13 thoughts on “Yale holding conference on conferring personhood on animals”

  1. Wottsamatta U admitted the moose under an affirmative action program. He was recommended by Mr. Peabody. That was waaay back.

  2. Wottsamatta U has already admitted a moose; the precedent is made. And, if the whale/cetacean is a US military Service Member (some dolphins may be), surely it can choose what State in which to be considered a citizen. I was a Florida citizen when I was in, and paid in-State tuition when I got out.

  3. I want to see whether Yale or Princeton is first to admit a cetacean.

    Can whales pay in-state tuition?

  4. I loved the moose and squirrel reference and they’d undoubtedly be better company than Pete Singer.

  5. Arguments like the one Singer makes are fatuous and dangerous.

    If a baby or a person with a mental disability, then a bird with a broken wing isn’t a bird.

    Excluding individuals or races from humanity because of real or perceived inferiority has lead to bad things in the past.
    That Singer is trying to confer rights to animals instead of deny them to people doesn’t make this thinking any less disgusting to me.

  6. Since I’d confer personhood on a Down-syndrome soul with schizophrenia, yes, I’d have to allow personhood for Dr. Singer. But I’d want the Down syndrome person to have a guardian, so…

  7. Very nice discussion clearly presented MT.

    Applying your rules, is Pete Singer sentient enough for personhood?

  8. There’s a lot to be said for compassion for animals, for recognizing that humans have responsibility for our actions and for good stewardship.
    The fact is that a frog is not a dog is not a boy. Many animals, especially higher-order mammals, clearly have cognition and emotion, even temperament. They don’t have the same kind of language humans have, can’t communicate in abstract thoughts very effectively, and do not and cannot use concepts like “fair”, “property”, and “liberty” as humans do.
    That means we can’t enter into contracts, reach agreements, establish borders or sign treaties with moose and squirrel. They are not “persons” as we define even our most mentally disabled humans.
    Incidentally, that should end the concept of “marriage” involving animals at least. An animal can’t understand a legal proceeding or contract and can’t enter into a marriage as an informed, adult party. I won’t go into the implications for developmentally disabled humans.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.