Lawsuits Seek To Turn Chimpanzees Into Legal Persons 641
sciencehabit writes "This morning, an animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a lawsuit in a New York court in an attempt to get a judge to declare that chimpanzees are legal persons and should be freed from captivity. The suit is the first of three to be filed in three New York counties this week. They target two research chimps at Stony Brook University and two chimps on private property, and are the opening salvo in a coordinated effort to grant 'legal personhood' to a variety of animals across the United States. If NhRP is successful in New York, it would upend millennia of law defining animals as property and could set off a 'chain reaction' that could bleed over to other jurisdictions, says Richard Cupp, a law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, and a prominent critic of animal rights. 'But if they lose it could be a giant step backward for the movement. They're playing with fire.'"
Jerry Was A Man (Score:3, Interesting)
(Full text) [willmorgan.org]
Heinlein saw this coming in 1947.
You may think it troll, flame bait, etc, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
...if such a thing passes, am I the only one who sees a potential push for marriage laws to be adapted similarly?
Before you freak out totally, I'm not necessarily referring to anything involving humans in the mix, but think of such things as racehorse/purebred animal breeding and etc.
Could become one hell of a can of worms... (oh, wait, that brings up another thought - are worms eventually getting rights too?)
Re:You may think it troll, flame bait, etc, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You may think it troll, flame bait, etc, but... (Score:5, Funny)
"Get your hands OFF ME, you damned DIRTY APE!" [theforbidden-zone.com]
I hate every ape I see
From chimpan-"A" to chimpan-"Z"
No, you'll never make a monkey out of me
Oh my God, I was wrong
It was Earth all along
You've finally made a monkey
Yes, you've finally made a monkey out of me!
Re:You may think it troll, flame bait, etc, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Other primates, even chimpanzees and gorillas, cannot give informed consent, so marrying them would never be justifiable for the same reason marrying a four-year-old is not reasonable. We need a whole lot more evolution and/or alien contact and/or resurrection of neaderthals and/or robots before there's anything non-human to meaningfully get freaky with.
As for limits on personhood (re worms), there are a number of animal rights movements, all with slightly different agendas. I'm sure there are probably some who go so far as to include worms, but the science doesn't really favour it since many worms (such as the laboratory scientist's favourite, Caenorhabditis elegans) are dumber than a Roomba.
Re:You may think it troll, flame bait, etc, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, animals are not, in fact, infants, so it's not like there's anything in particular that would need justifying. After all, the default is that you can do anything you like as long as other people have no legitimate reason to stop you, and the main disagreements come over what counts as a legitimate reason.
That the rest of society needs to entertain the tought, even hypothethically, with whether or not to formally recognize a relationship between (wo)man and monkey does highlight why giving marriage a legal status is probably not a good idea. It's ultimately a religious ritual and should be left outside the scope of secular society.
Have some faith in humanity [tulpa.info], or at least it's hormones :). Why wait for aliens when you can use applied psychology to make your own?
I swear, if someone found a way to sexualize Tokamaks we'd have fusion power in a year...
Re:You may think it troll, flame bait, etc, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The thing about transgenics and hybrids is that they evoke really strong, directionless emotional responses from people. If you invent a 3D printer that can generate living human tissue and print off an entire human body, but only from the neck down, then there will be people who throw a fit and get the heeby-jeebies, even thou
Re:You may think it troll, flame bait, etc, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
A very good question. The issue is that this article is about an attempt to define these chimps as 'legal persons' to grant them the protections and rights that brings. What I wonder is, has enough thought gone into handling the responsibilities and obligations that come with being a 'legal person' such as being subject to the law? Rape, murder, theft etc are all common within the animal kingdom and no less so the more cognitively advanced members such as Apes and Dolphins.
I have no issue with people pushing for greater rights for animals. I strongly agree with the idea of defining the distress we cause animals so that we can weigh up the pros and cons. Defining Apes as persons is a dumb way to try and short-cut this process.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Jerry Was A Man (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jerry Was A Man (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, maybe he was just a... dragon.
But he was still TROGDOR!
Re: (Score:3)
A strong sad?
Re: (Score:3)
Jerry was a race car driver.
Jerry is posting this message.
Re: (Score:3)
NOT really. Maybe when we have a chimp that can sing jinglebells, count and talk we can say this.
A banana is part of the problem (Score:3)
I saw this coming when I decided on a sig line.
Re:Jerry Was A Man (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, corporations are people. Extending that to chimps isn't too far a stretch.
Re:Jerry Was A Man (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, corporations are people. Extending that to chimps isn't too far a stretch.
How do we know the chimps want to be brought down to that level?
Re: (Score:3)
Careful, if Chimps get rights you'd might have to classify lawyers and politicians as people too. The one thing they do have in common with chimps is they both have a propensity to fling feces at one another.
One chimp's feces flinging is another man's board meeting.
Re:Jerry Was A Man (Score:5, Informative)
"Heinlein saw this coming in 1947."
No, he didn't.
Heinlein invisaged chimpanzees genetically enhanced to be more intelligent and more like humans.
Chimpanzees are not human. They don't think like humans, they don't behave like humans, they aren't physically built like humans.
Of all these things, probably the most important is that they don't think like humans. At all. Chimpanzees do not understand non-verbal communications even as much as dogs do. They're just not people.
Re: (Score:3)
Heinlein invisaged chimpanzees genetically enhanced to be more intelligent and more like humans.
Yes, I'll give you that. But remember that Heinlein was probably a racist, the story was written in 1947.
Of all these things, probably the most important is that they don't think like humans. At all. Chimpanzees do not understand non-verbal communications even as much as dogs do. They're just not people.
Well, I don't know about chimps, but dogs and cats are people. Folks consider their animals family (and mine h
Not a question of being "human" (Score:5, Informative)
Chimpanzees are not human. They don't think like humans, they don't behave like humans, they aren't physically built like humans. Of all these things, probably the most important is that they don't think like humans.
The point is not whether chimps are human; it's whether they are persons.
Re: (Score:3)
My cat's so dumb she moves her lips when she reads.
Re:Jerry Was A Man (Score:4, Informative)
The Vote (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they pay their fair share of taxes I'm OK with this.
Re: (Score:3)
probably get replaced by robot monkeys...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm. What the heck do you call a monkey in Hyderabad?
Tech Support.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying the poor should not get a vote??
Re:The Vote (Score:4, Informative)
Millions of people vote who don't pay income taxes. I guess these apes will probably be voting for Democrats (aka GimmeDats) just like those millions.
Hate to break it to you bub, but Red states on the whole take more government money and pay less in taxes.
Re:The Vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but sadly their votes would only be counted as 3/5 of a human citizen's :(
Corrected for historical accuracy.
Re:The Vote (Score:5, Informative)
food (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:food (Score:5, Funny)
Humans are used as experimental subjects too and are by all accounts quite tasty.
Re: (Score:3)
There is. We try to make food animal's lives as comfortable as reasonably possible and kill them in a humane way. Experiment subjects are often deliberately made to suffer, infected with diseases or otherwise made ill.
Coming back to the topic at hand some apes are clearly very intelligent and experience complex emotions. This is an odd way to go about protecting them, and frankly I don't know enough to know if captivity is necessarily bad for them, but generally speaking we do try to minimize the suffering
Re:food (Score:5, Informative)
" kill them in a humane way"
No. We kill them in a *cheap* way. Humane too, providing it doesn't conflict with the 'cheap' part. There is huge commercial pressure to make meat (and related products) as cheap as possible - that's why battery hens and the feedlot were invented.
The standard method of disposal for live male chicks (A byproduct of egg manufacture - half the chicks are useless as egg-layers) is to drop them live into a meat grinder. Why do this? Is it because factory owners are sadists? No, it's simply because that's the cheapest way to dispose of them. It would just cost too much to have a human painlessly execute each one, or even to waste factory space and maintenance costs on an elaborate nitrogen chamber setup. Dropping them live into the grinder is the most cost-effective means. Those feeling guilty can at least be satisfied that their pain, though doubtless severe, will also be brief.
Religious slaughter excepted. That's a bit of an odd case, as the rituals were set in stone millenia ago and resist alteration.
Re:food (Score:5, Informative)
Well, perhaps in the US, but in Europe we do have standards and they do add considerable cost. When the standards are not met the meat cannot legally be sold here. Dropping live chickens into a meat grinder is definitely illegal here. Animal welfare in the US seems to be quite poor in comparison.
Religious slaughter is illegal in some EU countries, but unfortunately legal in the UK.
Re:food (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, experiment subjects are treated with much more care, respect and regulation, when compared to most livestock.
Re:food (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry but there's no difference between livestock (chicken, cows, horses, etc...) and experiment sujects (mice, chimps, dogs, etc...)
Yes, none of them is a legal person. Monsanto, however, is.
Figure that out and what it means about the values of our legal system.
Most posts so far are comparing chimpanzees to other animals, like humans and rats, ignoring that we've already given person status to entities that have no physical body, let alone a brain.
Re:food (Score:4, Insightful)
*For bob's sake, please look up the word before replying with the standard Slashdot anti-animal-sentience nerd rage.
Per Wikipedia:
Studies have shown that even plants are capable of communication, [dailymail.co.uk] and in some instances have been shown to cry out when cut, as if in pain.
So, by the Wikipedia definition, plants are sentient beings as well; do you have the same protective spirit over, say, your lawn, as you're showing for the more 'breathy, bleedy' forms of sentient life?
Personally, I don't care what other think; certain animals and plants are quite tasty, and I'm going to continue killing and devouring them to my heart's content. Don't like it? Then don't accept my invite to chow. Otherwise, mind your own fucking business, please and thanks.
Re:food (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of people claim that there are studies showing that plants "cry out in pain", though not surprisingly no one ever seems to have a link to a reputable study to go with that claim.
Here's a more thorough response [veganrabbit.com] than I'm willing to take the time to type.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I agree. Free them all. There's no reason for an advanced, "civilized" human society to treat living, sentient* creatures as products to consume.
I belong to redneck PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals.
Now stop trolling me, son, before I make you explain exactly what "sentience" is and how it can be proven.
Excuse me, a cheeseburger awaits.
Re:food (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's unnecessary.
If survival's at stake, I'll do what I gotta do. But if the sole reason for killing another living creature is "mmm, tasty", then something's wrong. My definition of "civilized" would include "not killing for pleasure".
Re:food (Score:5, Funny)
Since we're going to kill to eat, then why not opt for the "mmm, tasty" end of the spectrum?
Apparently, eating should involve suffering. Which just goes to show, my mom was way ahead of her time.
Re:food (Score:4, Insightful)
> humans can live with without eating meat.
They also tend to do poorly at it since we aren't actual herbivores.
You are not a cow, no matter how much you want to be one.
Cows (Score:4, Funny)
Judging by some of what I've seen in the local Walmart, some people are closer than others...
Re: (Score:3)
I work with children. I wouldn't mind seeing a few of them experimented on.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
The way I see it (Score:2)
Some people are so darn moronic they make chimps look superior by comparison, yet only people get the vote.
Oot GaRoot for President 2016
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chimps are no more legal persons than corporations are. Oh wait...
Re: (Score:3)
Well to be fair corporations do pay taxes.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The concept has been perverted by activists who hear the word 'personhood' and think they understand what it means without even bothering to read wikipedia. These are the people of which Churchill said, "the best argument against democracy is a 2 minute conversation with the typical voter." They can't think to educate themselves, they'd prefer to be outraged.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Corporations can't vote because the managers know that one more vote isn't going to make much difference. They still provide the most important function: When a corporation breaks the law, they may face a fine. Only rarely does the manager who ordered the illegal action face any personal consequence. The most they have to fear is a stock price fall. Thus they ask the obvious question: Will the corporation make more money from this action than the expected fine when we get caught?
Re: (Score:3)
Sure they can. They have lobbyists. If enough owners and managers decided they wanted it to happen, they would throw a few million dollars more into the lobbying fund and make it so. The law may not be cheap, but it's still for sale.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't need to vote. They just buy whatever side wins. Some just keep both sides on the books at all times. Corporations have more influence over politics than you. Also: Gerrymandering is a thing; [snagfilms.com] Ergo: Your vote means less than squat.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you look at the top echelon, it appears a good many corporations beat us to it.
I definitely misread the headline.... (Score:5, Funny)
Only temporary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only temporary (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't as simple as it seems on the surface.
Re:Only temporary (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps but it would open up all other kinds of questions about things like the buying and selling of the animal (slavery), using the animals in entertainment settings or medical testing without concent.
Laws prohibiting cruelty to animals should be sufficient to prevent any problems for the situations you mention.
Rights have no meaning without responsibilities; animal rights are a contradiction in terms.
Re:Only temporary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why not? (Score:3)
If politicians are considered people, chimps certainly would qualify.
free them and release them where? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where exactly do they plan on releasing these chimps at? NYC? These animals likely cannot be returned to the wild and would likely face certain death in the wilderness, or the urban jungle for that matter....
A bigger risk (Score:5, Insightful)
This decision will also be used precedence by the machines to decide how humans should be treated post-singularity. Choose wisely.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This decision will also be used precedence by the machines to decide how humans should be treated post-singularity. Choose wisely.
Post-singularity: wait until a political correct court rules that one cannot exclude a human soul was reincarnated in an AI, thus granting personhood to the petitioning AI and making from powering it down a murder act. And, assuming the AI cannot physically move, also granting the right to a disability pension more than enough to pay for the power bills.
No Ceasar jokes yet? (Score:3)
I'll start: "You blew it up! You BASTARDS!"
Not black and white (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. Chimps aren't human, and don't deserve civil rights. Especially not Second Amendment rights. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU [youtube.com] )
But seriously, that doesn't mean we're free to treat 'em badly. We tend to draw a black-and-white distinction between persons and nonpersons. If it's a nonperson, we can do whatever we want with it, torture, butchery, it's all good. But it's not that simple. Living things exist on a spectrum of intelligence and "person-ness", from bacteria to plants to fish to cats to chimpanzees (and from fertilized egg to full-term fetus, if you want to go there). Our morality needs to reflect that.
So no, chimps don't get rights. But they should get the respect they're due as almost-persons.
Re:Not black and white (Score:5, Funny)
Easy Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: declare chimps person and demand they be released
Step 2: arrest now-homeless person-chimps for trespassing
Step 3: make incarcerated person-chimps do whatever they were doing before as prison labor
Animal rights activists (Score:5, Insightful)
As humans, I believe we have a responsibility to treat creatures with a humane stewardship but this lawsuit is pushing an agenda other than humane stewardship. This is the exact kind of thing which makes people roll their eyes every time a vegetarian speaks up about the living conditions of feed-lot beef, or the destruction of bottom trawling and bycatch.
Bad Idea (Score:3)
I imagine that chimps imprisoned in human jails might make some interesting reality TV shows.
If they win (Score:3)
Self Determination (Score:3)
This is much more than paying taxes, it involves a wide range of social interactions including employment, self-reliance, participation in government etc.
Chimps if "released" could not function in our society. Releasing them into the wild would be a death sentence for most lab animals.
They would still need to be cared for, and are unlikely to be able to contribute much.
I do not see how a judge could make a finding of personhood under (what little I know of) American law.
Re: (Score:3)
Personhood implies social responsibility.
Not where I live. There is no tie between personhood and self-sufficiency or social responsibility. A mentally retarded serial killer rapist neo-nazi quadriplegic with lyme disease is still a person. He's a bad person who may not understand the difference between right and wrong, and he can't take care of himself, but he's still a person.
I knew it (Score:5, Funny)
Chimps legal people eh? (Score:3)
Does that mean they have to attend school? Do they have to pay taxes? Can they apply for unemployment benefits? Are they recognised as citizens? Can they not be discriminated based on race/species? Is throwing poop protected by freedom of speech?
Stop being fucking stupid you animal huggers.
Won't fly (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a much better argument that a fetus is a person and deserves protection under the law but the anti-abortion types haven't managed to get that idea recognized by the courts or enacted as law through the ballot box. I don't agree with their argument or what the anti-abortion types are trying to do by making it but I can still see some validity to their argument. Given that the courts have considered whether a fetus is a person from the moment of conception and said "no", I don't see the courts granting "personhood" to chimpanzees.
O/T: This does give rise to an amusing situation. The folks who push "personhood" for a fetus would probably vehemently oppose granting the same designation to a chimpanzee (fundamentalists see man as on a whole different level than other animals). Likewise, the people pushing personhood for chimps would be some of the more liberal types and would probably be very "pro-choice".
Cheers,
Dave
I'm worried about what the cats would do with this (Score:4, Funny)
So, if humans can sue to say that monkeys are not property, but deserve rights as humans, then what is to stop my cat from suing to have me legally declared it's property and servant? After all, that would only be making the de facto the de jure.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well if they all get out their typewriters and start randomly typing.....
Do you think they'd come up with Obamacare?
Oh wait...
Re: (Score:3)
As soon as animals can be reasonably expected to understand a contract and uphold their side of it, I'll care about whether they have the legal grounds to enter into them.
Re: (Score:3)
As soon as animals can be reasonably expected to understand a contract and uphold their side of it, I'll care about whether they have the legal grounds to enter into them.
Well that rules out corporations....
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have to understand a contract to be a legal person with rights. That's how lawyers justify their existence.
Re:Worked for corporations... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Worked for corporations... (Score:5, Funny)
So chimpanzee rampages through the streets of Manhattan killing some civilians, is put on trial (being a person and all) and is found to be mentally incompetent and placed in a special home with bars for the rest of its life. Or otherwise is found competent to stand trial and is still placed behind bars. Meanwhile a "back to Africa for chimpanzees" is started except that the law prohibits deporting persons born in the US. Later the Supreme Court rules that chimpanzee poop thrown at the president was a legitimate form of free speech, which becomes a milestone in the decline of civilization.
Re:Worked for corporations... (Score:4, Interesting)
> Corporations are run by and owned by people, not by machines. They are treated as legal persons
_...because it benefits corporations and corporations have lots of money and with that money comes power. This is a condition that predates our nation (USA).
A corporation is not a person. It is is a MOB constructed to shield that mob from the legal consequences of their actions.
As an entity with limited legal responsibilites, it should also have similarly limited rights.
It's kind of like a child or a chimp in this respect.
Re:Worked for corporations... (Score:5, Informative)
> They are treated as legal persons for very good reasons that go back hundreds of years for certain purpose.
Total nonsense. Corporations became legal persons OVER time based on greed TO LIMIT LIABILITY. Corporations want all the benefits and do everything in their power to avoid having to pay for them.
Date Decision, Legal Right Affirmed
1889 "Minneapolis and St. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith", Right for judicial review on state legislation
1893 "Noble v. Union River Logging R. Col", Right for judicial review for rights infringement by federal legislation
1906 "Hale v. Henkel", Protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th)
1908 "Armour Packing C. v. United States", Right to trial by jury (6th)
1922 "Pennsylvania Coal Co. V. Mahon", Right to compensation for government takings
1962 "Fong Foo v. United States", Right to freedom from double jeopardy (5th)
1970 "Ross v. Bernhard", Right to trial by jury in civil case (7th)
1976 "Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council)", Right to free speech for purely commercial speech (1st)
1978 "First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti", Right to corporate political speech (1st)
1986 "Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Public Utility Commn of California", Right against coerced speech (1st)
Reference:
* A Short History of the Corporation
http://cnx.org/content/m17314/latest/ [cnx.org]
Also see:
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=314 [thecorporation.com]
Specifically, "The Corporation complete film transcript (PDF)"
http://hellocoolworld.com/files/TheCorporation/Transcript_finalpt1%20copy.pdf [hellocoolworld.com]
http://hellocoolworld.com/files/TheCorporation/Transcript_finalpt2%20copy.pdf [hellocoolworld.com]
Re:Worked for corporations... (Score:5, Informative)
To add to my previous point ...
First, a corporation is effectively a psychopath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hEiANG4Uk [youtube.com]
Secondly, Corporations pay no death tax (estate tax) because corporations NEVER die. That fact right there is a HUGE problem. It slowly strips the wealth (power) out of individuals and consolidates it -- that is total anathema to the original intent of State and Federal separation and balance of power.
Thirdly, Corporations at one time were PROHIBITED from owning another corporations; again to PREVENT consolidation of power.
Fourth, Corporations can effectively print their own currency via stocks.
Fifth, the value of a Company's stock is IMAGINARY worth. The fact that a company's value can fluctuate wildly over night means the value is a total sham.
Sixth, quoting http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/157829.shtml [uuworld.org]
--
The best thing about America? Capitalism! The worst thing about America? Capitalism!
Re:Worked for corporations... (Score:4, Interesting)
Thirdly, Corporations at one time were PROHIBITED from owning another corporations; again to PREVENT consolidation of power.
If corporations keep pressing forward toward legal personhood, I wonder if you could make a 13th amendment argument against them owning other corporations...
Re: (Score:3)
That is a VERY interesting line of thinking! The lawyers no doubt would be against it but that might be one way to covertly change the current corrupt system. The bigger problem is finding an honest judge who is aware of the problems corporations create. The other problem is that corporations want to play the pseudo-person card: They are a person when it suits them, and not a person when it doesn't.
There definitely needs to be a re-balancing of corporations. I don't see that happening until the system im
Re:Inevitable inference (Score:5, Insightful)
That's wrong. Chimps, for example, are a different species; chimps and humans can't have offspring. Their brains are obviously quite different. They are also vicious and aggressive animals.
US laws are based on Enlightenment philosophy, not religion. As such, they are a mix of social contract, classical liberalism, and human rights. Enlightenment philosophers generally recognized that animals could suffer and that humans had some moral responsibility towards them, but did not generally recognize them as persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#John_Locke.2C_Immanuel_Kant [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That's the Declaration of Independence, a declaration to a Christian nation and potentate. Using a generic term like "creator" seems a reasonable compromise to convey the idea. The argument isn't rooted in Christian theology at all, it is self-evident, and the "creator" might just refer to deism, not Christianity.
Because evoluti
Re: (Score:3)
So, then, we need to put a "rights exist" guy and and "rights don't exist" guy in a cage match to the death, and whoever wins, that's how we know what's true.
Right?
Re: (Score:3)
They don't draw a line. These people would want to see those other species free as well. At least they're consistent, I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Old myth, often repeated, with no scientific basis. Based on Functional MRI dolphins are about as smart as pigs. The extra grey matter is sonar processing.
Re: (Score:3)
Corporate personhood derives from the personhood of the people who constitute the corporation. Corporations have free speech rights because their share holders have, and the share holders (by virtue of buying shares in the corporation) have chosen the corporation to speak for them. When they want the corporation to stop speaking for them, they sell their shares.
Why shouldn't groups of people be able to get together and voice their political opinions in the
Re:People Eating Tasty Animals (Score:4, Insightful)
I view PETA as a core of crazy surrounded by well-intentioned and reasonable animal lovers who just don't realise how batshit insane the leaders are.