It’s also misses the point. Not only do we not need to grant these animals “personhood” to treat them right (in fact it damages the dialogue by making it more controversial than it needs to be) but the biggest threat to these animals is in countries where their actual habitat is located. Chimps are still being hunted for meat there. All this philosophical BS won’t matter one bit if that continues.
1 Like
What? We don’t even grant human rights to humans.
4 Likes
Wait, you’re telling me a zoo isn’t jail for animals?
1 Like
All the chimps need is the legal right to form their own limited liability corporations. Uplift Wars averted in one swell foop!
Yeah, but I’m not sure it prevents Planet Of The Apes.
1 Like
In my opinion, the ethics of primate experiments depend on the nature of the experiment, the primate involved and the chance that the research will save human lives that cannot be saved by other means. Very very little research requires chimps for example, but sometimes the alternative to testing on some sort of monkey is testing on humans. Rats don’t always work.
There is much disagreement as to whether non-human animals have rights, and what is meant by animal rights.
There is much less disagreement about the consequences of accepting that animals have rights.
I look forward to seeing the first chimpanzee imprisoned for assault or theft perpetrated against another chimpanzee. Human rights include the right to protection against other members of their own species, right?
1 Like
Hello, I’m part of the Nonhuman Rights Project. Several misconceptions here - most of all the title. We are NOT seeking “human rights” for other animals. Human rights are for humans. The question we raise is: What rights are appropriate for other animals who are self aware, cognitively complex and autonomous? In this case, we argue that chimpanzees have the right to bodily liberty - not to be kept in the conditions in which we found Tommy the chimpanzee - in a small cage in a dark, dank shed, all alone except for a TV.
Animal welfare and cruelty laws have not been able to address the fact that hundreds of chimpanzees live in conditions like this, “owned” by people who are able to keep them as personal possessions and pieces of property.
A “legal person” is a legal term that does not designate a human, but any entity that the legal system recognizes as having the capacity for legal rights. This applies, for example, to corporations and ships (and in India to Hindu gods and idols).
Once Tommy is recognized as being a legal person and not just a piece of property, the question shifts to one of what rights he should be entitled to. We say: the right to bodily liberty so he can be transferred to a sanctuary where he can live with others of his kind in an environment as close as possible to what he would have in his natural home.
1 Like
Granting such rights to other animals, as we are animals as well, simply makes cannibalism more logical and less of a terrible thing to do. I think we need to recognize in terms of evolution we confer special status to members of our own species to benefit ourselves, to share this with other species is contrary to our own selfish needs as a species.
Yes and no. If there is a rights violation and you find yourself in a position to stop it, there is definitely some duty to do so. But this doesn’t extend to policing all of humanity, and it does not seem to work very well when one culture imposes on another. Instead we leave different countries to handle most things themselves, engaging them in different ways but not coming in to jail people except maybe to stop serious violations like genocide.
Whatever you consider their philosophical status, this doesn’t seem really seem that crazy a way to treat creatures like chimpanzees, elephants, or whales. You might take measures to save populations from being wiped out, but otherwise generally respect them as a sovereign group. That’s the conservationist position anyway, right?
Can’t agree with you, michaelm.
We agree that animals have a right not to be abused, and sounds like Tommy’s situation qualifies as gratuitous abuse. That’s what SPCA organizations, and animal-cruelty laws, exist to address.
We don’t agree that the chimp necessarily has a right to “bodily liberty”. If it was being used as an experimental animal its situation might not be much better than Tommy’s, but there would have to be clear justifications for why a chimp and why the situation had to be quite that bad. If need can’t be proven, the research wouldn’t get funded and/or the animal-cruelty laws would be applicable. If need can be proven, and it can be shown that the researchers are being as kind as possible within that need … well, unless you can find humans to volunteer for those experiments, there may not be a reasonable alternative.
I’m all for treating life with the respect it deserves. But I still say that’s human obligation, not animal rights.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
