[chton]

I don't think that's what they mean. My interpretation of that statement would be that rights are conferred to species as a whole, not individuals, and it matters whether the species as a whole can bear legal responsibility. Just as you can't take rights away from individual members of a species that can do that, you can't give rights to individuals of a species that can't. How you define what species can and what can't is of course the clincher in that case.

In a way, it's a pretty decent way to look at it. It means all that is required for an entire species to be given personal rights is to prove that they can fulfill the obligations that come with them. It decouples the rights from the good or bad inviduals, and reduces it to "what is this genetic grouping capable of".

[niklasni1]

Hm, that's a perspective I hadn't considered.

I still orangutans should have rights, though.

[chton]

I definitely do too, they are capable of too much for them not to have it. But it should be granted to the entire species, not just to any single orangutan.