The great apes--- rights of life and liberty.

[dr_mabeuse]

Repost of an edited comment:

Let's think about animal testing, about a medicine that could save your life or your kid's life but also might kill you and the only way they can find out is by testing on a monkey or human. This law makes it illegal. It's already illegal to give this drug to a human without final testing, so unless we change the law to allow testing of experimental drugs on humans, this protection-of-apes law means you won't get the drug. You or your kid is going to die.

Animal testing is still necessary. There's no way around it. They have it down so only drugs that have passed all these other tests and are known to be comparatively safe are tested on apes (monkey testing is very very expensive. You don't want to just inject them with any old crap) and only maybe one out of a million drug candidates makes it that far, but it's necessary. You can't test on human beings.

Ape testing is predicated on the assumption that a human life is inherently more valuable than a simian life. Are you disputing this?

If this becomes law, what are we going to do about that? No more new drugs? Test on prisoners?

 

[Pure]

rox,

i dealt with your and AR's 'only humans matter, ultimately' in #87 above.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i dealt with your and AR's 'only humans matter, ultimately' in #87 above.

Eh, you played some pretty word games of the sort that amuse academic philosophy types. They have no relationship to reality.

 

[Pure]

Ape testing is predicated on the assumption that a human life is inherently more valuable than a simian life. Are you disputing this?

no, dr.

i'm going by the text of the declaration. have you read it? i see no statement alleging 'equal value' of human and simian life. please point it out.

i see that it forbids "torture", but since all testing does not amount to torture, i don't see the problem.

*based on the text*, what probs to you see for 'animal [higher ape] testing'?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Ape testing is predicated on the assumption that a human life is inherently more valuable than a simian life. Are you disputing this?

no, dr.

i'm going by the text of the declaration. have you read it? i see no statement alleging 'equal value' of human and simian life. please point it out.

i see that it forbids "torture", but since all testing does not amount to torture, i don't see the problem.

*based on the text*, what probs to you see for 'animal [higher ape] testing'?

I have a little trouble with this paragraph from the declaration:

Members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release. The detention of those who have not been convicted of any crime, or of those who are not criminally liable, should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who would clearly be a danger to others if at liberty. In such cases, members of the community of equals must have the right to appeal, either directly or, if they lack the relevant capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial tribunal. [my bolds--dr.M.]

I have with trouble with the implication that apes are human's equals, either morally or under the law, and I think the idea of due process for imprisonment is just absurd. That mean that before apes could be used for research they'd have to be brought to trial with counsel. That's just ridiculous.

This declaration's heart is in the right place, but its legal tactics are wrong. If we want to protect the way apes are treated, that can be accomplished with simple laws without extending apes fallacious "equality" with humans.

The real syllogism here is:
Human lives are of more intrinsic value that simian lives
Apes are simians
Therefore Human lives are of more intrinsic value than ape lives

To try and winch up the great apes into some sort of "moral community" with humans (that's what the declaration calls it), is just asking for trouble. It's just going too far.

 

[Pure]

reply to doc

thanks for your reading and questions. i've added some material below regarding the relative status of humans and great apes.

the phrase "community of equals" seems to be causing the problem, and i agree it's provocative. in the material below, however it's clarified that there is [proposed] moral *equality* in the three basic rights cited.

the analogy with human children is stressed; this suggests, for instance that, like children, chimps would not have a right to vote. there are a number of 'human rights' mentioned in another thread that would NOT apply to great apes. similarly the "liberty" available to, for instance, gorillas does not extend to wandering the streets alone

as the material clarifies, animals generally have a legal status not much different from pieces of furniture. although animal cruelty is forbidden in many countries, you may buy any animal you please and kill it and, if you want, eat it.

i agree that it's the "liberty" right, esp., that would cause problems for medical researchers. you can't just go to the congo; buy a permit and capture a 100 bonobos, bring them back and strap them into little chairs and infect them and see if a new anti biotic would save them.

see the site for numbers, but there are only about 20,000 bonobos left and populations of all great apes are shrinking. hence the efforts to establish reserves/preserves as protected areas. for bonobos it's the Salonga National Park in the Dem. Rep. of the Congo.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/pai.html






http://www.greatapeproject.org/

The Great Ape Project: An Idea, A Book, An Organization

The idea is founded upon undeniable scientific proof that non-human great apes share more than genetically similar DNA with their human counterparts. They enjoy a rich emotional and cultural existence in which they experience emotions such as fear, anxiety and happiness. They share the intellectual capacity to create and use tools, learn and teach other languages. They remember their past and plan for their future. It is in recognition of these and other morally significant qualities that the Great Ape Project was founded.

The Great Ape Project seeks to end the unconscionable treatment of our nearest living relatives by obtaining for non-human great apes the fundamental moral and legal protections of the right to life, the freedom from arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and protection from torture.

The book, which is the collective work of a group of scientists and scholars, is a multi-faceted analysis that compels readers to question the arbitrary denial of fundamental rights and protections to non-human great apes despite the morally significant characteristics they irrefutably possess. It demands a reflective consideration of extending basic protections to the non-human great apes and forces us to come face to face with the moral and ethical dilemmas of continuing to allow these unconscionable deprivations to exist.

The organization is an international group founded to work for the global removal of non-human great apes from the category of mere property, and for their immediate protection through the implementation of basic legal principles designed to provide these amazing creatures with the right to life, the freedom of liberty and protection from torture.

====
http://www.greatapeproject.org/news.php
March 22, 2007

Beginning a movement that may propel Spain as a leader in animal welfare, the Balearic Parliament has recently announced its approval of a resolution to grant legal rights to great apes. The Balearic Islands are located in the western Mediterranean Sea, near the eastern coast of the Iberian Peninsula, and form one of the Autonomous Communities of Spain The Islands are one of the most popular holiday destinations in all of Europe

Deputy Margalida Rosselló presented the Balearic Parliament with the resolution early last summer, requesting a declaration of support for the mission of the Great Ape Project, International - to legally grant great apes freedom from torture, mistreatment and unnecessary death. This resolution has also been presented to the Spanish Government and is expected to be considered this summer after being deferred due to unrelated political issues last year. According the Pedro Pozas, Executive Director of Great Ape Project, Spain, “the decision of the Balearic Government to approve this Proposal, makes it a world-wide leader in the protection of the great apes and their habitat, as well as in the support of their rights.”

Opponents cite concern over granting “human” rights to animals. However, supporters are quick to point out that the resolution approved by the Balearic Parliament and proposed to the Spanish Government does not seek to grant great apes the same rights available only to humans. The proposition simply recognizes basic legal protections supported by biological and scientific evidence that great apes, like human children, experience an emotional and intellectual conscience similar to that of human children.

For years, the scientific community has widely recognized that great apes experience intense emotions such as fear, anxiety, happiness; can independently solve puzzles and create and use tools; recognize the past and plan for their future; and can learn to communicate in and unilaterally teach a different language to their children.

By declaring its support of fundamental rights for great apes, the Balearic Parliament has taken scientific evidence to the next level by establishing a legal recognition that these creatures are conscious, self-aware beings that should not be tortured, abused and neglected. The efforts by the Balearic Parliament to stop the oppression of intelligent and self-aware beings who cannot speak for themselves is an important step in the political arena of animal rights.
For more information on this topic, visit www.greatapeproject.org or www.proyectogransimio.org

Michele L. Stumpe, Esq.
President, Great Ape Project International

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Pure.... I, and others here, obviously have no problem with the sentiments being expressed for Higher Primates...

I, for one, certainly do need anyone pointing out for me the similarities between humans and other higher primates.... We ARE, after all, higher primates ourselves... hence my objection to this "child" analogy.. Chimpansees are more highly "evolved" then we are in the context of their adapting to their enviroment, at least until human technology and agriculture triggered an emnormous increase in our numbers and an increasing threat to theirs...

And I do not need further lecturing on the need to protect other species and biological diversity on the planet... I am a believer that we can no longer afford to be blaise about the carnage we are reeping... mostly built on the false belief that nature's abundance was limitless.... the size of the funeral pyre of species we have built on THAT belief is evidence enough.

Having said all that, you have yet to answer the most basic question myself and others have asked here...

But give me a single solitary objective from this "rights" campaign that is not adequately or perhaps more specifically and effectively addressed in our current animal protections laws? Absent any, it is just so much noise with no practical benefit for anyone, particularly higher primates.

And if you substitute "children" or "black slaves" in that question, I swear I will bitch-slap you!

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

On the other-hand, if we extinguish every other species humans can exploit the vacated niches.

 

[Pure]

But give me a single solitary objective from this "rights" campaign that is not adequately or perhaps more specifically and effectively addressed in our current animal protections laws?


our** current animal protection laws are almost a joke. watching a recent documentary of the actions of the Houston Humane Society underscored the thinness of the legal platform on which they operate.

---
**meaning, in the US, state and local laws.

---
IF you mean 'hypotheticaly', then i respond as i did in the european rights thread. *In theory* any group or individual could be 'protected' by a series of laws: e.g. 'no woman shall be denied a vote' 'no woman shall be treated as a minor in a court of law' 'no woman is to be routinely denied access to her children as a result of a divorce.' etc etc/

Simpler, however is to say, A woman has the full civil, social and political rights of any other citizen; She has a right to equal treatment before and under the law. The US BR shows both wordings, and as i argued elsewhere, the 'rights' formulation is stronger-- e.g. comparing amendment I on religion vs amendment IV on due process.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

But give me a single solitary objective from this "rights" campaign that is not adequately or perhaps more specifically and effectively addressed in our current animal protections laws?


our** current animal protection laws are almost a joke. watching a recent documentary of the acitons of the Houston Humane Society underscored the thinness of the legal platform on which they operate.

---
**meaning, in the US, state and local laws.

---
IF you mean 'hypotheticaly', then i respond as i did in the european rights thread. *In theory* and group or individual could be 'protected' by a series of laws: e.g. 'no woman shall be denied a vote' 'no woman shall be treated as a minor in a court of law' 'no woman is to be routinely denied access to her children as a result of a divorce.' etc etc/

Simpler, however is to say, A woman has the full civil, social and political rights of any other citizen; She has a right to equal treatment before and under the law. The US BR shows both wordings, and as i argued elsewhere, the 'rights' formulation is stronger-- e.g. comparing amendment I on religion vs amendment IV on due process.

In the case of a woman, it IS, of course, simpler because those rights (all) are exactly the same as they would be for a man, which is the whole point of the article.

But for higher primates, or any other animal grouping, that is hardly the case, is it?

The current "animal rights" laws may have problems, in Houston or elsewhere, but that has far more to do with "lower" primates in any case. Just how undefined and sweeping are these proposed rights you have in mind to be?

Again... cite me a single objective advantage which these proposed sweeping and utterly undefined "rights to life and liberty" would have over specific and meaningful and not "subject to intrepretation" laws for protecting certain species of animals.....

Trying to extend human rights to non-humans remains meaningless at best, and a complete distraction from the problem at hand at worst.

But it would have the consequence of creating a whole new field for the legal profession to absorb funds which would otherwise be directed at actually helping animals.

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Admit it; you want the streets filled with monkeys biting people, crapping on everything, and flinging poo at SARAH.

 

[colddiesel]

temporary thread jack.

What should we think of a society which imprisons Homo Sapiens in conditions which if the prisoners were Gorrillas the Zoo owners would be prosecuted?

What do the Gorrillas think?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

How's this declaration of rights going to address destruction of native habitat? If it doesn't, it's kind of a grand, hollow gesture.

I'd sign the damn thing even though I think it's a bunch of foolishness, and by going to such extremes they're only Greenpeacing the debate and convincing more people not to take the conservation cause seriously. But I could see this opening the door to whale rights, polar bear rights, spotted owl rights, all sorts of endangered plants' and animals' rights and that's kind of terrifying.

And I'm afraid it's going to generate a lot of resentment and muddy things badly in the legal area just as Keebler thinks. It's a grand, over-reaching solution to a problem that needs simple and specific answers--using a sledge where a tack hammer's required.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

temporary thread jack.

What should we think of a society which imprisons Homo Sapiens in conditions which if the prisoners were Gorrillas the Zoo owners would be prosecuted?

What do the Gorrillas think?

You think the gorillas are considering extending us Gorilla Rights?

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

temporary thread jack.

What should we think of a society which imprisons Homo Sapiens in conditions which if the prisoners were Gorrillas the Zoo owners would be prosecuted?

What do the Gorrillas think?

Not much of a threadjack..... Seems on topic to me. That goes with my initial comment "Be careful what you ask for"!!!

Not wishing to anapomorphize or anything, but I can only imagine the Gorilla's basic response to the question would be along the lines of "Huh?" or perhaps..."When is dinner?" or possibly "Look at the bright red ass on THAT one!")

But speaking of threadjacks... wasn't this a poll to begin with?

Pure... Where are we on the vote thing?

(Uhhhhh... I vote "no" to the "rights" proposition.)



-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If you wanna protect animals, buy their habitat and preserve it.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

If you wanna protect animals, buy their habitat and preserve it.

Actually... THAT does work. Along with armed guards to protect them.

I am not sure somebody in Madrid proclaiming their rights to life and liberty would be anywhere near as effective.

-KC

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If you wanna protect animals, buy their habitat and preserve it.

There's an even better way: Figure out how create monetary, market value in the undisturbed habitat (tourism is one possibility, or sustainable hunting), and then give the people who live there a property right in that value. They'll become the most ardent consevationists imaginable.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The real syllogism here is:
Human lives are of more intrinsic value that simian lives
Apes are simians
Therefore Human lives are of more intrinsic value than ape lives.

<lifts lid off can, exclaims at mass of squiggly worms>

How about back up a step and define "human?"

I already defined "rights" in that other thread: An abstract concept that is useful in helping human being live together in peace and to each others' mutual advantage. (Note that animals don't have any place in that definition.)

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

There's an even better way: Figure out how create monetary, market value in the undisturbed habitat (tourism is one possibility, or sustainable hunting), and then give the people who live there a property right in that value. They'll become the most ardent consevationists imaginable.

I am not sure "sustainable hunting" quite hits the note we are looking for here....

-KC

 

[Pure]

JBJ If you wanna protect animals, buy their habitat and preserve it.

This is being done as part of the great apes project. See www.bonobo.org, for example.

Sankuru Nature Reserve!
Massive 11,000 square mile rainforest reserve established for bonobos and other rare species!

Larger than Belgium or the state of Massachusetts, the new Sankuru Reserve encompasses 11,803 square miles (30,570 km2) of tropical rainforest, making it the largest continuous protected area for great apes in the world. Located in a remote area of the Congo rainforest, the new reserve is the first to protect both bonobos and okapi, a rare forest giraffe found, like the bonobo, only in the DRC.
===


http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/salonga.html

SALONGA NATIONAL PARK,
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
Brief description: Salonga is the world’s second largest tropical rainforest national park and the largest in Africa. It is isolated in the centre of the Congo river basin, accessible chiefly by water or air and is the habitat of many endemic endangered species, notably the bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee), the Zaire peafowl, the forest elephant and the African slender-snouted crocodile.

Threats to the Site: Heavy poaching for bushmeat and encroachment by militias. Salonga, with the four other World Heritage sites in the D.RC., now benefits from a UNESCO project financed largely by the United Nations Foundation, to provide funding of 4.1 million dollars for the training and equipment of conservation staff as well as for protection of the country’s bio-diversity. The U.S. State Department has also pledged massive funding.
---

FAUNA Systematic faunal surveys have begun, and most Congo forest animals seem to be present. The most important of these is the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee Pan paniscus (VU) which is endemic to the Democratic Republic of Congo where fewer than 10,000 may remain. However, it has been seen in the northwest, northeast and southeast margins of the Park (Van Krunkelsven et al.,2000).

Other primates include Angolan black and white colobus Colobus polykomos angolensis, western red colobus C. badius (VU), Thollon's red colobus, Procolobus badius tholloni, the endemic black mangabey Lophocebus aterrimus, and numerous Cercopithecus species: including redtailed guenon Cercopithecus ascanius, Salonga guenon C. dryas, golden-bellied mangabey C. galeritus chrysogaster, Wolf's mona C. mona wolfi, Allen's swamp monkey Allenopithecus nigroviridis, Bosman's potto Peridicticus potto and dwarf galago Galagoides demidovi. In savanna-like areas in the south there are several grassland-dependent species including side-striped jackal Canis adustus, serval Felis serval,, Grimm's duiker Sylvicapra grimmia and black-bellied bustard Eupodotis melanogaster.

Both subspecies of elephant Loxodonta africana cyclotis (VU) and L. a. africana (VU) used to be very common in the Park. A few still survive years of savage poaching. Other animals include long-tailed pangolin Manis tetradactyla, giant ground pangolin M. gigantea, tree pangolin Manis tricuspis tricuspis, Congo clawless otter Aonyx congica, spotted-necked otter Lutra maculicollis, leopard Panthera pardus iturensis, African golden cat Felis aurata (K), Angolan mongoose Crossarchus ansorgei,

Congo water civet Osbornictis piscivora, red river hog Potamochoerus porcus ubangensis, hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius, blue duiker Cephalophus monticola, yellow-backed duiker C. sylvicultor, bay duiker C. dorsalis, water chevrotain Hyemoschus aquaticus, sitatunga Tragelaphus spekei, bushbuck T.scriptus, bongo T. euryceros, and pygmy Cape buffalo Syncerus caffer nanus. Reptiles include African slender-snouted crocodile Crocodylus cataphractus.

 

[Pure]

Keebler Again... cite me a single objective advantage which these proposed sweeping and utterly undefined "rights to life and liberty" would have over specific and meaningful and not "subject to intrepretation" laws for protecting certain species of animals...

Doc How's this declaration of rights going to address destruction of native habitat? If it doesn't, it's kind of a grand, hollow gesture

Pure: First, as to doc's question, it's a bogus argument. The Great Apes project of course addresses habitats. Focusing on the Declaration as if it were claimed as the ONLY list of things to do for the Great Apes, is kinda silly.

JBJ's advice has long been taken. The gorilla's habitat has been the focus of many efforts:

JBJ: If you wanna protect animals, buy their habitat and preserve it.
===

Pure: Keeb, i assume you have not read the Declaration. The rights are not "utterly undefined", for example:

We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.

The community of equals is the moral community within which we accept certain basic moral principles or rights as governing our relations with each other and enforceable at law. Among these principles or rights are the following:


1. The Right to Life
The lives of members of the community of equals are to be protected. Members of the community of equals may not be killed except in very strictly defined circumstances, for example, self-defense.

2. The Protection of Individual Liberty
Members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release. The detention of those who havenot been convicted of any crime, or of those who are not criminally liable, should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who wouldclearly be a danger to others if at liberty. In such cases, members of the community of equals must have the right to appeal, either directly or, if they lack the relevant capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial tribunal.
===
pure: keeb, i return to our discusion about the utility of enumerating basic rights:

pure said earlier: IF you mean 'hypotheticaly', then i respond as i did in the european rights thread. *In theory* and group or individual could be 'protected' by a series of laws: e.g. 'no woman shall be denied a vote' 'no woman shall be treated as a minor in a court of law' 'no woman is to be routinely denied access to her children as a result of a divorce.' etc etc/

Simpler, however is to say, A woman has the full civil, social and political rights of any other citizen; She has a right to equal treatment before and under the law. The US BR shows both wordings, and as i argued elsewhere, the 'rights' formulation is stronger-- e.g. comparing amendment I on religion vs amendment IV on due process.


KEEB responded, earlier: In the case of a woman, it IS, of course, simpler because those rights (all) are exactly the same as they would be for a man, which is the whole point of the article.
===

Pure's present reponse: First, are you conceding that present animal protection laws are utterly inadequate? If so, i'd argue that it's in part because animals do not have a 'sentient being' legal status. Buying one is like buying a toaster. You can take it home and smash it.

You agree that stating "women's rights" is handy. Clearly we don't have 'either/or'; just was with the 14th and 15th amendments, statements of principle, about rights have to be supplement and implement with laws, as is indicated in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Since you recognize the utility of a women's rights statement, equating them to men, in a manner of speaking, let's try this for starters. The great apes have the same rights, as adults, as 4 year old humans. Great ape babies have the same rights as human babies. This latter does NOT rule out species preferential treatment, in terms of the amount of medical care we offer.

---

 

[Pure]

note to rox

Note to Rox. You have the bad habits of your mentor, Ms Rand. To prove a point, she simply made up her definitions which yielded it. To prove rights attach only to humans, you simply define rights are borne by humans, and simply by fiat limit our consideration to human needs.

If we look at Aristotle, we see a similar approach, though one based in empirical claims and philosophically nuanced points. He finds that men, i.e. males, have a superior rationality and sense of justice, the community of those bearing full rights is then declared to be adult males. Adult females are equated to, and put in the position of children.

Your "argument" is without empirical base and is entirely circular. As proof of the first assertion, i simply invite you to state the empirical claims contained in your argument as earlier posted. I predict: 0 items on the list.

The proposals of the Great Apes project, including the Declaration, are based in empirical studies showing that the Great Apes have the intelligence of young children, a repertoire of emotional responses, self awareness, and memory of personal history. Further they have to capabilities, as shown, to acquire the basics of a 'culture,' defined as a set of practices transmitted from generation to generation, which must be taught; it's not "in" the hard wiring waiting to be triggered like baby ducks 'learning' to follow the mother.


Rox's argument of 7-19
"Animal Rights" is a "stolen concept" with no meaning. Rights is an abstract concept related to a real thing, which is humans needing to live together in peace and to our mutual benefit. It becomes a "floating abstraction" and "stolen concept" when it's applied to creatures.

An ethic of humaneness is the correct way to think about this issue; "rights" just obscures and causes confusion. (Does a gazelle have a "right" to not be eaten by a lion? Does a lion have a "right" to eat a gazelle?)

~~~~

For your project, first you need to define "rights." I've started: It's an abstract concept. It's not something concrete that has independent existance in the universe.

We use the concept because it is useful for the purpose I cited: Helping humans live together in peace and to our mutual benefit.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Humans are beings capable of rationality, a moral sense and a sense of justice; the community to which the abstract concept of "rights" applies is humans.

To repeat: "Rights" is an abstract concept, created for a particular purpose, which is the functioning of human societies. This is the concept's connection to reality. Applying it to some other aspect of reality makes it as meaningless as applying the concept of "democracy" to a truck.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Pure: First, as to doc's question, it's a bogus argument. The Great Apes project of course addresses habitats. Focusing on the Declaration as if it were claimed as the ONLY list of things to do for the Great Apes, is kinda silly.

Well I don't know. I went to your page and I read your damned declaration. I read your opening article. I don't have time nor inclination to wade through pages and pages of this crap. Why don;t you summarize these things in your opening statement about gorillas taking over the fucking world?

I hope you're happy together!

EITED TO ADD: Honest to God, All I can see now is a big line of people and chimps holding hands on the beach, dancing and singing "We Are The World". A moral community.

As my grandmother would have said, "Leave me alone! What do you want from me already?"