Obviously we Uplift them.
I have no qualms about treating entities differently based on some sensible measure of mental capacity. And I don’t even know what point you’re making with the mouse and cockroach example–that it’s better to treat things differently based on appearances than intelligence?
I don’t. You’re free to treat a cat humanely and decently for your own satisfaction, but I think all living things occupy a range of emotional capabilities, and may be treated accordingly.
Nobody’s confused about that, that’s why the proposed term is non-human person. And your “most obvious example” so hilariously weak and missing the point.
Ants build cities, can communicate with each other, store for the future, grow crops of fungus, and herd aphids.
A lot more then any dolphin or great ape has done.
So why haven’t they got the vote ?
Property rights ?
Divorce laws ?
Seems unfair to me.
Neither did humans for much of our existance as a distinct species.
The native Australians had no agriculture, foodstores or animal-husbandry up until two-hundred years ago, and they certainly didn’t have cities or settlements anywhere near as complex as the ones ants build. Does this mean humans are inferior to ants?
Dolphins can handle complex social relationships, communicate with each other, utilise tools and make use of advanced and prey-specific hunting tactics.
Love it. Great first step.
Next steps:
[ul]
[li]All other cetaceans[/li][li]Elephants[/li][li]Dogs[/li][li]All great apes[/li][li]All marine mammals[/li][li]Pigs (we can still eat them, because that’s how life works - everything is food - but we have to give them decent lives while they are alive.)[/li][li]Big cats[/li][li]Wolves[/li][li]Crows[/li][/ul]
What ants do is not about an individual’s ability to reason, it’s all programmed.
Who sleeps on the wet spot?
Eh, there’s more to it than intelligence, but I think that the intelligence of a being plays a decent role in their rights. I mean, let’s take this argument to an extreme, shall we? What about a species which is as intelligent as us, if not more intelligent? Would they get rights?
They would, of course, have an entirely different society.
Sam Harris?
Does personhood include legal liability? Maybe this whole thing is about getting compensation for the losses to the tuna industry.
When people say “dolphins” are smarter than chimpanzees, are they talking about all dolphins or just one species?
Dolphins are just a type of toothed whale (cetacean). It’s a lay term, not a scientific one.
But most studies have been on bottlenose dolphins. Flipper.
And there’s more than one species of chimpanzee, too. 
:dubious: If you’re taling about Bonobos, I don’t believe they are considered chimps anymore, they are their own species. Last I heard, anyway.
IIRC there are 3 or 4 sub-species of Pan but I don’t remember what they all are. What I do know is that chimp is good eating…
ETA: And no, bonobos aren’t one of them, even though IIRC they are classified as Pan something as well.
-XT
Chimpanzee is the lay term for the genus Pan. There are two species, of which Bonobos are one: Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus.
There are 3 or 4 subspecies of the common chimp, depending on who is doing the splitting.
If dolphins are so smart, why do they live in igloos?
But… Dolphins are funny!
Why did the dolphin who married a Jewish millionaire kill himself? He had no porpoise!
It seems like this thread is full of people either just treating the whole issue as ridiculous without thinking about it or using some pretty crazy strawmen. This is a moral issue, not a legal issue per se. And nobody is saying we should treat them just like adult humans. If “persons” to you means adult humans, then disregard the use of the word here - what you call it isn’t really important.
I personally don’t see how intelligence is relevant for determining, say, whether it is ok to torture some animal (including humans)… that has to do with that animal’s experience of pain. But intelligence, concept of the self (which I believe is what “person” is supposed to refer to here), concept of a personal history, awareness and importance of social relations, etc. ARE relevant for determining whether we can put some animal in a confined environment very different from their natural one with low or unusual social stimulation. Why? Because this kind of situation is likely to induce distress/depression in highly intelligent social animals.
I’m ok with giving human babies a moral status above similarly intelligent creatures on the grounds that they are human. But thinking that being human is some kind of magical trait without which a creature isn’t worthy of moral consideration is ridiculous.
For a moment, I read that latter one as Pan promiscuous. Which would also be appropriate.
To the larger question, such a thing as a non-human person is certainly conceivable, and I have no objection, in principle, to a dolphin or chimp being found to be one. But the line between “person” and “nonperson” is a very fuzzy one, and I’ve yet to see an argument that puts dolphins on the “person” side of the line.