New Effort To Grant Legal Rights To Chimpanzees Fails 341
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.
Free from captivity... for how long? (Score:5, Interesting)
If freed... wouldn't a stolen bit of food here or there (as presumably it wouldn't be able to grow or buy it's own) or some public defecation get it arrested? If it dared resist arrest might get some additional charges of assault on a police officer and result in some jail time?
Re:Free from captivity... for how long? (Score:5, Interesting)
If it came to that, you’d have to appoint an attorney to stand for the critter’s interests who would argue diminished capacity and no ability for form mens rea.
So at best, they’re arguing for defining chimps as mentally challenged persons. I think we have enough mentally challenged persons as it is, several of whom can no doubt be found on one end of the ‘versus’ in this court case...
Re: (Score:2)
In some nations they would then have to paid welfare by the government. Of course they do not have the mental ability to manage it so they would have to institutionalized. You could not turn the back into the wild because you can not just deport mentally challenged people....
Yea this is a mess.
Re: (Score:2)
You’d have to appoint an attorney to stand for the critter’s interests who would argue diminished capacity
They don't have diminished capacity; they have standard capacity for their species.
Also; they could be charged with a strict liability offense such as drunknen and or disorderly conduct, or poo-flinging, in which they commit a crime even with no mens rea.
Re: (Score:3)
Even strict liability offenses aren’t generally chargeable against otherwise normal children who lack the reasoning to understand they committed a crime. I think the most generous figure I’ve read compared chimp intelligence to that of a human five-year old (and that was challenged as an over simplification and they’re really not equivalent to a kindergartener at all).
You wouldn’t charge a five-year old with disturbing the peace for throwing a tantrum in public. (The fact that I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Zoos are generally a bit more lacking in the roof, heat, and running water department, though I’ve yet to hear a chimp complain about any of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did they want to release this Chimpanzee? Times Square?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Human children and chimps belong to a different species. You do realize this, right?
Human Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if they're also in favor of granting those same human rights to actual unborn humans.
Agree with court (Score:5, Interesting)
Please first demonstrate to me that chimps and other animals value bodily liberty, and only then we can talk to give them the right. I never saw any animal besides people to value liberty over food, water or safety. It doesn't make any sense to give some right to some subject that does not even value it or understand it. We don't even give bodily liberty to some mentally handicapped persons, so why should we give that right to an animal?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Most humans don't value their liberty over food, water, or safety. Or even TV. That's why bread and circuses has been a staple of governance for millennia.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. People will starve to death if you put them in a cage. The anti-slavery movement endured lots of blood shed. I think given the chimp a choice between a banana and the jungle, the chimp will happily go to the zoo.
Re:Agree with court (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
hyperbole. I don't recall the TSA using slaves or enslaving me when I visit the airport. They may have treated me unjustly though.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the government somehow force you to travel by commercial flight? Or do you somehow think you have some sort of 'natural right' to travel by commercial air, and anything the impedes you is impinging on your liberty? Going through security is just a condition of your taking a flight, same as buying a ticket and getting to the airport on time are. None of them are 'taking your liberties away' as they are ALL your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
But people know that they are trading their liberty for food. And given the chance, they will fight for freedom. No animal that I ever saw would do either of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All dogs would rather be a slave than to starve, not just plenty of.
I wouldn't go with wolves as my counter example. I'd go with cats.
Simple USA fix (Score:5, Funny)
Just declare chimps as corporations, THEN they'll have rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You are not ready." (Score:2, Insightful)
We're a long, long way from the kind of philosophical maturity that would let us rationalize our laws with respect to sentience, consciousness, suffering, and freedom. In fact, it's apparently pretty early for us even to have a mature conversation about it.
I hope to see substantial progress in my lifetime, but I'm not really expecting it.
Re:"You are not ready." (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
People are resistant to the idea because some of the animals we eat show signs of consciousness and suffering.
So do pets, fetuses, terrorists, and infidels. Before long, so will robots.
We seem to have few qualms about compartmentalizing our empathy based on categories like these. We do, of course, have big problems agreeing on the appropriate compartmentalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right everyone. Give up, quit trying.
The chimp didn't help his case (Score:4, Funny)
Wrong name (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Order of Operations (Score:3, Insightful)
We've done worse.... (Score:3)
As stupid as this is, it still makes more sense to me that granting corporations legal standing equal with real, live human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
"Corps as people" try to have it both ways (Score:2)
The major legal concept that makes a corporation different from a jointly-owned partnership is the idea that the corporation exists as a separate entity from the shareholders. This confers benefits, such as insulating shareholders from liability for things an "arms-length" corporation they happen to own shares of might do. But if corps want to retain that benefit, they should not expect to be treated as having the same rights as their shareholders. If they are truly "arms length" then the rights their s
These cases are a waste of time (Score:2)
How much rights animals should have is certainly a worthy discussion to have. Do some animals deserve more rights than others? Which ones? How many rights? What makes one animal more "worthy" than another? All interesting questions.
But the law is pretty clear: Animals are property, not people. Under the law, they have no rights. We already grant them the special privilege (vs. say, a car) in that they cannot be treated with gratuitous cruelty (and that's highly flexible... I can do a lot of things to
Good. (Score:3)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of the decision, I think it is good that people are forced to argue why.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of the decision, I think it is good that people are forced to argue why.
There are lots of interesting philosophical questions, and we generally don't have the time (or skill) to tackle them all. Why do you feel this one is especially important?
Re:good (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would you say we don't have time to tackle them all?
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Cosmetics are not necessary, but fighting cancer is, as it is a leading cause of human mortality.
Which is why we often experiment on chimps when experimenting on rats won't do.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
No one is saying that it "poses no ethical difficulty". They are saying we should balance the ethics of humane treatment of animals, with the ethics of curing human diseases. You are trying to make it into a black and white issue, where experiments on animals are always okay, and experiments on people never are. Most reasonable people would agree that we should treat chimps better than we treat mice, and mice better than fruit flies. Fruit flies die by the thousands in high school biology labs, and ther
Re: (Score:3)
I realize you aren't making the case that we shouldn't test on animals here. But tell that to someone with a hideous scar on their face who can't get a job.
Cosmetics aren't going anywhere so they have to be tested. They aren't tested on animals to find out pretty they make them. They are tested on animals to make sure the chemicals don't have unintended side-effects, this is the same reason we try to test medications on animals before humans. If you take animals out of cosmetics
Re: (Score:2)
I think they should ask a chimp in the wild face-to-face.
"But many don't agree that we should blind rabbits to test cosmetics."
And yet they'll still enjoy the benefits. Their cruelty-free products are build on generations of animal testing. If something contained in them is found to be risky it will be tested on animals.
"The only basis needed is self interest. Human Life > Animal Life"
"But no human life is at risk in the case of this chimp."
I'm sorry, were you unde
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are animals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well this comes to mind:
You can judge the morality of a nation by the way the society treats its animals.
-Mahatma Gandhi
Does it really matter why, some thinks this is important. It the one before us at the moment. I'd give it less weight than say the kidnappings and atrocities that are occurring in various parts of the world right now but, that's not what the OP was in reference to. While I believe granting "person-hood" to a non-human is not the right answer (look at how well making businesses persons has served us), I do believe that animals in general should be treated much better than they ofte
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if we are 99% genetically similar to these aliens as chimps are to us, then we have other issues to worry about.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Chimps aren't people. The laws for humans don't apply.
Why are Chimps not people? What exactly separates humans from non-humans?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What exactly separates humans from non-humans?
Biology, you fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are chairs not people? What exactly separates humans from furniture?
Re: (Score:2)
They both have legs you know, and you can sit on them. They aren't that dissimilar.
Re: (Score:3)
I am reminded of the following exchange:
talk show host Joe Pyne: "So I guess your long hair makes you a woman."
Frank Zappa: "So I guess your wooden leg makes you a table."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the old Creationist argument! Fascinating to see it used for such a stupid purpose! To wit:
Sayeth Duane Gish, noted 6-day Creationist, in multiple debates: "So chimpanzees and humans are 99% genetically similar, so we must be related? Well, guess what! Watermelons and humans are made of 90% water, so does that mean I'm related to a watermelon?"
Seriously, if you can't see exactly what separates Humans from chimps, then maybe you have the intellectual capacity of a chimp.
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be so sure about that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee) [wikipedia.org]
However you might not be able to understand what the chimpanzee was trying to say to you. That could be an inadequacy on your part.
Re: (Score:2)
The logical argument would be that the coporation makes more sense because it is comprised of people. The logical response to that is "Then don't they already have personhood?"
Sorry for running the thread off the rails that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Two year olds can't understand contracts or laws or rights, and yet they are afforded the same civil liberties that you are.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't afforded all the rights of an adult. For example, they cannot vote in any election, neither Federal nor Provincial.
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They will still be human children and not chimp children. That which separates us from them is at a bare MINIMUM the fact we are a different species. Everything else is gravy.
Re: (Score:2)
If we debated whether some people should have their legal person-hood taken away, would it also be good if people were forced to argue why not?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. So someone with severe cognitive impairment no long has any rights?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
there is no way I'm ever extending personhood to non homo sapiens.
Racist. These people deserve the same rights as anyone else, regardless of their ethnic background.
Re: (Score:2)
That sir was one of the most clever racism trolls I've ever seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. I found it sort of a speciest argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Not even if humanoid aliens landed?
Re: (Score:3)
If they landed, we should hope they would extend personage / suffrage to us.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, not even humanoid aliens.
I would however extend them the business ends of independently targeting particle beam phalanx, tactical smart missiles, phase-plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, sonic electronic ball breakers, nukes, knives, and sharp sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that works is a board with a nail in it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's definitely "somebody home" in the case of many animals. Ask any dog lover (and dogs are much further away from humans than chimps).
People will, of course, say no, even though we're quite willing to train dolphins and sea lions to fight our wars for us. [wikipedia.org].
A bit reminiscent of the vietnam-era song "Eve of Destruction" - "you're old enough for killing, but not for voting'".
Re:Damn Dirty Apes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That someone however, cannot and will never be able to grasp the structure of our society and the laws within it.
So what? Abraham Lincoln would freak out if he were brought to our time. Stop signs and traffic lights? No chopping wood before 7 am? No hunting squirrels? Where's the outhouse? The chamberpot? Why do you change your clothes every day when they're not soiled? Sitting around all day talking to people you cannot see isn't work - it's insanity! You mean I can't just burn the trash on the trash-heap? And wood stoves and fireplaces are against the law? And your women are practically nude in public - and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Assistance dogs understand roads and sidewalks, traffic lights. traffic, etc. Dogs can alert the owner before the owner is aware of a bout of hypoglycemia, can detect and let us know about cancers we still can't detect with our finest machines, which side their bread is buttered on (a very human trait), how to share, what a bed, flatscreen tv, and fridge are for, that if we leave them tied up outside a store we're not abandoning them, to guard our property (without training), that human infants are to be t
Re: (Score:2)
I have a suspicion that good old Abe probably suspected that 150 years hence, things would be vastly different from the time in which he lived and would be prepared to accept that, just as we are all probably aware that 150 years hence things will be vastly different, even morally and ethically...and we should probably just accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
What about them? They are still human, so we give them human rights. What's not to understand?
Each society can have it's own definition of personhood, but those that defined a black person as less human than others are no longer around or are struggling for survival. Eventually societies that consider all people equal, at least in theory, will win out.
Re:Hail Caesar! (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be confusing science with metaphysics and ethics. A surprisingly common mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Name a single ethics problem that you think science has any chance of solving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? While I didn't state it clearly, my point is that you can't have a 'science based ethical viewpoint' if science itself has no basis for ethics. If there is a scientific basis for ethics, what is it?
Ethics is a philosphical, not science, problem. You can use ethics to guide your science. You can not use science to guide your ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
We already do, I can't torture my pet dog to death without facing jail time for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! Just like what friggin moron who has *ever* watched the sun rise and set can't tell you that the sun revolves around the earth.
An awful lot of science is showing that 'what every friggin moron knows' is wrong.
Anyway, what was the result? Can baby mice adapt their grooming habits or not? Seems either answer would provide some insights into the workings of the brain, and I had a hard time seeing what is wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already have primates that can communicate with humans in a human language (American Sign Language or something similar) at the level of a child.
To be clear, when you say "child," that means a 2-3 year old. They never (after a lot more than 2-3 years) get past simple two word sentences. It's not clear they're even doing that. Since they never demonstrate any understanding of grammar, it's almost impossible to show they're not just learning tricks to get a desired result.