People And Non-Souls Midgley Analysis

Mary Midgley starts her article, "People and Non-Persons" by discussing the trial of two individuals who, in 1977, set free two dolphins utilized for experimentation purposes by the University of Hawaii's Institute of Marine Biology. One of the men on trial, Kenneth Le Vasseur, explained that he released the dolphins because they were suffering from both mental and physical harm. The defense team attempted to use the “choice of evils defense” which allows an individual to choose to commit a crime to avoid a greater evil or crime against “another”. The judge ultimately rejected this defense strategy because he stated that a dolphin was not considered to be “another” (as in a human), but instead should be considered property.
Based on the outcome
Aside from historical trends that prove animals have the potentiality to be considered ‘persons’, the group is also in agreement of Midgley’s other points including the matter of intelligence, their ability to exist independently, their capability of having feelings and emotions, and their capacity to conjure emotion in human beings. As discussed in Midgley’s article, people find it challenging to give non-humans the same moral status because they believe they are inferior to humans. Midgley argues that people determine whether or not something is a person based on their level of intelligence. In the article, Midgley argues that intelligence should not be the primary factor in determining if something is a person. Midgley says that instead of evaluating intellectual capabilities, we should look at their ability to show emotions. Midgley shares this idea by stating, “What makes creatures our fellow beings, entitled to basic consideration, is surely not intellectual capacity but emotional fellowship.” Midgley continues to support her idea by providing an example using a computer. In this example, Midgley discusses that while we would call a computer “intelligent,” it is unable to show any sensitivity or emotions. Even if the computer could continue to increase its level of intelligence, it would never be capable of showing the emotional range required for
It is understood that this may be an attempt to encourage readers that may not believe in the concept of animals having rights to look at a bigger picture in relation to this topic and find connections. However, the idea of including aliens as a means of supporting her argument regarding animals is not something that the group was able to connect with as aliens are not considered a part of our society or law. The criticism that Sarah and Katie have regarding this argument is that Midgley discusses how using intelligence is not a viable way to determine if something is or is not a person, but feels that measuring the emotional complexity of the non-human is just as, if not more, challenging to measure accurately. Perhaps in some species, their emotional capabilities are not known to human beings because the animal reflects them in a way that we do not understand. While there is appreciation for the thought that emotions should be included as criteria in determining if something is or is not a person, Midgley should provide some information pertaining to the method in which this information can be