Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

by Live Science

Thanks to The White Pearl

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080529-chimp-human.html

Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too



Matthew, 26, looks through the glass at his enclosure at an animal sanctuary in Vienna on May 4, 2007. The chimp probably does not know if he wants to be human or not. And that could be one of the many differences that separates him from us. Still, anthropologists admit it's hard to define what it is to be human. Credit: AP Photo/ Lilli Strauss.

Matthew, a 26-year-old chimp, is headed to court in Europe as part of a human effort to classify him as a person.

Beyond the legal challenges, anthropologists say chimpanzees are not humans, though without a clear definition of what it means to be human, backing that claim up is a challenge perhaps fit for some great courtroom drama.

Animal rights activist and teacher Paula Stibbe, along with the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories (AAAF), says she wants the chimpanzee, named Matthew Hiasl Pan, declared a person. That way, Stibbe says she can become the primate's legal guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where Matthew lives closes. (Under Austrian law, only humans are entitled to have guardians.)

The appeal has been filed in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. The case comes after Austria's Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling in January, which rejected a request to appoint the chimp with a legal guardian. The rulings did not address whether a chimpanzee could be declared a person.

"His life depends on this decision," Eberhart Theuer, the animal rights group's legal advisor, told the Evening Standard, a tabloid newspaper in London. "This case is about the fundamental question: Who is the bearer of human rights? Who is a person according to the European Human Rights Charter?"

For some scientists, the question of humanness is a tricky one, as no single characteristic separates humans from every other animal. And behaviors once thought exclusive to us, such as tool-making, exist in many non-human primates. Considered our closest living relatives, chimps behave a lot like us and even share about 96 percent of their DNA sequence with humans.

But the bottom line is, chimps are chimps, not humans, say anthropologists.

"Granted, chimpanzees show many similarities with us as humans," said John Mitani, a primate behavioral ecologist at the University of Michigan, "but they are nonetheless chimpanzees, not humans, and are obviously different as well."

Chimp characteristics

One anthropologist says the chimp dilemma brings up an animal-rights issue.

"We don't have a real formal venue for chimpanzees that have outlived their usefulness to whatever humans sort of owned them," said Jonathan Marks of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. "Obviously it's a situation that needs to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed in the realm of animal welfare. Confusing humans for chimps never did anybody any good."

But is Matthew really like you and me?

"Everybody who knows him personally will see him as a person," Stibbe told the Evening Standard.

Yet the definition of what it means to be a person, to be human, is a work in progress.

"One of the hard things is there is no single characteristic that has been found that makes humans truly unique," said Sarah Brosnan of Georgia State University. Brosnan studies social behavior and cognition in non-human primates.

Making matters worse, chimps show a smorgasbord of behaviors once tagged to humans only, including altruism, tool-use, an ability to learn from their kin and deal-making behaviors.

Looking to genetics for an answer is also thorny. If you were to line up any string of nucleotides (structural units) from a chimp's DNA with the corresponding human strand, about 96 or 98 out of 100 of the nucleotides would match up.

"Nobody is going to look at a human genome and a chimp genome and mix them up," Brosnan said. "But human genomes are different from each other, so it depends on where you draw the line."

Chimp-human split

About 6 million years ago, chimpanzees and human ancestors diverged. Chimps went their way, and we began to go ours.

The split led to various differences. For instance, chimps are covered in hair and we are much less so. A chimp's brain is about one-third the size of an average human brain. And we walk upright on two legs, while chimps typically walk on all fours.

"What seems to have happened initially is that our ancestors began walking most of the time upright on two legs," Marks said.

Along the way, our ancestors shed their thick coats of body hair, which allowed us to disperse body heat differently from chimps. Chimpanzees, like most mammals, pant to keep their bodies from heating up. Humans sweat. Apparently, Marks said, when our ancestors began speaking, their vocal tracts reorganized and that made it difficult to pant.

Teeth tell a tale, too. Along our evolutionary trek, human ancestors developed much smaller canine teeth, while chimps still sport the dagger-like teeth.

"Male chimpanzees have canine teeth much larger than female chimpanzees," Marks told LiveScience. "That difference doesn't exist in humans. We call our lawyers instead of bearing our canine teeth. And women can call their lawyers just as readily as men can."

Animal rights

Even still, activist Stibbe says the legal standing is the only way to ensure the chimp's survival.

"In his home in the African jungle, he would have been well able to look after himself without a guardian," Stibbe said. "But since he was abducted into an alien environment, traumatized and locked up in an enclosure, it did become necessary for me to act on his behalf to secure the donation money for him and to avoid his deportation."

Marks disputes Stibbe's statement, saying that in nature chimps do have guardians, or other chimps to watch their backs. "That's ridiculous. Chimpanzees are very social creatures," Marks said. "One of the other tragedies of this chimpanzee is it seems to have grown up largely in isolation from other chimpanzees."

If Matthew the chimp were declared a person, scientists foresee it would open a messy can of worms.

"In general, I don't think that it's a good idea to grant chimpanzees legal human rights," Mitani said. "Chimpanzees are well-known to kill each other. What would we do to perpetrators of those 'crimes?'"

And what about other animals, like dogs and dolphins: A chimp-is-a-person ruling could trigger similar court cases in support of non-human animals getting human status, said Brosnan and other anthropologists.

Comments 1 - 50 of 51 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #191041 by posiedon on June 10, 2008 at 6:34 am

 avatarChimpanzees are more human than some of the homo sapiens I know.
Good luck to Mathew and Paula Stibbe.

Other Comments by posiedon

2. Comment #191042 by qomak on June 10, 2008 at 6:36 am

 avatarWe and chimpanzees can not mate (at least not successfully) so we're a different species and thus they are not human. Am I missing something? The question of whether they should be declared a person is of course up for debate.

I guess even a reasonable case can be made that chimps are "smarter" (with whatever happens to be the definition of "smart") than humans with very severe mental retardation so intelligence cannot be the deciding factor.

This is really fascinating though. It's good to see that years and years and scientific research is starting to have some legal implications. I bet 50 years ago there would be no place for a case like this.

Other Comments by qomak

3. Comment #191046 by Doctor Dee on June 10, 2008 at 6:41 am

 avatarReclassifying other primates as human seems absurd to me, although I agree with the moral argument behind it. Taking it back to earlier - now largely resolved - issues of rights, it seems rather like ruling that women are men and black people are white. "Distinct but equal" seems to be a more sensible model. The distinction in humans between male and female is pretty absolute (give or take transexuals), that between different "races" less so, and the distinction between humans and other primates is also somewhat fuzzy, but the distinction is there, and has cognitive meaning. The question is whether it should have meaning in terms of rights. I think not.

Of course, we have to bear in mind that this is a news story, so the whole "chimps are humans" angle could just be news spin.

Other Comments by Doctor Dee

4. Comment #191048 by dlld on June 10, 2008 at 6:43 am

Corporations are treated like persons so it doesn't seem to strange if a chimp was too.

Other Comments by dlld

5. Comment #191051 by HitbLade on June 10, 2008 at 6:47 am

Anything with a personality is a person? Just not a human person? So they can be chimp persons.

Other Comments by HitbLade

6. Comment #191059 by hungarianelephant on June 10, 2008 at 6:57 am

 avatard11d - That's a little misleading. Corporations are treated as legal persons (for complicated economic reasons which you really don't want me to get into), but they don't get the full panolpy of rights attributed to natural persons.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

7. Comment #191060 by jimbob on June 10, 2008 at 6:57 am

You Europeans are sooo behind the times. While you are arguing about whether chimps are people or not, we yanks elected one as president years ago!

;-)

Other Comments by jimbob

8. Comment #191065 by movingshadow on June 10, 2008 at 7:02 am

 avatar"human" implies h. sapien to me. but personhood? i'm all for it.

it makes the most sense to go with science fiction naming conventions, i think. a klingon is a person, so is a chimp. but neither is human.

Other Comments by movingshadow

9. Comment #191066 by hungarianelephant on June 10, 2008 at 7:02 am

 avatarThe problem these guys have is essentially that they are presenting the court with a binary choice between (a) Matthew is a human with all human rights and (b) Matthew is not a human with no human rights. This tactic worked in United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook. The difference was that Standing Bear was indisputably human, though doubtless many people didn't regard the Poncas as human.

A coherent ethical system would not require a binary choice. Instead it would be possible to recognise chimps (and elephants and whales and dolphins and ...) as creatures having certain inherent rights, if not fully human ones. We're some way off that. The best we can hope for here is probably some sort of continental fudge that says that Matthew is a "person" for the purpose of guardianship, without expressing a view on his "personhood" for other purposes.

[EDIT - Standing Bear was a Ponca, not a Sioux. I am not awake today.]

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

10. Comment #191068 by King of NH on June 10, 2008 at 7:05 am

 avatar
We and chimpanzees can not mate (at least not successfully) so we're a different species and thus they are not human.


This is probably the case, and perhaps you have seen a study I have not. To the best of my knowledge, though, it is not known if a human and chimpanzee can successfully breed, or whether the offspring would be viable. The ignorance, in this case, is likely to remain, since we thankfully have laws and ethics against shutting drunks in cages with chimps.

I think the idea of this lawsuit is well intentioned and that it deserves a serious hearing. The outcome I would like to see is a compromise. Animals can be afforded a degree of human rights without needing to call them human. I wouldn't go so far as to say they should have the right to vote, although I do agree that even a turtle would cringe at McCain, so that is open to debate.

Other Comments by King of NH

11. Comment #191076 by Mango on June 10, 2008 at 7:23 am

 avatarThe semantics the people are litigating is whether "human" equates only to H. sapiens. That chimps are a different species is not in question, and the question is whether they nonetheless deserve the civil rights of personhood that (relatively few) H. sapiens currently enjoy.

Other Comments by Mango

12. Comment #191082 by Donald on June 10, 2008 at 7:36 am

Interesting case.
It would be good if some non-human animals could eventually be granted some legal rights according to their degree of "sentience".
Presumably Paula Stibbe is bringing this case to raise consciousness about the issue and is hoping the publicity will generate some means of funding a better future for Matthew.
But chimps are not humans. Sentient, yes. As sentient as humans, no.

The creationist religites will no doubt want to have their say about this case.

Other Comments by Donald

13. Comment #191092 by Henri Bergson on June 10, 2008 at 7:51 am

 avatarPeople should stop believing that a word refers to a real 'thing'. As if 'human' actually meant something beyond our use of the term.

If an ape is reclassified as 'human', our definition (inc. DNA def) has changed, nothing more. There's no 'correct' or 'incorrect' answer.

This whole attempt though is just another example of sentimentalist morality which we should be keen to destroy.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

14. Comment #191120 by bentleyd on June 10, 2008 at 8:59 am

 avatarTo me, this article brings up the larger issue of how we decide which animals are more worthy of legal protection. It seems to be based on "cuteness". Dogs and cats seem to have the greatest level of protection in western society. I recall hearing that pigs are more intelligent than either, but since they're ugly, smell bad, and taste so good for breakfast, it's OK to subject them to confined, filthy conditions that would get you arrested if you kept a dog like that.

Other Comments by bentleyd

15. Comment #191126 by Duff on June 10, 2008 at 9:05 am

Jimbob,
The president we elected was not a chimp. That would be an insult to Pan troglodytes, and certainly to Pan paniscus. The president we elected was a jackass (Equus aninus).

Other Comments by Duff

16. Comment #191129 by jimbob on June 10, 2008 at 9:14 am

Jimbob,
The president we elected was not a chimp. That would be an insult to Pan troglodytes, and certainly to Pan paniscus. The president we elected was a jackass (Equus aninus).


Hmm, good point, but I guess I was confused as a result of his predecessor acting like a bonobo!

Other Comments by jimbob

17. Comment #191134 by Apeseed on June 10, 2008 at 9:23 am

Comment #191092 by Henri Bergson

This whole attempt though is just another example of sentimentalist morality which we should be keen to destroy.


Isn't all morality based on sentiment or feeling?

Other Comments by Apeseed

18. Comment #191135 by Synchronium on June 10, 2008 at 9:24 am

SOLUTION: Get someone to have sex with the chimp for a bit and see if they have some sort of offspring.

If no, or the offspring is sterile, it's not a human.


EDIT: That does not mean I think chimps deserve any less than humans, but would simply help with classification.

Other Comments by Synchronium

19. Comment #191139 by mordacious1 on June 10, 2008 at 9:30 am

Duff

You just insulted my neighbor's jackass! Take it back!

The problem here is: where do you draw the line. Are we related to chimps? Yes. Do we have common ancestor's with my neighbor's jackass? Yes. Bacteria? Yes. So on and so on...

Other Comments by mordacious1

20. Comment #191143 by RichardWolford on June 10, 2008 at 9:37 am

Is it just me or could this possibly have major implications with medical research? I'm not a medical researcher so I don't know the answer to this, but if chimps are classified as humans, would it mean that using them for medical research would be akin to trying to use humans?

Other Comments by RichardWolford

21. Comment #191144 by al-rawandi on June 10, 2008 at 9:37 am

 avatarBecome legal guardian, of a 26 year old (chimp)?



"Matthew, I think it is time you got a job and moved out."

"OOoh aahh ahhhh".

"Don't talk back, I am serious, all you do is wake up at 10:30 watch Animal Planet and eat bananas."

"ahhh oooh ooooh ahhh ahhh"

"Damn it, you dropped out of school, what kind of a job do you expect to get. Why don't you go see if you can deliver for Fed Ex."

"ahhh ooh oooohh ahhh"

"Damn, well just wait until your father gets home. He will straighten you out."


"Oooohh ooooh ahhh ahhh"

"Same to you buddy."

Other Comments by al-rawandi

22. Comment #191164 by matlot on June 10, 2008 at 9:59 am

A Chimpanzee is not a human any more than a giraffe is. However, a chimp could be a person. Peter Singer defines a person as an entity conscious of a past and future. Research does seem consistent with chimpanzees displaying this capability. This is an interesting court case; it could mark the next step in broadening of consideration of the interests of other animals. If it does though, we may have to forgo bacon sandwiches in the near future.

Other Comments by matlot

23. Comment #191174 by millsm on June 10, 2008 at 10:15 am

This appeal to the courts is an attempt to use the blunt instrument of the binary legal process to redefine biological categories. Whenever a group of chimps organize and file a petition to the courts for the protection of other species than their own (a moral act) or begin applying to enter graduate school to study anthropology (a cognitive act) or create interculturally appreciated art, music and literature, there would be a case for considering them "human". The "only" 96% sharing of their DNA sequence with humans is a major distinction that has definitive consequences. There must be legal protection for non-human life, but to ignore distinct DNA differences is to ignore a major and consequential difference between life forms.

Other Comments by millsm

24. Comment #191177 by alexmzk on June 10, 2008 at 10:19 am

i think there's a petition for the great apes to receive basic human rights. it's being endorsed by Richard Dawkins and Jane Goodall among others, i signed it a wee while ago. should be relatively easy to find online.

Other Comments by alexmzk

25. Comment #191178 by bluebird on June 10, 2008 at 10:19 am

 avatarI saw a brief reference to this a few months ago (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/04/chimps-with-spears/mary-roach-text/5)...

Glad the full article is posted here, with updates/details.

Other Comments by bluebird

26. Comment #191184 by Vaal on June 10, 2008 at 10:39 am

 avatarI wonder what the legal status of a Homo Neanderthalus or Homo Erectus would be, should we miraculously manage to recreate them? Would they be considered human too? I suspect it would be more likely they would be considered abominations by the religites and hunted or put into zoos.

Of course, in the end, even we only have the rights that are accorded to us by our leaders, and those rights vary throughout the world, particularly where people are living under the tyranny of theocracy.

Didn't I see an article not so long ago where a parrot had a greater vocabulary than an average Chav. Would that mean it should also be accorded rights, according to its intelligence. How about crows?

Still, any legislation that protects these wonderful animals from the extinction that their human cousins are driving them towards has to be good news.

Other Comments by Vaal

27. Comment #191187 by entheogensmurf on June 10, 2008 at 10:46 am

 avatarWhy don't they just open the range of who (expand past "humans") is able to obtain guardians.
In other words, instead of it just being a human to human legal right, make it human to primate or I suppose in this case to chimps (Matthew).

That way "human" remains h. sap. It seems simple to me but perhaps I'm not aware of all the factors.

Other Comments by entheogensmurf

28. Comment #191234 by mrjonno on June 10, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Human rights are intrinsically linked with human responsibilites. Is there any evidence that monkey or chimp actually capable of acting beyound instinct with humans. You could argue it can with others of its own species but I'm not convinced a monkey really understands the concept of murder etc

Human beings do however have legal and moral responsibilities when dealing with animals which should and do become stricter going up the intelligence scale.

Of course there are some humans often on the political right who think 'rights' are something natural or that you are born with but human rights are as artifical as a car or a spaceship. An incredibly good invention of course which has brought vast benefits to humanity

Other Comments by mrjonno

29. Comment #191292 by DalaiDrivel on June 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm

mrjonno,

"Human beings do however have legal and moral responsibilities when dealing with animals which should and do become stricter going up the intelligence scale."

And that's as far as it'll go I think. And it is consistent I believe with some ideas on this thread, like the concept of "personhood."

I agree with the "Distinct but Equal" line (Perhaps "Almost Equal"), am fine with a chimp being defined as a person (although it's not clear to me how "person" should be defined. Singer's definition seems somewhat dubious to me. I don't understand what temporal perception should have to do with it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me) and I see not problem with a chimpanzee having a guardian, so long as that guardian understands their unique responsibility and are deemed qualified.

I do not see a problem with dog owners being deemed guardians of their dogs for instance, or any other pet. Are they deemed so already, or are they merely owners? I do not see what is so distinctly human about the concept of "guardian" apart from subtextual implications of rearing and mental/physical development etc.

Finally, to depict a chimpanzee as human seems both disingenuous and flawed with rationalisation and little reasoning to me. Anthropologists would be supported by biologists in classifying chimpanzees as chimpanzees and not human. People are always prone to anthropomorphise lots of things (take God for instance...) but that's no excuse for wishful-thinking in this case. If the law says one thing, courts can allow exemptions (can't they? I'm no lawyer), or provide precedents, or even alter laws completely.

al-rawandi,

Hah. Funny post. Cheers.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

30. Comment #191306 by Corylus on June 10, 2008 at 2:26 pm

 avatarI am trying to catch up on the conversations here - and all I am seeing is some idiot cross-thread trolling.

I'm a easy going type, but I am becoming irritated.

Other Comments by Corylus

31. Comment #191307 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Don't worry, Corylus, it's just that chimp proving he is a person! ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

32. Comment #191310 by Stoned_Roses on June 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm

 avatarStibbe wants to adopt the chimpanzee primarily so he has somewhere to live when/if the animal sanctuary closes. Is it not possible for her to have the ape living with her without bringing this case to Court? I seem to remember having a Guinea Pig when I was younger, and we just took it home and looked after it. I think it was called a "pet". Or can chimpanzees not be kept as such?

Other Comments by Stoned_Roses

33. Comment #191313 by mordacious1 on June 10, 2008 at 2:39 pm

John McCain has just come out opposed to chimp marriage. He stated that they can monkey around all they want to, but the government is not going to condone marriage, unless it is between a male
H. Sapien and a female H. Sapien.

In other news, the Drudge Report, is reporting that McCain has fathered an illegitimate child with "Daisy", a Chimp at the Phoenix Zoo.

Other Comments by mordacious1

34. Comment #191322 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Nice chimp :-) Have a banana :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

35. Comment #191327 by mordacious1 on June 10, 2008 at 3:13 pm

So, how long does it usually take to get a troll bumped off this site?

Other Comments by mordacious1

36. Comment #191337 by Goldy on June 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Funny chimp. Have a banana

Other Comments by Goldy

37. Comment #191339 by monoape on June 10, 2008 at 3:45 pm

 avatarNo surprises that I would vote, in a heartbeat, to give our close relatives the same rights that we take for granted.

Anyone who has spent twenty minutes watching a group of chimps, bonobos or gorillas interact would recognise that they are close relatives who deserve the same protection that we all take for granted.

Thanks to everyone who felt the need to make Bush-esque jokes about the issue. Feeling superior? Good for you.

Other Comments by monoape

38. Comment #191342 by Nails on June 10, 2008 at 3:47 pm

 avatar2. Comment #191042 by qomak on June 10, 2008 at 6:36 am

We and chimpanzees can not mate (at least not successfully) so we're a different species and thus they are not human.


10. Comment #191068 by King of NH on June 10, 2008 at 7:05 am

This is probably the case, and perhaps you have seen a study I have not. To the best of my knowledge, though, it is not known if a human and chimpanzee can successfully breed, or whether the offspring would be viable. The ignorance, in this case, is likely to remain, since we thankfully have laws and ethics against shutting drunks in cages with chimps.


Humans and chimps cannot interbrees successfully: you only have to count the number of chromosomes to work this one out.

The interesting question is of course whether the chimp wants a guardian, and if it is able to comprehend the issue it is facing.

If this fails, then there is always the possibility that the chimp could be re-housed elsewhere, maybe in another zoo.

Should we not therefore be launching a bill of chimp rights? Especially if they are intelligent enough to understand the consequences of human actions.....

Other Comments by Nails

39. Comment #191350 by james1v on June 10, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Personally, i would relegate my relatives rights below those of these honourable creatures! But then i am sure some people have nicer relatives than mine....Hmmmm..

Other Comments by james1v

40. Comment #191459 by Neal on June 11, 2008 at 2:39 am

I have a question for the biologists out there.

Often, speech is touted as a measure of sentience. As other animals do not seem to have as large a vocabulary as humankind their intelligence is thought to be limited.

However, there is a difference between generating sounds and hearing them. Therefore, is it possible that some animals actually understand far more than they can communicate?

Other Comments by Neal

41. Comment #191467 by Telic on June 11, 2008 at 2:52 am

 avatarSo the President of the U.S. isn't even allowed a legal guardian? ^^

Other Comments by Telic

42. Comment #191472 by firebird on June 11, 2008 at 3:00 am

42. Comment #191342 by Nails on June 10, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Sorry, but different number of chromosomes is not automatically a showstopper on interbreeding. Think about it: How would the first ancestor with one more or one less chromosome have found one to breed with, if different numbers = no breeding?

What happens in such a mutation is either one chromosome splitting in two or two combining into one, so the genetic material is still there (aside from other mutations). Therefore a child of one n-chromosome parent and one n plus 1-chromosome parent might still be viable (1/2 the children IIRC) and can have inherited the changed chromosome number (1/4 IIRC).

Since there is a lessened chance of getting a viable child between n and n plus 1 parents this could be a road to speciation, because individuals with the new "setup" of chromosomes breeds just as fine amongst themselves as individuals with the old number.

In other words breeding n and n gets the same amounts of viable children as breeding n plus 1 and n plus 1, where breeding n and n plus 1 only yields 1/2 the viable children. This disadvantage of the cross-bread could lead to the split in two groups (n and n plus 1) each going their own evolutionary way until the differences is so essential, they can't interbreed anymore, which may or may not have happened between humans and chimps.

Other Comments by firebird

43. Comment #191475 by The Third Man on June 11, 2008 at 3:17 am

I think we tend to look at the Animal Rights debate from the wrong angle. Perhaps it is better to think of it not so much a case of animals having rights, but human beings not having certain rights - for instance, we should not have the right to hunt elephants for their tusks.
Given that animals cannot understand the concept of rights, it seems strange to award animals with certain rights. Isn't this a purely human idea? On a practical level, of course it would make little difference - the statements "A chimp has the right not to be captured" and "Humans do not have the right to capture chimps" ultimately amount to the same thing, but I think we overcomplicate the debate by thinking in terms of animal rights, rather than just limiting the rights we allow ourselves.

Other Comments by The Third Man

44. Comment #191505 by Vaal on June 11, 2008 at 5:08 am

 avatar47. Comment #191475 by The Third Man

Perhaps it is better to think of it not so much a case of animals having rights, but human beings not having certain rights - for instance, we should not have the right to hunt elephants for their tusks

Totally agree with you. Unfortunately practically one of the first things said in the Bible and perhaps one of the least ethical, which caused me to wince even as a child, is ..

"And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."


That is a license to do whatever you want to any other creature on the Earth, even to the point of driving them to extinction, which is precisely what we are doing at an ever increasing rate. I would highly recommend reading the 6th Extinction by Richard Leakey.

We need to confront this mind set, or we shall be the only species left on this planet. I would argue as the most intelligent species on this planet (although that is debatable) that it is OUR responsibility to ensure the protection of the Earth's' biodiversity, not to plunder it.

Other Comments by Vaal

45. Comment #191527 by Buddha on June 11, 2008 at 6:13 am

 avatarI'll support Chimpanzees rights to be "people" when we start jailing them for stealing bananas!

Other Comments by Buddha

46. Comment #191532 by Doctor Dee on June 11, 2008 at 6:33 am

 avatarComment #191475 by The Third Man
I think we tend to look at the Animal Rights debate from the wrong angle. Perhaps it is better to think of it not so much a case of animals having rights, but human beings not having certain rights - for instance, we should not have the right to hunt elephants for their tusks.


You ask later in your post, what is really the difference? The difference is that the reverse angle you propose (which I've heard before from "soft" animal sympathisers) allows humans to pick and choose the ways in which they can or can't exploit/abuse/be cruel to animals. Piecemeal humanitarianism isn't really humanitarianism. Granting basic universal rights to animals (as we do to ourselves) would upset a lot of humans. For example, some of the species humans like to eat could become off-limits. No, it's much easier all round to ban certain things that aren't very popular with humans anyway, like killing elephants for their tusks.

Given that animals cannot understand the concept of rights, it seems strange to award animals with certain rights. Isn't this a purely human idea?


This is another argument I've heard before. It conflates "human" rights (often call "fundamental human rights") with civil rights. The former are held to be inalienable (the right not to be killed, tortured, enslaved), whereas civil rights are generally dependent on responsible behaviour (e.g. you commit a crime, you lose the right to freedom). Severely mentally handicapped humans aren't capable of understanding rights or responsibilities. Should they not be entitled to basic human rights? Of course they should, and they are. Then why not chimps? Why not pigs, horses or dogs?

Other Comments by Doctor Dee

47. Comment #191583 by Border Collie on June 11, 2008 at 9:08 am

"chimpanzees that have outlived their usefulness" ... therein lies a/the problem ... When does a chimp outlive its usefulness? To whom? Who decides when a chimp is useful or not? For lack of a better term, isn't a chimp's life just as "sacred" as a human life? Yes, we humans absolutely need a change of attitude about the other life forms on this planet. I'm not sure that declaring a chimp to be human in a legalistic sense is the way to do it, however. But, whatever works ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

48. Comment #191696 by phatbat on June 11, 2008 at 1:12 pm

 avatar52. Comment #191669 by richard_dawkins

Oh dear we have a child let loose on a computer who is attracted to apes.

Other Comments by phatbat

49. Comment #191984 by Raiko on June 12, 2008 at 8:40 am

 avatar
But is Matthew really like you and me?


What a strange approach - obviously, being a chimp, any chimp deserves different rights from a dog, or a cat or a mouse for example, and I'm sure they'd be closer to human rights than those of most other animals. Needing a guardian might be one of those necesssary rights and should be considered.

However, while anthropologists cannot properly define why a chimp isn't a human, we all can tell the two apart, obviously. We don't need to know why we can tell them apart to realize that we can. However, that doesn't justify why the chimp shouldn't get any human-like rights as the difference is not so great.

The approach seems awkward to me on both sides. As always, I am likely to reject any 'extreme' position. And calling chimps people like you and me seems as extreme to me as trying to justify why they're just animals like any other. Obviously, neither is true and neither makes a really good argument (though I see why people might see that as her only option to save Matthew at the moment).

What's it with that black-and-white thinking? You can't have certain rights without being human? Why?

Other Comments by Raiko

50. Comment #192016 by huzonfurst on June 12, 2008 at 10:09 am

Why limit rights only to animals we think of as "sentient"? Any creature that is capable of suffering ought to have some enforceable rights against maltreatment.

Western countries do have some laws against animal cruelty but they don't go nearly far enough, in my opinion, and not all Western countries are equally diligent about it (there's something about Latin culture which approves of bull/cock/dog-fighting and Dawkins knows what other disgustingly atavistic "entertainments," for example).

Third world countries (and I include Muslim societies in this category) are hopeless as far as their treatment of animals is concerned. Some would excuse this on economics, although how simply being kind to animals requires a certain level of income escapes me.

To change the subject, Doctor Dee's picture of the Far Side's "God as a kid tries to make a chicken in his room" resulted in an islamically surreal response by San Diego's fundies when the (extremely right-wing and pro-christer) paper first published it some 20 years ago: a few days afterwards the paper was flooded with letters squawking "Blasphemy in the Union Tribune!" and telephone poles everywhere were covered with flyers urging good xtians to boycott any company that advertised in the paper...

Btw, jimbob, our current excuse for a president was never actually elected, you know. Not that that excuses the millions of boneheads who did vote for him.

Other Comments by huzonfurst
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: