A chimpanzee is not entitled to the same rights as people and does not have be freed from captivity by its owner, a US court has ruled.
The appeals court in New York state said caged chimpanzee Tommy could not be recognised as a "legal person" as it "cannot bear any legal duties".
The Nonhuman Rights Project had argued that chimps who had such similar characteristics to the humans deserved basic rights, including freedom.
The rights group said it would appeal.
33 comments
Animal rights proponents. They push things a bit far, but they have got a point.
@Miles Gloriousus : Presumably the way the NRP equates animals to people. Much as I think they're crazy, they do have a point: We should not torment animals more than is absolutely necessary. That said, equating them to humans strikes me as being just a little too far.
I’m not an animal rights fanatic, but I think that there’re good arguments for granting non-human apes more rights. Chimpanzees and humans are very closely related, and share many characteristics.
Since I suspect that some readers here are unfamiliar with this concept, I recommend reading this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood
I meh’d this entry, by the way.
There is a middle ground between treating creatures like human beings and treating them like things. We ought to respect our fellow animals, the more self-awareness and intelligence they possess, the more respect we ought to show them.
Animals in captivity ought to have an environment as near as possible to their natural habitat.
I disagree with the ruling so very much. I'm not one of those PETA freaks (if you ask me, that crazy bitch Ingrid Newkirk has done more to discredit the animal rights movement than anything even her enemies could ever think of), but I do think that chimps, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans are WAY too far up the sentience totem pole (if you will) for us to treat them like "simple" rats or rabbits.
I'm a staunch advocate of great ape personhood laws - like what they've got over in Spain. Why should we be shoving electrodes into the brains of our fellow hominids? If it's fucked up when we do it to Homo Sapiens, why should it be less fucked up when we do it to Pan Troglodytes? At the very least, we should wait until we can come up with a way for them to give informed consent.
To be clear, I'm not 100% against animal experimentation. Rats, rabbits, fruit flies and guinea pigs do not have the sort of cognition levels for us to communicate with them. But great apes have proven that they can understand human language on a meaningful level, which makes their situation vastly different.
I don't think this is "fundie", per se, though I believe the ruling was morally wrong and closed-minded.
OK, end rant.
I was thinking about this subject as I walked my dogs today, before I read this quote. We used animals for work, clothes, etc., and still do. The difference is, today we have alternatives that make the continued use of animals this way an ethical question. As with most things, humans tend to like black and white answers in a multi-shaded world.
Apes have roughly the equivalent (but not the same) intellect as a 5-year old child. If we would not perform these experiments on children, or humans with severe Down's syndrome, it strongly suggests prejudice in favor of our own species, and nothing more in the balance of the ethical question. That said, if there is no alternative method to learn new things, it opens the door to "greater good" arguments. These in turn become a slippery slope. Is it for the greater good to do the same old experiments to teach students how to perform these types of procedure?
No simple answers here.
I don't know enough on this issue to have an informed opinion, but I feel like the NRP is being a bit too "black and white" when it comes to animal rights. Sometimes, treating animals like humans is not the best way to ensure their safety and well-being.
If research on a chimpanzee or other great ape could save or ease human lives but harm the non-human ape, and animal rights laws forbid it, the blood on is your hands. Humans first, animals second.
Besides, pigs are pretty damn smart too, and most of us have no qualms about slaughtering them by the millions, I don't see why keeping apes for entertainment and companionship isn't much worse, assuming you aren't a total asshole about it.
Yes, I am a human supremacist, and I will admit to it. Animal rights people rub me the wrong way.
This is a thing, huh?
image
"cannot bear any legal duties"
these people tent to go too far but what bothers me about the other site of the argument is that the people on that side tent to think all other species automatons driven solely by instinct and are incapable of thinking and feeling to even the tiniest degree.
"Sentience" doesn't mean "thinking and feeling at human level" it means "thinking and feeling, period".
I am all for promoting the welfare of chimps, i truly am, and all primates for that matter, but persuing human rights is just making our cause look stupid.
Swede wroteAnimals in captivity ought to have an environment as near as possible to their natural habitat.
So we should periodically put a jaguar into the spider monkey exhibit? Conversely, we should only feed the jaguar live prey? Life for most animals in the wild is brutal and short, plagued by predators, parasites and diseases. If you want to justify keeping animals in captivity the conditions need to be far better than they are in the wild.
@Nazani14,
"There are several categories of humans who cannot bear any legal duties, including the very young and the severely disabled. We don't jail them for life...oh, wait, sometimes we do."
I do believe you hit the nail on the head. If one's ability to bear legal duties is what makes them a person, then I guess children, people with learning disabilities, and today's GOP can't be considered people. Therefore, it should be fair game to do medical experiments on folks like Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, etc.
Chimps aren't humans. Neither literally nor legally. Are they entitled to the same rights? No. Chimps can't vote, they can't legally consent, they can't be given social security. That all being said, I'm all for treating them better and reducing their suffering but defining them as human? That's going too far. What happens if a chimp strolls into town completely naked (as they often are) and steals a few mangoes from a fruit cart? Do we arrest them for theft and indecency and put them on the sex offender registry?
to add to what I said earlier, maybe declaring them humans isn't the answer but declaring them sentient is. I've read an article once that said in some places, squids are legally sentient and dolphins are "non-human people".
Frankly I'm a supporter of 'sentient rights'. That if an animal can demonstrate a level of self-awareness above a certain threshold that it should be granted equal protection under the law. I may be crazy for believing that, but I just do. I think it makes sense, frankly. I also support Great Ape Personhood so that we can have the bushmeat trade declared a genocide.
@dionysus
You misunderstand Great Ape Personhood. No one is saying we declare Chimpanzees to be Human, that's just scientifically false. What the argument is for is to declare Chimps and other Great Apes like them ((And other highly intelligent animals including Elephants and Whales)) as 'Non-Human Persons'. Afforded the same or at least similar legal protections that Humans enjoy.
Monkeys aren't people. In other news, water isn't beer. Water is related to beer, a lot of water is in beer, but it isn't fucking beer.
There is one thing that would have been awesome if it had gone the other way. If monkeys were ruled people, monkeys would be put on trial for human crimes. If monkeys were put on trial for human crimes, most of them would both go to prison for public nudity and masturbation, but be on sex offender registries. Monkeys. In. Prison.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
