An elephant is defined by the Webster dictionary as a “tall, large-eared mammal of tropical Africa that is sometimes considered to comprise two separate species.” People are claiming that elephants are legal persons. In the article, “Elephants are legal persons and deserve to be free,” group claims in court petition” written by Carlos Ballesteros, Ballesteros states in his article that there was a petition filed to give elephants the rights and the title “person” or “human being”. Also another article “The elephant as a person” written by Don Ross, Ross also states how specific evidence such as the way they speak, as well as how they communicate with other animals.
Throughout my research on why people are attempting to claim elephants as persons, I also read “Elephants are people, people are elephants” which was written by Ma’ayan Lev and Ran Barkai. I found out that in the article they performed multiple studies which can link elephants to being considered humans. A lot of people like me would read these articles and laugh. See, that’s the thing, most people do not believe that elephants are considered people and really do believe elephants are only animals and should not be considered humans.
Carlos Ballesteros, who wrote “ Elephants are legal persons and deserve to be free, group claims in court petition” states how a zoo in connecticut has a petition currently filed against them to make their 3 elephants considered as persons. The reasoning behind this petition is since, elephants express empathy towards others. The reasoning behind this is invalid and in which why this petition should be dismissed. The definition of a person according to the webster dictionary is “one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties”. It nowhere states that a person is defined by its way of showing empathy.
127 our experts are availableright now
As stated in the definition of a person, elephants are not recognized by law and are unable to receive the rights and duties of a person. Although a chimpanzee in Argentina was marked as a “non-human legal person” with “ nonhuman rights” doesn’t mean it’s a person, although it has received a title of a person it doesn’t qualify as a person who can go with its legal duties. This is the same with an elephant; an elephant doesn’t have the ability to do the same thing as us. Ballesteros does show this by using a statement by Steven Wise. Wise said, “The person who is detained—the person being an entity—cannot go into court and say ‘Let me out” an elephant or any other animal does not have the ability to do this.
In the article “The elephant as a person” written by Don Ross, Ross states that elephants might have the capacity for personhood. In the article, the way elephants communicate is taken into aspect of why a elephant could be considered a person. Ross believes that elephants aren’t ready but could potentially be considered humans since we there isn’t enough information on what a elephant can comprehend. Humans can’t comprehend that an elephant could be considered as a person because of our current environment.
Ross explains on how elephants communicate, he states nearest living relatives aren’t naturally prepared for language. This explains that although that elephants are close to humans they aren’t prepared to communicate the way humans do. Ross does explain how elephants do express emotions similar to humans. If an elephant is slaughtered other elephants will express emotions. Ross includes this in his article to show that at a certain point in time we might come soon when we can and should apologise to the elephants, in terms they can appreciate as fellow persons.
“Elephants are people, people are elephants” in the article written by Ma’ayan Lev and Ran Barkai which has a main argument that are cohabiters of the human race and not a product to be exploited in an uncontrolled way. The article starts off by explaining how elephants were exploited for resources, but later on argues the similarities between people and elephants. Lev and Barkai explain the Physiological, Social, and Consensual similarities. Humans and elephants do have physiological similarities such as having a brain, intestines, and life spans.
Although time and size differs between humans and elephants they do correlate. People and elephants do have social similarities by how they do have a society just like humans as well as show empathy just like people. Elephants do have similar conceptual to people. The reasoning behind this is since elephants displays high conceptual abilities just like people.
Elephants and humans have self-recognition and the ability to point as an element in natural communication systems. Although this research explains why elephants should be considered persons just because they are similar to people they aren’t exact. People are more intellectual. If this research conducted a way to show that elephants are as intellectual as humans this would help persuade people to agreeing that elephants are people.
Although people claim that elephants are legal persons are they really persons? Throughout the articles, authors compared elephants to people and used the similarities to help persuade people to believe that elephants are people. The authors showed similarities but never the differences. People are similar to elephants but are not exact. Do elephants deserve the title as people? I believe that just since we are similar we aren’t the same species. Elephants do not deserve the title of persons.
