Should a human with the intellect of an animal* be considered a person?
*Non human, for sake of argument
Yes
Side Score: 8
|
No
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
Yes, it should be considered a stupid person, or more likely a medically retarded person. The reason I feel this way is this. That person still has human DNA, it just lacks the intelligence to act as normal person would. As far as rights are concerned, I'd say limited rights for limited intelligence, which would also include limited responsibilities seeing as the less intelligent individual most likely would not be able to handle said responsibilities. Specific examples include, denial of the right to bear arms, denial of the right to drive, denial of basically any right that could lead to some serious trouble if that individual were a less intelligent child. Based on the majority's subjective defintion of morality, I would consider this to be a moral decision, for a few reasons. The most compelling being that the retarded individual gets to live, but doesn't get to complicate any one's life (including his/her own) by taking on a responsibility greater than they can handle. To make this opinion more negative, but mostly to elaborate, if the less intelligent individual, is truly akin to an animal, and that individual is a danger to others, I would say they have demonstrated a lack of responsibility with their own life, and should also have that right taken away. Side: Yes
Yes. It doesnt matter at all because what makes us human is not our intellect but our moral and sense of humanity. Thats why we call psychopath a monster. If you are heartless,you are not human.. nor an animal. Even animal have empathy. If you agree that a human with intellect of an animal is not a person, i wonder if you think its okay to caged and slaughter the human you dont consider as a person and roast it like a chicken Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
|
I'd like to add, does anyone remember that baby that was born without a brain and the mother decided to keep said baby for as long as it lived? I think most would agree that the baby should've been euthanized or aborted, as it has literally no potential for life. The only reason I bring this up is because I know there will be those that claim that human life is an absolute or thing we must protect, when in actuality, there's always a grey area. Side: Yes
1
point
|