So, before I delve into the scenario itself, I'll set forth a few definitions so that we're all on the same page (all definitions taken from the Oxford U.S. English dictionary):
Intelligence:
noun
1 The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills
Speech:
noun
1 The expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds
Now, with those taken care of, I'll launch into a bit of background; I was actually talking with one of my classmates in my A.P.E.S class (Advanced Placement Environmental Science, for those of you not familiar with the AP program here in the U.S.) while we were reading up on human rights and needs when a hypothetical scenario popped into my mind:
Say, in a laboratory somewhere, two scientists have managed to genetically engineer an intelligent creature, which for the sake of consistency is a gryphon, capable of human speech and forming independent thoughts. For the first year or two of its existence, the gryphon is given a basic education up to a sixth grade level in reading, maths, and history.
Up until this point, the two scientists have been simply teaching and observing the gryphon. After two more years, the scientists come to a conflict of interest: Scientist A wishes to treat the gryphon as a human being, entitled to the same human rights laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, based on it's intelligence and capacity for expression of thought (i.e. speech), while Scientist B views the gryphon as property because it was created as part of an experiment and thus is subject to whatever tests the scientists wish to perform, regardless of its intelligence.
Now, my question to you all is: Which scientist would you support in this argument? Is Scientist A right for citing intelligence and capability of speech as an argument for human rights, or is Scientist B correct for saying that the gryphon is property because they created it, and thus subject to whatever its owners require?
