"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" & "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court"

In Wesley Smith’s article entitled “No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus” he writes about how animal rights activists are trying help orangutans gain the title of “personhood”. He continues by explaining how this could be done by simply finding “one judge” who wants to go down in history. He directly quotes AFADA’s argument about the situation, and how they believe Sandra, an orangutan, should be given “at least three basic rights, the right to life, the right not to be tortured or ill treated physically or psychologically”. On the other hand, Alisa Mullins, a PETA member, writes about how one month later Sandra was given some basic rights and will now be transferred to a sanctuary. Throughout the article, Mullins continually personifies Sandra and other orangutans alike. She does this by referring to all of the different tools that orangutans are known for making.

 In my opinion, orangutans should be given some rights and not be treated inhumanely. On the other hand, I agree more with Smith in that animals should not be given more rights than humans, nor should the world focus solely on animals when so many of the humans are struggling to live. What would happen if an orangutan was legally declared a person? When would the line be crossed? What if the world turned into the planet of the apes?

No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus and Orangutan Declared a Person by Argentinan Court

Even though these articles had quite less detail and wording than the past ones we have read in class, they still leave a big impact with the topic they talk about. In both these articles they talk about something very from diverse from the articles we read in he past that had to deal with relationships between humans and wildlife. These articles actually talks about the equality among them. To me it seems like these tow articles have different views of the issue surrounding if animals should be treated with the same respect as humans.  The article  I don't agree with In No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus the author agues that even though that the creature deserves entitlement to fair human treatment, they should not be considered humans. Also in this article, he goes on to talk about "human exceptionism" to describe only life aspects that belong to humans, like when he gives the example of how PETA said Sea World treats their animals like slaves, he doesn't agree wit hit because its giving the killer whales humanistic qualities. In the other article called Orangutan Declared a Person by Argentinian Court it gives the total opposite point of view as seeing these primates as humans. The author even goes as to giving examples of how hey should like the fact they can make tools out of leaves or are capable of feeling the same emotions as us. So the point is why cant these animals have rights just like us humans? We are not superior to them we were all put on this earth created equals. so what gives us the right to say that cant be released into the wild or such?

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" and "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court"

The author sounded a bit contradictory to me in this article. He wants the orangutan to have the care he deserves, yet he is fighting the battle from the other side. The media is a very strong force to enact change and for him to pin the animal rights groups as somehow ant-human seems counter intuitive. I don't understand the pride involved in making sure that animals, are not seen on the same level as humans. As a meat eater I understand there is a hierarchy and thankfully I sit atop of that, at least in Eau Claire. It just makes me feel different when the animal is not being used for for us to sustain ourselves, but for our amusement. These animals have pride and feelings and there have been recent studies that show just how social primates actually are. So to put an orangutan in what amounts to solitary confinement seems inhumane. The author should realize that these types of articles may have negative affects on progressing animal rights and realize how many animals may be impacted in the long run.

I also don't understand why the author is so concerned with humans maintaining the "person hood" title. Animals only want to be treated with the same respect that we do. So to try to fight for a word that humans constructed and animals are not fighting for seems counter productive in many ways. Animals are not always treated so harshly in zoo type settings, but when there is something happening that seems cruel we, as fellow living beings, should be the voice for the voiceless. 

No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus/Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court

These articles posted by PETA and The National Review were very focused on one issue, whether or not Sandra the orangutan is a person or not.  The articles had very different points on the issue and had different biases.  The pictures in the PETA article present us with visual rhetoric that displays the orangutans with human like expressions of fear.  The end of the PETA article urges you in the end with their, What You Can Do, segment to not go to any marine parks or zoos until animals get proper legal protection.  The other article by Wesley Smith ends talking about how if a judge wants to go down in history they will declare animals as people.  However, the tone throughout his piece would suggest that it would be absurd for any judge to want to declare a human a person.  Smith also talks about Human Exceptionalism which when you look him up he is a very strong supporter of and he has situated ethos in the many articles he has written on the subject as well as serving as a special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture. 

These articles really didn’t change how I felt about whether animals should be kept in captivity or not.  It is a weird thought to consider that other animals being declared as people but at the same time I understand that great apes do have a brain capacity for emotions and relationships that is significantly more similar to humans than any other animal.  Animals should be treated with great care no matter what.  However the thought of declaring them as people is weird to wrap your head around.  There is still definitely a difference between humans and other animals.  The article does not address my biggest questions about Sandra the orangutan that might help them to have a little more persuasion. What happened to her that animal rights advocates tried to get the court to declare her a person?  What about the case made people really strongly feel and even the judge feel, that she should be released to a sanctuary and not be able to stay in the zoo any longer?

No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus/ Orangutan Declared a Person

Animals, to me, have always been somewhat similar but always separate from each other in some ways. Both these articles touch on the idea that an orangutan has crossed the barrier of difference and has gained the right of being a person. Wesley J. Smith talks about in his article “No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus” the first case dealing with the orangutan Sandra. Smith clearly states throughout his article that an orangutan being classified as a person would be “human exceptionalism being hit with a sledge hammer”, seems kind of harsh at first, but would make sense to some. Smith also recollects on the fact that this is not the first time that this has been attempted; the other time was unfortunate, as the orangutan died. Our second article titled “Orangutan Declared a Person by Argentine Court” is a follow up article stating that Sandra the orangutan has been declared a person, exactly one month later! Apparently during this court case, the judges unanimously declared the Sandra was a “non-human person who has some basic human rights.” Nevertheless, Smith probably got ahold of this article and went absolutely insane. Personally, I think that Sandra should stay, as she is, an orangutan. There was a comparison between this case and a case against SeaWorld and I couldn’t help but connect them. SeaWorld’s case was that orcas were slaves and should be released from captivity, while Sandra’s case is granting her personship. Sandra’s case includes the fact that she has proven cognitive ability and can function with emotions and relationships the same as humans can. With that said, orcas can do the same. Orcas have their own language to communicate among one another and clearly showed emotions when they were taken from their mothers. Why didn’t that case escalate into personship for orcas? They were declared slaves, the case dropped because slaves can only be humans. I find it strange how PETA finds differences with these cases and I don’t. So in conclusion, apparently human exceptionalism has been struck with a sledge hammer, and it definitely didn’t feel too good.

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" and "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court"

This article intrigued me because this idea that an animal can be considered human just blows my mind. I can understand the points that came to the conclusion that the orangutan had some basic human rights. In all humans and especially mammals, we all have incredible brain activity and perform many different functions. Humans have emotions, motor skills, and reasoning skills. Don't orangutans and other mammals have the same? This is what I believe was the deciding factor for the Argentinian judge. We have these basic skills that make us humans and therefore so do other mammals. We have basic rights and so do other mammals which we belong to. We are so closely related to these other mammals that it would almost seem unfair to deny an animal certain rights. Studies have been conducted and found that animals do get depressed and stressed in certain situations.  People need to realize that although humans are the most dominating species on the plant we do need to share and respect the other animals on it.

I have to admit that I am a huge fan of animal rights so I don't want to seem as if I am playing devils advocate. Animals have the same functions as humans do and mammals are so closely related to humans. It doesn't seem right to lift up the human race so to speak and look down upon other species. As humans we look to animals to learn from how they operate and think. We are hand in hand with these animals and should give them the respect they deserve. I agree with some points that orangutans are not humans and there are big differences. But they are still not that far apart and should have the respect from their closes relatives (humans).

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" & "Orangutan Declared as 'Person' by Argentine Court"

These two articles put together are quite interesting. I can’t pin-point whether I would side with Wesley J. Smith that orangutans aren’t people-like animals or side with Alisa Mullins in that they are people-like animals. I think both authors had great use of pathos, I could easily feel how strong their opinions are about this situation. I believe Mullins is right but only to some extent. Because I was curious how closely related orangutans are to humans, I did some further research. I came upon this article which shared that orangutans shared 97% of their DNA with people. Mullins also includes that orangutans are capable of forming relationships, engineering and having feelings. That is very much like humans. However, like Smith, I don’t think orangutans should be considered as people. Aside from the arguments made by these two authors, I still strongly believe that no animal should be held in captivity. Whether they're people-like or not, it's still not fair and not right to them.

“No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus” / “Orangutan Declared a ‘Person’ by Argentine Court”

In Wesley J. Smith’s article, he describes attempts to make a primate be declares a “person” is ridiculous, and I have to agree, to an extent.  There are many differences between a human and an orangutan, but one in particular is the needs and wants.  My reasoning is based off of my ethics class I had last semester.  An orangutan has no use for many human rights such as freedom of speech.  Therefore, an orangutan becoming a “person” who holds the rights of a human is, in fact, ridiculous.  Because of this, I believe it is a much better idea to have a separate set of rights for animals that would include things like the right to life or the right to not be imprisoned like what was stated in the articles.

The following article was written by Alisa Mullins and was shown from the opposite side as Smith’s article.  It was pretty interesting seeing the same information in both yet written from opposing viewpoints.  After reading this one, I wasn’t sure if Smith was overreacting or if Mullins is changing wordings.  What I mean is Smith was talking about the situation like the orangutan was going to be declared an actual person, like a human.  However, in Mullins’ article, it calls the orangutan a “non-human person” which changes things significantly. For that reason, my above response to Smiths article shall remain separate from this one and in its own context.  If this is the case, I could side with Mullins in calling the orangutan a “non-human person”, however, even using that word “person” is precarious.  One would have to dig into and argue the definition of a person and that would be another whole issue that would distract from the point.  Honestly, I think it would be much simpler if people would just see that non-human animals exist on this world just like us and deserve some kind of respect. That way, we can avoid the whole “person” issue and his can be resolved nicely without using unnecessary roundabout ways. Unfortunately though, I do not see humanity doing this anytime soon. 

Orangutan Articles

First of all, I really liked the fact that Hollars paired these two articles with one another. It’s helpful to see both sides of the article rather than just one opinion on the matter. Personally, I don’t think that animals should have human rights, regardless of their intellectual level. I simply don’t see the point of it. I understand that the group that was arguing for the orangutans “personhood” said that they were doing so because it was “unjustified confinement of an animal with proven cognitive ability”. But couldn’t you say the same thing of prisoners? I am not comparing the personalities or general brain composure of an orangutan to a prisoner, or vice versa, I am simply saying that prisoners definitely still have cognitive abilities, but are confined, sometimes unjustifiably, and lose their rights. And where will the line be drawn? What is to say that now that one orangutan is considered a “person” that it won’t be protested for other animals to be considered a “person”? And what does that definition even include? Judges that decided Sandra’s case (which I am reluctant to say because it makes her sound human, when it was really Animal Rights case) they “unanimously agreed that Sandra is a “non-human person [who] has some basic human rights””. So, what is a non-human person? What is the point of classification of we are just going to meld all groups together? I do believe that animals deserved to be cared for and should not be maltreated, but I think that they should have their own set of rights.

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus & Orangutan Declared a Person"

The first article "No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" shows just how far animal activist are going in order to ensure the rights of animals in captivity. Initially I didn't understand how they could even make a case for an orangutan to be granted "personhood". However, as I read on I started to understand what they were trying to accomplish. It isn't that these activists want an orangutan to be seen as a human being like you and me. They more or less only want the same rights for animals as we have as humans such as, the right to life, the right not to be tortured, or ill treated physically or psychologically. To us these types of rights we never even think about because they have never been an issue. However, for animals they have no choice as to how they are treated. With that said I think that "personhood" is the wrong term to use when trying to protect these animals. Right now I think that by comparing animals to humans is the only way that activists are going to draw any attention to the cause.

To answer the blog leader Ian's question, I don't think at this point there is even a threshold to cross. This seems like a relatively new idea and there seems to be no set boundaries right now on what is right and what is wrong when it comes to an animal people worthy of these rights. Personally, I don't see why an orangutan wouldn't be worthy of the three basic rights described in the first article. Who are we as humans to say whether or not an animal should be subjected to torture or ill-treatment in anyway when they can't speak for themselves. To me every animal is worthy of these three basic rights. However, animals don't need the label of "personhood" in order to gain these rights. The fact is that humans and animals are different and alike in many ways but that doesn't mean that just because humans can communicate their fears and apprehensions and sometimes animals can't we have the right to dictate how an animal spends its life in captivity or in the wild. Like humans, animals need to be in an environment that feels natural and safe to them in order to be happy and healthy.

The second article "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court" initially caught my attention because of the title. When a person decides whether or not to read an article the first thing they look at is the title. With this title it attracts a wide variety of people because of the term orangutan and person used in the same sentence. It was interesting to learn about what orangutang's are actually capable of doing, such as creating tools and using leaves as drink in cups. These types of statements humanizes these animals and forces people to few them as a very intelligent species. In many instances the author makes the connection between orangutang and human such as, "just like humans" and "person of the forest" (Mullins). The repetitive use of these phrases helps the author make comparisons between animal and human in order to prove a point. By using descriptive wording the authors in both of the articles were able to draw the readers in and make them feel maybe even a little guilty for the animals in captivity.

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" & "Orangutan Declared a ‘Person’ by Argentine Court"

This is probably the most biased article that we have read so far. As has been pointed out by many of our peer's, it was written by a woman for PETA one of the most radical animal rights campaigns to date and you can see why they have gotten this reputation. Right at the top of the PETA article you read "animals are not ours" They are the biggest words on the entire page and then to draw even more attention to it they "not" is even bolded everything and underlined and you can tell right from the beginning that this group is biased and they come across as hostile.  You can see from the way that the PETA article is arranged that the author wants you to see certain facts and words, for example the article frequently uses the term "we" instead of "them" which makes the reader feel as if they are included in the statement. By including the reader in the articles you make it personal and that helps the reader take a vested interest in the reading.  Both articles also use a lot of pathos and they personify the animals as much as possible this too makes the reader invest in the animals and in the article.

PETAs articles are notorious for their use of rhetoric and there ability to twist events to fit their version of the events that they cover.  They have an amazing ability to grasp their audiences and exigence, this is what makes them such a successful company and what makes them a household name. However it also makes people very leery of the messages they have because they are known as a radical company. They are known for their protests and their never take no for an answer attitude. You could tell that even from reading the first article before the judge had ruled to make the orangutang a person they had already convinced themselves that they were going to succeed. All of the adjectives they used to describe the orangutang were human emotions, skills and traits.  Overall I think both articles were incredibly well written and ended up being very effective due to their use of rhetoric, both visual and non visual,
and their ability to make this argument personal.    

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" and "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court"

Being a vegetarian and animal rights activist who, for the most part, stands with PETA (depending on the circumstance) I agreed with their article about orangutans having human qualities. This resonates with my belief that wild animals should not be kept in captivity, unless for some sort of conservation effort. To me, it seems inhuman to keep animals in captivity solely for the purpose of human entertainment. Just like I have chosen to live without meat, I can also live without the entertainment of zoos and places like seaworld. As we compared Blackfish and Seaworld's argument yesterday, I compared both pieces about the Orangutan today. Like yesterday, I was surprised by the weakness of the argument that was written in response to the initial event. Just like Seaworld's response yesterday, I felt as if Wesley J. Smith had no substantial backing to his argument. If anything, it made me agree with PETA even more. He used phrases like "human exceptionalism has not been hit with a sledge hammer. But animal rights antihumanists will keep trying" and "their goal is to reduce us to just another animal in the forest". These are not statements that make me want to jump on his bandwagon, but rather do everything in my power to act against him. I think this is proof that he is not using effective rhetoric to argue his opinion. Instead the only people he will convince are the individuals who already believe in human exceptionalism to the extent that he does. I think PETA uses more effective and friendly language to draw a bigger crowd in. I believe that they have a higher potential to draw in a larger crowd than Wesley Smith does, and this is because they use effective rhetoric. Although my opinion may also be influenced by my preexisting agreement with PETA.

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" and "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court"

In “No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus” Wesley Smith fails to build pathos and more importantly, ethos. I found his choice in opening the article by condemning the opposing side to be too blunt.  He continues to lack my trust when his support for his argument doesn’t extend past the announcement that the opposing side is “ludicrous” in their thinking. I’m sure it worked for some, we shouldn’t need to be told why an orangutan is not a “person,” I just think since the magazine doesn’t appear to be a medium for satire he should have taken a more mature approach. If he had backed up his argument and offered some respect towards the opposing side I probably would have found myself supporting his article.

On the other hand, Alisa Mullins’s article “Orangutan Declared a ‘Person’ by Argentine Court” takes advantage of the power of pathos and ethos right away. She both supports her argument and appeals to our emotions when she states that the Association of Officials and Lawyers for Animal Rights believes that the confinement of a high functioning orangutan is similar to unjustified human imprisonment. She even supports their cognitive ability by giving examples of the orangutan’s skills, like creating tools. Although I disagree with ruling an animal as a person, Mullins’s rhetorical consideration has me more willing to support her case than Smith’s.

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" & "Orangutan Declared a ‘Person’ by Argentine Court"

These two articles were definitely some of the most interesting that we've read so far. I was in shock the whole time I was reading these articles because I never thought I would read about people trying to get a monkey declared as a person. As much as big monkeys like orangutans and gorillas creep me out for being so human like, I would never agree with them being declared as a person. One of the reasons for Sandra being declared a person was because orangutans are able to form relationships. I think this statement is to broad because a lot of animals form relationships, either a mother and baby relationship or a relationship with a pack of the same animals, it's not anything rare in the animal kingdom. Although I don't agree with animals being kept in small enclosures, I don't think it takes them being declared a person to get them the help they need. If they're going to try and name a orangutan a person too get them out of their enclosure are they going to try and start naming every animal a person as well? If animal rights activists are only focusing on orangutans and maybe other monkeys, wouldn't they just be "monkey rights activists?" I think these people have gone a little too far in their fight for animal rights; they need to draw a line somewhere. These are still wild animals that we are talking about.

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus"/ "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court"

In "No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" Wesley Smith talks about an orangutan that has been granted "personhood" by a judge in Argentina. Smith uses a lot of personification in his writing to make the orangutan related to people. The orangutan, named Sandra, is said to be treated like a prisoner and the AFADA believes that she should be transferred to a sanctuary. The article closes with the author using pathos to try and adding emotion to it. He tells the reader to "sleep well" knowing that Sandra isn't getting the right care and is not being treated like a "person" like she is supposed to be. This article goes hand-in-hand with the article "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court". This article also talks about the mistreatment of Sandra the orangutan. They call Sandra a "pioneer" in this article and personify her by saying she is being help captive. This article states that it has been decided that Sandra is not human but has some human characteristics. My opinion is that Sandra should either not be considered a "person", which would make her being held in a zoo more reasonable, or granted her freedom and rights like an actual "person" if that is what she is. Both authors of these articles used an interesting writing technique with a combination of ethos and pathos to try and get the reader to take their side. I found myself siding with Sandra and the authors while reading these articles because, to me, an animal should have at least some chance at a free life outside the confinement of a zoo. I also believe that the court should be more specific in their definition of a "person" and the values that the deem right or wrong. In my opinion, I think zoos are a cool source of entertainment, but I do not necessarily agree with them. I also think that there will never be enough of a push or drive to shut zoos down and let animals be free.

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus"/ "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court"

The PETA article presented an interesting story about Sandra the orangutan. The orangutan may have been called a person but she was never called human. Since the article was written by PETA it was very biased. The whole purpose of the article was to have people feel emotion then in bold at the bottom have a what can we do section, in hopes that this article would inspire people to want to make a change. They ultimately want the release of animals in captivity, and need donations; it was a good use of pathos and then visual rhetoric.

In the "No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" article, the rhetor is Wesley J. Smith. While reading the article I was questioning Smiths’ credibility. I did some further research into that and found out that his Human Exceptionalism blog, hosted by National Review, is one of the premier blogs dealing with human life and dignity.  If you know that about him, then he has situated ethos. This article was really brief and was in defense of human exceptionalism that would have been threatened if Sandra had been declared a human. This article was for a very specific audience, the people who already read his blog.

I think animals have the right to be treated fairly however, having them declared as people, may be taking things too far. If giving them “person” status allows them to be released from captivity then I may be more easily convinced that an animal should be considered a person. However, either of these articles did a good job of convincing me of either side of their argument. In relation to the SeaWorld case mentioned in both articles, since refereeing to the animals as slaves was unsuccessful, maybe they need to come up with term equivalent to that but only to be used when refereeing to animals.

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus"/ "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court"

The article “No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus” is unlike the previous articles we read.  The author’s main approach to back up his theme of the piece included delicately choosing his diction.  Throughout the article there is emphasis on words such as person, slaves, hapeas corpus, ludicrous, disappointed.  All these words where particularly placed in the sentence in hopes to leave the reader with the lasting impression on the attitude of the author, animal rights.  The author’s main goal of the article, I believe, is to call attention on animal injustice and in response they should be treated better, as stated, with rights of a “person”.  Although I agree animals have rights, I think it is incorrect to have them gain “personhood”.  Animals have some human qualities, but they are still animals.  A major part of being a human is communication and interaction, something animals lack a strong sense of.  I think it depends on what the author extends are of human rights on animals.  Could you imagine orangutan’s walking around, being part of the human society?  I guess when I hear “personhood” that is what I picture, but I can imagine that is not what the author entailed.  However, that is the new issue how do we define “personhood”, and where does the line stop when we come to these new emphasis on animal rights?

            On the other end of the court case, we read about a case that was successful in the article “Orangutan Declared a ‘Person’ by Argentine Court.”  The judge presents that Sandra, an orangutan that is legally is a “person,” does express human qualities.  However, he also comments that she is a “non-human person [who] has some basic human rights” (Alisa Mullins).  I think this expresses the bottom line and the definition we were searching for after reading the first article.  The word “person” is a loaded word, it can be looked at in many different perspectives; which is something I think should be kept in mind when defining animal rights.  Because do we really want to classify animals as people or just improve their justices?

"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" / "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court

First, I’ll start with the article “Orangutan Declared a ‘Person’ by Argentine Court” by Alisa Mullins is very bias because Mullins works with PETA. Her arguments aren’t as strong as they could be, for example, she quotes Roland Ennos when he says, “They show a lot of engineering know-how in how they build their nests”. If we look at any animal in the wild they are masters at building their shelters because of adaptation and natural selection and every other animal theory out there. I don’t think that Mullins has a very strong case for why apes should be considered non-human persons. I agree that Sandra shouldn’t be confined to small areas in the Buenos Aires Zoo, but declaring these animals to have “personhood” might be a little overboard. That brings me to the next article we had to read today, “No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus” by Wesley J. Smith. I couldn’t find the right word for his tone throughout the article; it went from sarcastic, to disbelief, to humorous. I would have to agree more with his take on the issue though. Yes these animals have a right to live outside their confined spaces and I personally am not a fan of zoos, but animal rights activists have gone to far. However, Smith says their goal is to reduce our definition as humans to “just another animal in the forest”. But do you think that is really their goal? Do you think that someday animals will be more treasured than humans? When it comes to feeding and taking care of our animals, will we feed them over humans?