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 comments:
Post a Comment