New Scientist is reporting that a case in Austria (not Australia - we share a love of beer, but that's about it) is set to decide if chimps have rights. They already do in Spain, and in New Zealand (which was, I think, the first country to enact rights for chimps).
They do not have rights in Australia, or America, or most of the world apart from these few countries that have what I consider are sensible and inescapable laws. Why do I think so?
Chimps, and indeed most of the great apes if not all of them, share an enormous genetic heritage in common with humans; they are capable of thinking, feeling, anticipating, sorrowing, suffering and all the other properties that we think are essential to having rights. Well, almost all - they are not aware of the general rules of human society. But then neither are 5 year old humans. And that is the kind of civil rights that these animals deserve.
These animals are capable of forming strong bonds with people, their keepers. They do not understand why they have been moved from their home and lost contact with those who love them and who they love. They do not know that they are chattel. Interesting word that - it means "cattle", and used to be applied to human children and women. It took us a while, but we learned it in that case. We no longer think children can be treated as property, nor women. Why should we think that of intelligent animals?
I think that it is an inescapable conclusion based on the principles of our society that we should give protection to the rights of these animals. But suppose someone thinks rights are absolute, and restricted by divine edict to humans? Don't suppose it - the Catholic Church appears to think just that. But rights aren't given by a deity, or indeed by nature. They are granted by societies. And it is a matter of what kind of society we want ours to be. Rights should be granted where they are deserved. Apes, and other intelligent animals, deserve their rights ot be protected.
This is somewhat different to the general consideration given to the protection of animals from cruelty.That merely protects nervous systems. This protects thinking intelligent beings that merely happen to be non-human.
- Log in to post comments
I agree that such creatures should have rights although it creates a situation in which other species have rights denied to human embryos and raises the question of whether sentience - however you define it - is necessary to qualify for the right to life, for example.
Vatican's position is, of course, understandable. If the value of life was determined by observable properties, why, that would lead to abortions. But I cannot understand Amnesty International chiming in. While it's true that there's lot to be done for human rights, the same is true of the rights of white adult males. Perhaps we shouldn't consider the rights of children, women and non-whites, until the rights of white adult males are guaranteed everywhere?
They do in the USA: it's called executive privilege.
Damn, the cat was in the way, so I didn't preview. Te blockquote should close after "...too?".
Bob
Bob O'H wrote
I assume the cat ate the "h".
I agree, but Penn and Teller (who seem to be popular among atheists these days), say the following in their Bullshit episode on PETA:
"We would kill every chimp and monkey in the world - with our bare hands - to save the life of one street junky with AIDS"
Somehow, I wasn't quite as fond of Penn and Teller after hearing that (not that I'm a PETA fan).
I think that it is, generally, sensible to protect from harm the apes, bonobo, animals and plants. The bioiversity of the planet in general.
Though as an ominvore I'll still eat meat & vegetables.
I have a problem with the idea of animals having rights by right; I always assume that with our rights come responsibilities and I can't think of any responsibilities we can or should impose on other animals.
It brings to my mind the animal trials http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-049X(1917)56%3A5%3C410%3ATTOAAI%3… in medieval Europe http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/4/animalsontrial.php
Chris' Wills wrote:
I agree but the linkage between rights and responsibilities is not so clear. We grant the right to life to children who are to young to accept concommitant responsibilities, for example.
I figure limbic system + nervous system + some signs of conscious = give them rights.
Hell, I'll eat mussels, not much that's more complex or conscious than that. We have to draw a line, and when suffering comes into the picture it's best that we err on the cautious side. Simplistic, I know, but I think it's a pretty simple issue - if a chimp (or cow) kicks you when you go to hurt/kill it, that is dissent.
Call me crazy...
The same rights as children? I don't know, how about the same rights as dogs? I understand that chimps are able to feel and think, but so can my dog. Right? If a child got lost in the woods, it would be a reasonable expenditure of energy to gather a group of people and search for them. Would you agree on that action for the case of a dog, or a chimp? Plus, when it comes to medical research if there is no other suitable alternative, then I weigh one human life to be worth it.
Another benefit that I connect with being the son of a real American cowboy is that I was exposed to large numbers or cows and horses (not to mentions the burros and dogs and cats and other critters that made up the old ranch). One of the most striking memories of growing up was that any cow is not like another. Likewise for horses and burros, etc.
These animals were assets and were kept well, pampered in some cases and each one had its own value in terms of the success of the ranch, and thus, our survival as a business and as a family. I learned, sometimes painfully, that each of these was an individual with a distinct personality. What one horse would gently tolerate another would react to by blowing up. Some cows could be tended to willingly, or with a begrudging tolerance, by simply looping a rope loosely around their neck; others needed to be thrown down and tied quite securely. We had one one old brood cow my father named Dot by virtue of a perfectly round spot on her right cheek. I could ride up to her on open range, bail off my horse and scratch her behind her ears and even milk her right there in the bald open. She seemed to welcome the attention. Very few others in the herd could even be approached on foot, let alone horseback. But even among those others there were distinctions that dictated what treatment they would tolerate.
This taught me at a young age that these animals were as much individuals as, well, you, me, or any other human. My relationships with these individual animals spanned a broad range, much as my relationships with people of differing temperaments. Based on this experience, this education provided by non-human critters, I fully endorse the granting of rights for our closest kin.
But these rights are properly not bestowed because of some sentimental generosity of humans; they are earned by the behavior of the animal by virtue of their display of awareness, behavior and, most of all, the way that they respond to us. Much as we grant consideration to ourselves based upon exactly the same criteria.
It is a most profound experience to be shown by a "dumb" animal that it actually likes you and enjoys your company. What could be more natural than to return the favor?
By the way, our cattle were perennially considered among the most manageable and productive herds raised in the Wind River country. They also commanded high prices at market and were very delicious.
Nicely put Crudely Wrott. My stance on other animals was developed because I was raised in a family of pork, venison, and intensive dairy farmers. It either makes you callous to their obvious suffering, or more attuned to it.
I guess it depends what we mean by 'rights' here. I'm completely ignorant of the technicalities, for all their importance, but I imagine that the whole point of legislating about human rights, in addition to all the other legal stuff about our duties towards each other, is that we can define ourselves to some degree. That may be wishful thinking, but then it may not, and so we have to try. With animals, we are just looking at them. We may owe it to ourselves to be nice to them, just as we owe it to ourselves to be nice to each other, and in that sense I'm sure they have rights. But when we decide about human rights we are making up our own minds, literally. Animals have rights because we decide that we have duties towards them, but do they have those rights all by themselves, in the jungle? Whereas we would chop the jungle down and build Jerusalem (with a botanical garden in it, for the sake of diversity) to protect our rights. I don't know, but I bet we don't even have a clear idea of what a right is, in this sense, because the idea is so tied to our defining ourselves.
True, however they have someone in loco parentis who takes on their responsibilities and as they age the responsibilities are transfered to the child, dependant on its mental maturity. There are exceptions, but this is generally the case.
In the case of other animals we shouldn't/cannot require them to take on human specific responsibilities, they aren't human so our ethics/morality aren't applicable to them.
They will have whatever rights and protection that humans decide to grant them, but this is similar to the situation of someone who adopts/owns a cat or a dog.
Chris: if a child is unable to become a freely acting adult, say because of developmental delay, we do not thereby remove the rights of that person. Suppose a child remains mentally at an age of 5 for its life? We still protect those rights. I am saying that chimps (who have the verbal skills, and reasoning capacity of roughly a five year old human) deserve that level of rights protection from our societies, if we are to be consistent. It is not like a dog or cat, it is like a permanent child.
It may be hard to work out for more distantly related species, but in the case of chimps and gorillas (and I would say most of the great apes if not all of them) there is no difficulty at all, on biological grounds.
John:
I am not arguing on biological grounds, I am simply saying that we shouldn't impose our morality/ethics on other animals.
I would say the same thing if we happened to be talking about spacefaring aliens.
I wouldn't be saying the same thing if talking about different human cultures.
The granting of legal rights to other animals as legal rights is, I think, a form of anthropomorphism.
If we decide, based on our morals/ethics that it is bad to abuse the other creatures we share the earth with (something I don't disagree with in principle) that is our decision but the claim appears to assume intrinsic rights.
Now, if the law was to say "The human known as John is to act in loco parentis on behalf of the Ape known as Chris' and is is to assume the reponsibility for the protection and care of said ape, of his own free will and taking onboard all legal responsibilities for the conduct of said ape" or something similar; then I have no problem. This is adoption rather than ownership.
This is somewhat similar to the mentally disabled human case but not exactly the same under law.
Sugar!
My previous comment should have included some legal punishments for the adopter if they physically harm the ape or if they can be shown to be causing it undue distress. But such animal protection laws already exist and just need to be enforced.
I am not arguing on biological grounds, I am simply saying that we shouldn't impose our morality/ethics on other animals.
We recognise that chimps (arguably) do not have a firm, communicable definition of 'morality' that correlates with ours. We also recognise, through empathy, that they do suffer and have a desire (not just physiological functions for) self-preservation. I suspect that Behavioural Science and Neurology suggest this as well, although I'm an idiot really for speaking of fields I have to authority in. Empathising with the animal mind is merely the logical extension of our empathy for our each other. We don't have to impose a complex moral code upon other animals, we must simply recognise that they think and feel in ways similar to us, and legislate for that fact. No one is saying 'go out into the jungle and provide shelters for all the low-income Orang-utans and hold them accountable for there cruelties'.
Moreover, if it was as simple as 'thou shalt not oppose human morality on other beasts', we couldn't possibly justify the way we condition pets and livestock.
I wish I had the science background to enter into a truly in-depth argument, but unfortunately I'm an English student, not a Science professor. Foolish of me to weigh in at all, I know, but hopefully I'll be forgive if I'm ill-informed.
BTW, Mr. Wilkins, I love your blog. Keep up the great work!
(Forgive the shocking typos, it's late here, but that's really no excuse).
The suggestion is that chimps, since they appear to be like permanent 5 year olds in many ways, deserve that level of rights (comment #15). But why? Do animals that are in many ways like permanent 1 month olds deserve that level of rights? And anyway, I saw some chimps hunt down and devour another chimp on the TV recently, just because it belonged to a different family. Maybe chimps deserve the level of rights that we accord incorrigible Nazis?!
Fair point, but are we imposing our morality or does our morality allow us to condition the animals. I guess I'm asking, does the animal actually change its morality or just do what it is told?
Well they've put up with me so far :o) I've learnt lots from this blog.
One of my concerns is that this is similar to what would happen if we give animals legal rights that they have because of what they are. Never underestimate lawyers or the self righteousness of some campaigners.
I'm not saying that other animals don't have morality/ethics or feelings, I actually think they do (my example would be the cats who have graced me with their presence) and I have included animals within what I consider my extended family and they appear to reciprocate.
If we impose legal constraints on the actions of humans we can hopefully protect the animals.
Humans constraining other humans based on human morality is something we do all the time and keeps the rights/responsibility duality intact.
On the one hand, in the absence of a god, if we don't grant ourselves and, possibly, other creatures rights then who will?
On the other hand, it seems like the height of arrogance for us to go around acting as if we were gods of some sort by saying: 'Yes, our nearest relatives like the great apes can have some rights but that's all. The rest of you will have to wait for a few million years of evolution to bring you up to our level, if it happens at all.'
Especially when everyone knows it's the cats who really rule.
Ian, while I agree that cats rule (as I am owned by three of the rotters), the point here is not about evolving, but about what has evolved and has to be fit into our society now. Apes that live in the jungle are not in need of human rights unless humans interact with them. This is about protecting apes from human actions.
This bit I think is wrong. We shouldn't be requiring that any non-human creature conforms to our society.
This, as I mentioned above, I don't disagree with (though granting human rights to non-humans strikes me as problematic); however we should do it by constraining human actions not by granting legal rights to animals.
If we grant legal rights to certain types of other animals as a general rule (i.e. all Apes have rights x, y z etc..) who will enforce those rights on their behalf?
If anyone can do it then we have a wonderful situation for lawyers to make money, if we follow the adoption route on an animal by animal basis then I think we have a far more sensible and less prone to abuse method.
People seem to regard the following as necessarily (given what we know about brains, or rather, given that what we know is essentially the only sort of stuff that there is to know) anthropomorphic, but for myself I find that even such things as bugs display intelligence (about the world as they must see it). My worry about your view, John, is that it seems extremely anthropomorphic, whence my previous question (for myself, I would try to treat apes better than Nazis:)
My worry about your view, John, is that it seems extremely anthropomorphic
It would be anthropomorphic if some were claiming apes (etc.) were human equivalents in every way. In this case, though, we are merely acknowledging that they have some of the same traits that we already try to respect when interacting with humans, and currently we turn a blind eye to the fact.
Sorry to interrupt this lively discussion, but you all miss the point here: The reason there is this discussion about human rights for an animal in a predominantly catholic country like Austria is purely pragmatic. If Hiasl the chimp is a legal person, he can directly receive donations. This all is a debate about money, not trans-species ethics and it was never meant to be another thing. It is not related to the Grand Ape project else than journalists who mention the two endeavors in the same article.
Its also interesting to know that hardly any of the Austrian newspapers really covered this story...again; its a legal battle on money, and money first.
John Wilkins wrote:
Agreed, but there's nothing to prevent us granting prospective rights to species with which we have yet to interact, is there? I'm thinking of Star Trek's famous "non-interference directive" - more honoured in the breach than the observance unfortunately - which was supposed to guarantee alien cultures the right to be free from the prospect of libidinous starship captains chasing their women amongst other things. In fact, if rights are primarily constraints on human behaviour, there could be no end of species, both terrestrial and extra, who have rights they never knew they had.
Is there something perculiar in Austrian law that prevents ownership of Hiasl being transfered to those who will be looking after him?
Surely, as he cannot handle his own funds, creating a special trust fund with those who'll be looking after him as trustees would resolve the issue without having to make any claims for rights.
I don't know anything special about the Austrian national law in this case, but it may have to do with the fact that the institution caring for the chimp is in financial troubles. My guess is that they want to channel the money for his subsistence and fiscally seperate it from the other donations that go directly to the institution.
So, it's really just a legal thingy.
Richard Leakey thinks the great apes are threatened with extinction. Article here
Re Matty (#27): "It would be anthropomorphic if some were claiming apes (etc.) were human equivalents in every way." "Anthropomorphism" is the attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena, with a standard connotation being that the attribution in question is a mistake caused by a different, more superficial resemblance, though.
"Anthropomorphism" is the attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena, with a standard connotation being that the attribution in question is a mistake caused by a different, more superficial resemblance, though.
Understood. My phrasing was terrible. My main concern is that we don't really know to what degree ape (or dogs and chickens for that matter) are conscious. I tend to side with those who believe they possess a degree of consciousness - most importantly, they probably possess a sense of pain, and an emotional life. If we are at all empathetic I don't feel those should be ignored.
I'm not certain if I'm an idiot and relying too much on rhetoric and what is apparent - but when suffering is at stake I'd urge caution.
I agree. Human rights are for human's only, just as the white man's land ownership rules are for white men only.