A person is a living being with moral and legal rights . Young children and idiots are nowadays regarded as persons although it was not always so. Modern slaves are regarded by their exploiters as non-persons. The great apes are often regarded by those who love them as persons .
The Nazis notoriously increased the sorts of people who were to be non -persons.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 4:43 am
A person is a product of association in community/society and not particular to humanity.
Yes, but being as we are the bosses as a matter of fact, we get to define who is and who is not to be a person. Unless we admit to this we can't admit to our power to establish the poor and downtrodden, let alone the great apes, as persons.
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:16 am
“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights or duties.”
Yes , and me, I want to change the law so that we are not allowed to exploit and lay waste the lands inhabited by orangutans who must henceforth be persons.
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:16 am
“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights or duties.”
Yes , and me, I want to change the law so that we are not allowed to exploit and lay waste the lands inhabited by orangutans who must henceforth be persons.
They can't be persons under the legal definition, because of their irresponsible attitude towards any duties the law might impose on them in return for granting them personhood. I think a way round it would be to take away the right of all persons to exploit and lay waste the lands inhabited by urangutans.
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 4:43 am
A person is a product of association in community/society and not particular to humanity.
Yes, but being as we are the bosses as a matter of fact, we get to define who is and who is not to be a person. Unless we admit to this we can't admit to our power to establish the poor and downtrodden, let alone the great apes, as persons.
Belinda,
Can't argue with that Belinda, only after the world has been devastated will perhaps a mentality arises which sees the world and its creatures as sacred. Only when the gods no longer control humanity will humanity gain self-control.
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:16 am
“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights or duties.”
Which in the US includes, at least sometimes, corporations. For ill and for ill.
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 11:16 am
“So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights or duties.”
Yes , and me, I want to change the law so that we are not allowed to exploit and lay waste the lands inhabited by orangutans who must henceforth be persons.
They can't be persons under the legal definition, because of their irresponsible attitude towards any duties the law might impose on them in return for granting them personhood. I think a way round it would be to take away the right of all persons to exploit and lay waste the lands inhabited by urangutans.
Yes but there are too many legislators who would say "Orangutans are only animals".Legislators include many people who believe God gave us the world for us to use it , after all the other animals are not as close to God as we are. Some such legislators, when they are extremists, claim that idiots, Roma, Africans, Latinos, and Jews are inferior because they are not as close to God as are the people with the big guns.
Babies, and idiots, can't vote and assume other responsibilities yet we grant them personhood.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:19 am
Babies, and idiots, can't vote and assume other responsibilities yet we grant them personhood.
But where do you draw the line in order to avoid being dismissed as crazy? I share your concern about orangutans, but I also have similar sentiments towards hedgehogs. Can you see what I'm getting at?
