case that lots of humans lack that thing too.)
For instance, it is sometimes said "we can understand 'morality' as an
abstract concept while nonhuman animals, although sometimes capable of
crosspecies compassion such as rescuing or caring for humans in various
ways, do not understand morality in this abstract way, therefore it is
morally okay for us to inflict the most horrific tortures upon innocent
animals for quite trivial ends." The understanding of morality as an abstract
concept may indeed be a real difference between human and nonhuman
animals, but it is not the kind of difference that has ever before been
considered morally important, and no actual reason has ever been given in
support of it being important. It is, in essence, an irrelevant
difference, of no mor moral importance than the presence or absence of
fur, wings, or horns.
Well anyway, if you can more-or-less see both sides of the issue, and are
willing to accept that any answer is possible, this is a fun
topic. If you can only see one side of the issue, and are totally
unwilling to accept that the other side might possibly be right, you will
probably write papers that are very far from being logically sound, so
consider yourself warned.
Remember that "person" is a morally loaded term. If something is a person,
then it has rights that non-persons do not have. Persons
have rights of self-expression and self-determination, and it is
morally wrong to kill, maim, torture, abuse or imprison persons. Some
nonpersons, such as, say cows, have at least the right not to be tortured,
but they do not necessarily have all the rights that persons have.
Generally, mentally complete and healthy humans are reckoned to be
persons because they have certain capacities including free will, self
awareness and a certain set of cognitive capacities including the capacity
to understand such concepts as mathematics, science, the idea of morality
and of seeking goals beyond immediate self gratification.
Links
(Please look at these links for factual information and arguments to help you understand the issue. Don't take them as proving anything all by themselves. Remember you are the one who needs to figure out the answer here. If you just repeat things other people, you will not be doing the assignment. (Remember to let me know about any broken links)
Are any emotions uniquely human?
Is personhood an animal right or human privilege?Koko Gorilla
Gorilla Foundation
Wikipedia:
Koko_(gorilla)
A
Conversation With Koko
Koko
The
Gorilla Mourning The Loss Of Robin Williams
Washoe Chimp
She Told The Chimp She Had Lost Her Baby
Friends of Washoe : Meet : Washoe
Washoe and the family teach Loulis to use sign
language
A Chimp Named Washoe
Binti Gorilla
Binti Jua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Binti the Gorilla - Travel Channel
Gorilla comforted
a child that had fallen into gorilla pit at zoo
Brookfield Zoo
gorilla rescues little boy who fell
Gorilla Carries
3-Year-Old Boy to Safety in 1996 Incident
Mice
in the Sink
Dolphins: www.beach-net.com/dolphins/communication.html
Philosophical Overview on The Moral Status of AnimalsThese ideas aren't off-limits, if any of them come up in the course of answering your assigned question, go ahead and discuss them in any way you see fit. But I do want you to focus on the question(s) I've assigned to you, so don't make any of these questions your primary topic unless I've specifically assigned you, or given you permission to do that question. If you want to focus on a follow-up question, ask me, and I might give you permission.
Define Person What is a person, anyway?
Social Persons Is our definition of a
person partially based on morality, society or history? Should it be?
Considered What if humans weren't
considered persons?
