Slashdot Mirror
NY Judge Rules Research Chimps Are Not 'Legal Persons'
sciencehabit writes: A state judge in New York has dealt the latest blow to an animal rights group's attempt to have chimpanzees declared 'legal persons.' In a decision handed down this morning, New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe ruled that two research chimps at Stony Brook University are not covered by a writ of habeas corpus, which typically allows human prisoners to challenge their detention. The Nonhuman Rights Project, which brought the lawsuit in an attempt to free the primates, has vowed to appeal.
We posted news last year about an earlier case (mentioned in the article) brought by the same group, which also ended in defeat.
unless they're standing in the same line as the dead people at the polls.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
No. Basic logic has not been thrown away. I am not a blue duck, and that doesn't mean I'm a duck.
If they had been declared legal persons, you know someone would've tried to marry one.
what about politician chimps?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"I am not a blue duck"
Says you.
On the internet know one knows if you're a duck.
These guys are weaving a judicial tapestry that ensures that even if society as a whole were to move a bit in their direction over time, there will be so much precedent against them that it'll take decades longer to accomplish their goals.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Listen, I'm what I consider to be a pretty good, card-carrying tree-hugger who is also an omnivore, and I have supported racial, sexual and marriage equality for as long as I can remember. However, when we talk about human rights, they are *Human(TM)* Rights. This is not to say, of course, that we should not treat all sentient beings with as much Humanity(TM) as we can - and that's always a shifting goalpost - but no animal is a human except us human animals. Crikey, PETA-types!
The issue is significantly more nuanced than that. Most people, and certainly most biologists and behavioral experts agree that there are certain animals that demonstrate sentience in a fashion at least analogous to the way humans think and feel. The great apes, and chimps, in particular, are among that rather rare group who share a significant number of emotional and cognitive traits with humans (little wonder, we're only separated by a few million years of evolution). So the idea here, so far as I understand it, is that those similarities are significant enough that chimps should enjoy, if not human rights, then at least some rights elevated from other far less human animals.
I tend to weigh on the side that sentient animals should receive protections similar to the protections we give to children or to adults deemed legally incompetent. That means they can't exercise many of the rights that we recognize adult humans have, but neither can they be wantonly exploited, physically or psychologically harmed.
But to pursue this in the courts is ludicrous. Personhood is fairly well defined in most, if not all, jurisdictions and it pretty much explicitly excludes anyone who isn't a member of H. sapiens. This is going to need to be something that is dealt with at the legislative level, and it's going to be a long fight.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
corporation! That way, they get their legal personhood at the same time....
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I think it's already been done.
http://www.trump.com/
You are welcome on my lawn.
It isn't ludicrous at all, for the exact reasons you explain at the start. It is simply guaranteed to fail. But asking and being told no, that is part of the process.
I personally hope that people keep asking.
If they outlaw chimps, then only outlaws will have chimps.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Can someone explain to me why none of the great apes that supposedly share so much with humans in terms of cognitive ability can be taught how to read and to write, not merely as a parlor trick that the creature utilizes so that it will receive some reward that might satisfy an immediate physiological craving such as hunger, but as a technique that the animal might use to communicate its own thoughts and ideas to others (can an ape write a creative story with a beginning, middle, and end, for example?), and in particular, be able to teach this ability to successive generations of apes who may then even surpass the ability of their own instructor? An ape that could read could then teach itself how to do many more things than what it currently knows simply by reading about them, rather than having to be explicitly instructed by someone else... it could learn the rules to a game like chess, for example.
Practically any human being can typically be taught how to read and to write by the time they are six or seven if the education is available to them. Can somebody tell me what, if anything, is so unique about the human mind that no other creature on the planet can be taught this?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
corporation! That way, they get their legal personhood at the same time....
That is the sort of monkey business up with which I will not put.
Did you attend the University of Oregon? :P
Otherwise, yeah, you probably aren't a duck.
Not really. The judge simply ruled she was bound by precedent that her court did not have sufficient authority to overturn. That's actually a good call, but it has nothing to do with the issue or arguments.
In any case appeals to "common sense" aren't worth squat when that common sense is based on ignorance or inexperience. It's common sense to talk about "the dark side of the Moon" or to think that the next flip of a coin is affected by prior flips.
For 80% of the existence of our species we coexisted with at least one other species that would pass any reasonable philosophical criteria for "person": the Neanderthals. If we were able to use biotechnology to recreate Neanderthals, Jurassic park style, there's no question that if successful the experiment would create people. But would they be legal persons?
It's an important philosophical question because it potentially colors a lot of mundane ethical questions. Do we recognize the rights of others as a kind of tribal convention? Or are we compelled to do so because of something in human nature? If the latter presumably non-human entities would have an equal ethical claim to personhood.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But to pursue this in the courts is ludicrous. Personhood is fairly well defined in most, if not all, jurisdictions and it pretty much explicitly excludes anyone who isn't a member of H. sapiens.
Their goal was to get these animals one of the legal protections afforded to humans, so the argument wasn't that they were people exactly. They were arguing that they should get some of the legal protections afford to persons, specifically the ones that prevent them being used for medical experiments without consent.
It's a subtle distinction, but as you pointed out in your own post most experts do agree that some animals experience emotions and suffering in a similar way to people. If the emotions and suffering are the same or very similar, it could be argued that laws protecting a person from suffering should apply to them as well.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think David's point is that, while what you're saying about coin flips is true of abstract mathematical "fair coins" or other similar processes, in reality you don't know a priori if you're actually dealing with a fair coin or not, and its past results gives you information on whether or not it's a fair coin and thus whether you should expect any bias in the probability of future outcomes. Those future outcomes themselves aren't influenced by the previous flips causally, as the Gambler's Fallacy presumes - -the coin isn't "due" anything -- but the previous flips give epistemic reason to expect certain outcomes to be more likely on each independent flip, including the next one.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."