Personhood Of Gorillas Summary

In the passage of The Case for the Personhood of Gorillas, the authors, Francine Patterson and Wendy Gordon make exceptionally compelling arguments as to why animals like gorillas should be considered to be more than just animals. In this passage, they inform the reader about a certain gorilla named Koko, as well as her eighteen year old son named Michael. Both of these Gorillas have expressed certain elements and features that were once upon a time thought to be exclusive to humans and humans alone. (Francine Patterson and Wendy Gordon, 1993, para. 2-5) The passage itself poses a question that I find to be quite compelling. At what certain point, can an animal have “a claim to a basic moral right?”(Francine Patterson and Wendy Gordon, 1993, para. 4) At what point should an animal be put on the same level of basic moral rights as an ordinary human being? The authors, Francine Patterson and Wendy Gordon use the gorilla, Koko as a catalyst to further advance the validity of the case
Koko is able to convey jokes through sign language. She is also able to feel concern, love, and hate; basically all of the emotions humans are able to feel. I believe that one of the main reasons why we as humans feel as though we possess a claim to moral rights is because each and every single one of us possesses a conscience. A conscience is an undeniable trait that guides every existing being to knowing right and wrong. It helps us in expressing empathy and sympathy. Any being that possesses a conscience deserves to be treated fairly and to me, that is one of the most compelling arguments in the case. I see little to no flaws in their reasoning for wanting animals like gorillas to be treated fairly and have a claim to basic moral rights. (Francine Patterson and Wendy Gordon, 1993, para.