Human Persons V. Quasi-Persons

Question:  Does Miller believe that quasi-persons should be entitled to the same moral status as human persons?

After our discussions in class, I have concluded that although Miller believes that human persons should treat quasi-persons with as much respect and justice as possible, he ultimately would argue that human persons are entitled to slightly more moral status than quasi-persons. Miller believes that moral status depends on the amount of certain characteristics an animal has. Humans are at the top of this scale, above quasi-persons, because they score slightly higher than quasi-persons on certain characteristics such as intelligence and the ability to know right from wrong. Therefore, Miller ultimately believes that human persons have a higher moral status than quasi-persons. For example, Miller believes that if faced with the decision to save either a human person or a quasi-person, we should choose to save the human person first. However, he acknowledges that being faced with such a decision is extremely unlikely. Therefore, he believes that unless we are faced with a decision such as the one stated above, we should treat quasi-persons such as apes and cetaceans with as much respect as we treat other humans with. He also believes that if our human interests were ever to collide with those of quasi-persons, we should be as impartial as possible when making a decision.