Non-human Person Rights (NhPR)

Reading Time: 10 minutes.

 

 

The advanced intellectual, emotional, social and cultural capabilities of some non-human species have been suspected for a long time, in some cases millennia.

 

It is only in more recent decades, advances in technology and understanding have provided scientists and advocates with sufficient proof, of the capabilities of some non-human species, to justify claims such species should be given rights and protection, in law, similar to those humans give themselves under national law and international law, such as the United Nations Convention on Human Rights.

 

As a long-time advocate of Non-human Person Rights, I present the following to draw your attention to, and hopefully encourage your support for, this important matter.

Arguments Against NhPR

There are three main arguments opposed to the conferring of rights of a person upon non-humans:

• Non-humans cannot be considered persons in law;
• Religious beliefs;
• Commercial Interests.

A Non-human Cannot be Considered a Person in Law

This is simply not true.

 

Just one example being the fact many countries have laws which give the same rights as a person to a company. A case-in-point being a Limited Company Inform Direct website
What is a Limited Company? (External link, opens in a new tab/window) in the United Kingdom.

 

Other examples are given below under Non-humans with Human Rights.

Religious Beliefs

Certain religions state, for example:

1. God made all things for the use of human kind;
2. Humans are created in god's image;
3. Humans are inherently superior.

Such arguments:

• Rely on a position, often adopted thousands of years ago, which did not have access to the rigours of scientific study or its discoveries;
• Place ancient doctrine and lack of knowledge before fact.

Commercial Interests

Although there are certainly commercial consequences to the conferring of NhPR status upon certain non-humans, this is an argument heard less in public and more 'behind closed doors' by decision-makers, lobbyists and other influencers.

 

The reason for this cautious approach, in terms of public exposure, is simple. When comparing the moral and ethical treatment of sentient beings with financial consequences, it is all too easy to stray into a discussion which seeks to deny humane treatment to the benefit of financial gain. In short, one can easily be accused of defending positions akin to those which once supported the continuation of slavery.

Arguments for NhPR

When considering the law, what can be proven is paramount.

 

Whatever one's own religious position, and as a person of faith I too accept:

• A god or goddess cannot be proven to exist;
• It is not reasonable to expect others to subscribe to the same religious beliefs as oneself;
• It is morally, ethically and culturally corrupt to seek to impose one's religious beliefs on others.

At the very least, this must include non-human species with similar capacities to ourselves.

 

The body of scientific evidence, together with widely reported events, proving and supporting the advanced intellectual, emotional, social and cultural capabilities of some non-human species, is substantial and undeniable.

A Rarely Heard Argument

However, in addition to the research evidence and reports in support of the cause for NhPR, one argument is rarely heard.

 

As someone who has worked with people having profound learning disabilities, I am aware there are people with such significant disabilities they are incapable of functioning, be it intellectually, emotionally, socially or culturally, at a level comparable with a normally functioning one, two or three-year-old child.

 

When considering some of the arguments against NhPR, such arguments are, in effect, arguing against such people being entitled to their Inalienable Rights. It would appear, the discriminating criterium is simply whether or not one is human. This is clearly ridiculous.
It is, therefore, equally ridiculous to argue any species, capable of functioning at a significantly more advanced level than humans with profound disabilities, should be denied similar protections in law.

It is unacceptable, for we as humans who consider ourselves advanced, moral and just, to deny others of similar capabilities what we provide for ourselves.

The scientific and commonly observed evidence, proving some species are far more advanced, intellectually, emotionally, socially and culturally, than previously believed, in and of itself raises a moral and ethical imperative to ensure we (humans) do not risk a future reality where we must acknowledge our failure to protect such advanced species from intellectual, emotional, social and cultural abuse, by our own hand.

 

The evidence is manifold and clear; some species must be recognised, without delay, as being deserving of the conferring of Non-human Person status, both throughout the world and especially in my native Britain.