Slashdot Mirror
New Effort To Grant Legal Rights To Chimpanzees Fails
sciencehabit writes Advocates of "legal personhood" for chimpanzees have lost another battle. This morning, a New York appellate court rejected a lawsuit by the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) to free a chimp named Tommy from captivity. The group had argued that the chimpanzee deserved the human right of bodily liberty. Despite the loss, the NhRP is pursuing more cases in the hopes of conferring legal rights to a variety of animals, from elephants to dolphins.
Regardless of the decision, I think it is good that people are forced to argue why.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
You seem to be confusing science with metaphysics and ethics. A surprisingly common mistake.
Please first demonstrate to me that chimps and other animals value bodily liberty, and only then we can talk to give them the right.
Everybody's talking about animal rights, but nobody ever mentions animal responsibilities.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I'm all for this. . .after we grant human children some basic rights (such as a say in custody hearings).
Chimps aren't people. The laws for humans don't apply. Chimps are not held responsible for their behavior under the law, can't understand contracts or laws or rights of humans. If laws for treating specific species of non-humans in a kind way are wanted, they can be made (some exist already such as anti-cruelty laws)
Indeed there is someone home. That someone however, cannot and will never be able to grasp the structure of our society and the laws within it. So, no personhood. Treating them with kindness doesn't mean extending them human rights.
Human Life > Animal Life
The only basis needed is self interest. We are in fact humans, being fair to non-humans waits in line after being fair to humans.
The interesting thing is that the MOST justifiable things human with animals are things that animal rights activists have success fighting. Such as experimentation for science and medicine. These things are temporary efforts that produce results that benefits animals and humans alike forever after.
The abuses that they don't generally fight at all or even advocate (such as the keeping of pets, aka captivity) and especially spaying and neutering are the things we could end with little or no negative impact on the interests of our own species.
Human Life > Animal Life
But no human life is at risk in the case of this chimp. The situation is never just black and white. Most people think it is okay to experiment on mice to find a cure for cancer. But many don't agree that we should blind rabbits to test cosmetics.
The only basis needed is self interest.
Many people would not agree with that.
If sentient life can be turned into a drug testing lab simply because they don't meet some cognitive level, then why don't we start experimenting on children or sufferers of Down's Syndrome? If killing, sometimes in the most hideous ways, of other sentient animals poses no ethical difficulty, then let's not use the next best thing to H. sapiens, let's use H. sapiens.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Emotion and suffering are not remotely unique to Chimps. What is perhaps unique is how they can be made to suffer. A nice cage with a habitrail and some good mouse-chow (tm) will make for some happy mice. No cats in here and all the free food I can eat. To a chimp it is just being in jail. Either one will be in agony if you put acid in their eyes.
They aren't afforded all the rights of an adult. For example, they cannot vote in any election, neither Federal nor Provincial.
Not the full suite until the age of majority, but you sure can't inject them with drugs to test cancer treatments or cosmetic reactions.
No one was advocating chimps be given the bloody vote.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Human Life > Animal Life
While we're on the subject...
My race > other races,
My gender > other gender(s),
My religion > other religions...
Where should the line be drawn, exactly?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Why are Chimps not people? What exactly separates humans from non-humans?
Lots of things but for the purposes of this argument I'd suggest that their inability to ever pay taxes is probably justification enough. Chimps, dolphins and other proto-sentients probably deserve an elevated class of rights over that of lesser species like say chickens or rats for example but granting them full human rights doesn't make sense. They don't have the ability to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities that go with being full members of society.
How about we draw the line where your statements are actually true.
Asians and Caucasians can be equally good at anything.
Men and women can be equally good at anything.
Muslims and Jews can be equally good at anything.
1000 of the worlds smartest and most capable chimpanzees put in front of a type writer will still write nothing but shit. Or are you saying my pet goldfish should have a right to vote? If not then why? You're just moving your arbitrary line around.