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

[Pure]

a working definition of right

from the merriam webster unabridged:

d (1) : a power or privilege vested in a person by the law to demand action or forbearance at the hands of another : a legally enforceable claim against another that the other will do or will not do a given act : a capacity or privilege the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law --

we slightly modify as follows:

d (1) : a power or privilege vested in a member of a community by the law to demand action or forbearance at the hands of another member of the community : a legally enforceable claim--in the legal institutions of the community-- against another that the other will do or will not do a given act [or remediating the commission of said act upon the [[member]] in question] : a capacity or privilege the enjoyment of which is secured to a member of a community by law --

note this def'n is modified in my posting # 132 below, adding the phrase, after each occurence of the word "laws" [or ultimately by the recognized norms of a well functioning and just society].

 

[Pure]

rox 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.

again, mere assertion. it would seem to deny that infants are humans and that they have any rights whatsoever.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

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!

Indeed. But the declaration is actually pretty sparse.... I am still waiting for how this is going to help any primate... your naked assertion that this would allow for zoo's as long as they have large tracts of land is utterly without standing in the declaration...... Nothing said about big zoo's but if that is what you are after just propose a law about it. Include lions and tigers and bears while you are at it. I think big zoo's are cool... the North Carolina zoo is like that.

The declaration IS utterly undefined... pretending that this applies to ALL great apes.... pity the lesser apes, I guess. The hard, cold reality is that the legal penalties ONLY apply to ...gasp.... US! Why? Because presumably we alone, of the great apes, have any pretentions to understanding either the concept OR the reality of it.

The declaration asserts equality among us family members. But somehow, if a wild chimp murders another chimp or lesser primate, I don't think the gorillas, baboons, orang a tangs and humans council of family members is going to do anything about it... So my first law suit as a HUMAN great ape would be to seek relief under the principal of equal protection under the law. And the first gorillas that crosses a legal boundary without benefit of a passport or visa... well, I am sure you catch my drift about the endless, ridiculous potential inequities you would foist on us poor naked apes.

Speaking of things NOT in the declaration is your unsupported comparison about 4 year olds. But lets be clear.... if a 4 year old child insists on murdering other 4 year old children.. (such as chimps have been documented do to by Jane Goodal) we do NOT let them run around free...If we don't hang them... we sure as hell lock them away. Hell we insist children be under adult HUMAN supervision at ALL times.... Didn't see that bit in the declaration either.

What IS being created is a self-appointed group of HUMAN "advocates" who will, I suppose, pretend to be the hirsuit great apes...... and fill up the courts with silly and counter-productive legal actions were this piece of silliness to ever be adopted.

Thank God for democracy.... sometimes... and this is one of those sometimes...

By the way... compiled the results of your poll yet?

-KC

 

[Pure]

info and links

doc asked for info and the topic of great ape intelligence, linguistic capablily etc is a vast one. one center of research is the University or Kyoto.

a good list of resources on primates is at

http://primates.com/resource/index.html


one link of interest might be:

http://primates.com/morality/index.html
Scientist Finds the Beginnings
of Morality in Primate Behavior
By NICHOLAS WADE
===
Chimpanzee Ai, website

http://www.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/index-E.htm

===
papers on chimpanzee cognition

http://www.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/papers/paper.html

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

from the merriam webster unabridged:

d (1) : a power or privilege vested in a person by the law to demand action or forbearance at the hands of another : a legally enforceable claim against another that the other will do or will not do a given act : a capacity or privilege the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law --

we slightly modify as follows:

d (1) : a power or privilege vested in a member of a community by the law to demand action or forbearance at the hands of another member of the community : a legally enforceable claim--in the legal institutions of the community-- against another that the other will do or will not do a given act [or remediating the commission of said act upon the person in question] : a capacity or privilege the enjoyment of which is secured to a member of a community by law --

Ah Pure, ever the trickster.

Pure criticizing my definition of "rights": "To prove a point, she simply made up her definitions which yielded it."

Oh really? Note the phrase included in both "rights" definitions cited by Pure: "vested by the law."

Here's the trick: We've been having a discussion about the concept of rights, which as anyone concerned about international human rights knows frequently has nothing to do with law. The trick Pure's in the process of playing here is the same one he used to "prove" that Susan Kelo had no right protecting her property from being taken by the government and given to a hotel developer.

The proof? She had no right by definition because the "law" allowed the taking! Now Pure will use the same trick to grant "rights" to chimps - by passing a law that says they have rights! (As long as a politically well-connected developer doesn't want their bananas, presumably.)

 

[Pure]

reply to keebler

sounds like a bit of a rant, but i'll address some key points:

KC The declaration IS utterly undefined... pretending that this applies to ALL great apes.... pity the lesser apes, I guess. The hard, cold reality is that the legal penalties ONLY apply to ...gasp.... US! Why? Because presumably we alone, of the great apes, have any pretentions to understanding either the concept OR the reality of it.

The declaration asserts equality among us family members. But somehow, if a wild chimp murders another chimp or lesser primate, I don't think the gorillas, baboons, orang a tangs and humans council of family members is going to do anything about it... So my first law suit as a HUMAN great ape would be to seek relief under the principal of equal protection under the law. And the first gorillas that crosses a legal boundary without benefit of a passport or visa... well, I am sure you catch my drift about the endless, ridiculous potential inequities you would foist on us poor naked apes.

Speaking of things NOT in the declaration is your unsupported comparison about 4 year olds. But lets be clear.... if a 4 year old child insists on murdering other 4 year old children.. (such as chimps have been documented do to by Jane Goodal) we do NOT let them run around free...If we don't hang them... we sure as hell lock them away. Hell we insist children be under adult HUMAN supervision at ALL times.... Didn't see that bit in the declaration either.
===

KC The hard, cold reality is that the legal penalties ONLY apply to ...gasp.... US! Why? Because presumably we alone, of the great apes, have any pretentions to understanding either the concept OR the reality of it.

pure: yes, that's exactly true: us adult, rational, sane humans bear penalties. your objection fails because children's rights do exist; yet only adults bear criminal sanctions, and legal responsibilities to care.

KC Speaking of things NOT in the declaration is your unsupported comparison about 4 year olds. But lets be clear.... if a 4 year old child insists on murdering other 4 year old children.. (such as chimps have been documented do to by Jane Goodal) we do NOT let them run around free...If we don't hang them... we sure as hell lock them away. Hell we insist children be under adult HUMAN supervision at ALL times.... Didn't see that bit in the declaration either.

you are right on all these points insofar as they deal with commonsensical provisions for living together. i believe they are addressed in a rudimentary way, in the Declaration. children should be under adult human supervision at all times. this is true of the great apes individually that we import into our habitat/society.

supervision applies, in the wild, to the great ape communities; if at all threatened, they have to be protected, i.e. kept in proper game preserves: they depend on us to save their habitat, but we don't involve ourselves in regulating a functioning great ape society.

great apes in our habitat who kill would be treated just like 4 year olds who kill. i believe the Dec'n spoke of 'due process'. this means that extreme restrictions on liberty have to be reasonable and justified.

there is nothing absolutely sacred about the number 4. animals are often compared with young humans in the 2-4 range of age on the basis of tasks they can perform, problems solved, capacity to learn, etc. this is an empirical approach to animal rights as opposed to rox's dogmatic one.

 

[Pure]

small note to rox,

basing right in laws is the cautious approach. i don't believe in 'natural rights' if that means existing prior to or outside of a functioning human community or society.

but i'll add, after the word laws, [or, ultimately, the recognized norms of a well functioning and just society]

hence this modified definition:

a right is

d (1) : a power or privilege vested in a member of a community by the law [or, ultimately, the recognized norms of a well functioning and just society] to demand action or forbearance at the hands of another member of the community :

a legally enforceable claim--in the legal institutions** of the community-- against another that the other will do or will not do a given act [or remediating the commission of said act upon the member in question] :

a capacity or privilege the enjoyment of which is secured to a member of a community by law [or, ultimately, the recognized norms of a well functioning and just society]
-----

**this assumes that the laws and legal institutions of the society comport with the recognized norms of a well functioning and just society

--

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

sounds like a bit of a rant, but i'll address some key points:

,,,,,,,,,
there is nothing absolutely sacred about the number 4. animals are often compared with young humans in the 2-4 range of age on the basis of tasks they can perform, problems solved, capacity to learn, etc. this is an empirical approach to animal rights as opposed to rox's dogmatic one.

Well it was a rant but then I am just not into the debates for the sake of debates thing....

And Rox's approach was as emperical as it gets.... Homo Sapien Sapien DNA.... pretty fucking emperical, wouldn't you say? By the by.. there was nothing in declaration about 2-4 and all the other crap you posted about who gets protected when and where was NOT in the declaration either.... just in your obviously fervent imagination.

Which all goes back to my point a couple of lifetimes ago... the declaration says nothing and implies everything and is hopelessly un-defininable or enforceable...

But enough.... I took the liberty of compiling your poll for you....

In favor: very few
Against: A lot

The motion is defeated. Thanks for the poll, Pure, Next?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

basing right in laws is the cautious approach. i don't believe in 'natural rights' if that means existing prior to or outside of a functioning human community or society.

but i'll add, after the word laws, [or, ultimately, the recognized norms of a well functioning and just society]

hence this modified definition:

a right is

d (1) : a power or privilege vested in a member of a community by the law [or, ultimately, the recognized norms of a well functioning and just society] to demand action or forbearance at the hands of another member of the community :

a legally enforceable claim--in the legal institutions** of the community-- against another that the other will do or will not do a given act [or remediating the commission of said act upon the member in question] :

a capacity or privilege the enjoyment of which is secured to a member of a community by law [or, ultimately, the recognized norms of a well functioning and just society]
-----

**this assumes that the laws and legal institutions of the society comport with the recognized norms of a well functioning and just society

--

Well there's progress here in at least one respect: You've acknowledged that rights only have meaning within the context of a human community or society.

 

[Liar]

Well there's progress here in at least one respect: You've acknowledged that rights only have meaning within the context of a human community or society.

Philosphical question (to all, not just Rox): Could you envision a bi- or multi-spieces society? Provided that there were species we could interact with on a reasonably equal level, of course.

Practical question: How about cattle and pets? Don't they have (limited) rights? Afaik, it's illegal in most civilized societies to torture your schnauzer. (Although it might be legal to kill it.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Philosphical question (to all, not just Rox): Could you envision a bi- or multi-spieces society? Provided that there were species we could interact with on a reasonably equal level, of course.

Practical question: How about cattle and pets? Don't they have (limited) rights? Afaik, it's illegal in most civilized societies to torture your schnauzer. (Although it might be legal to kill it.)

Building on Aristotle's definition cited by Pure earlier, I defined humans as beings capable of rationality, a moral sense and a sense of justice. Only in relation to this reality does the abstract concept of "rights" have meaning. If there were another species that that shared those characteristics (aliens?) then of course the definition of "human" and concept of rights would apply to them, too. Without those characteristics (and possibly some others - you've made thoughtful posts related to this in the past) then I see no basis for "multi-species" society.

 

[Pure]

well, roxanne, great apes are certainly capable of rationality, one of your key criteria; applying reason to solve basic life problems; they don't do theorietical math, but neither do 99% of humans. they certainly have at least the rationality that human 4 year olds do. they also have enough 'moral sense' to enable them to live in their societies, and in several cases, to live in our society, essentially as a child in a human family.

missing from your criteria [your heritage from Rand] are all the feelings that humans have, and which they react to in others, with empathy. as the great scottish philosopher once remarked, "reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions." iow, should you happen-- as in a few psychopathic cases-- not to feel a whit of compassion for your fellow human, all the reasoning in the world will not serve to have you succeed in living socially. further, it is only because of our feelings that the 'sense of justice' you speak of, kicks in.

great apes, not to say, lesser apes and even dogs possess such feelings and their rights are linked proportionately to their having them.

 

[ishtat]

Pure, I submit that your whole argument has a flawed foundation. It is not possible to ascribe any rights of any description to an entity which lacks or is incapable of acquiring a 'legal personality' Only humans are capable individually or collectively of having such a personality. I am confident any court would accept that as fundamental.

You can ascribe all the moral rights you like but they have no legal force except in so far as they are enforced as the legal obligations of legal persons ie.humans.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

And how do you give rights to creatures who don't want them?

At the core of this argument—for me, at least—is really not so much the business of rights (which I still think is a bad way of handling this problem) , but the paradigm shift of thinking of apes as "humans lite", of expanding the idea of what we think of as human to include the great apes and chimps and bonobos, because that's what this comes down to. They go from being our distant cousins to being our retarded brothers. And it is a paradigm shift and a big one and it's going to doom this whole approach.

The history of civilization is a history of an expanding definition of what "human" means though, from family to clan to tribe to race to nation to world, so I guess species is the logical next step, but it really creeps me out to hear you say that apes are junior humans because they solve problems and feel and show the beginnings of morality, like that's all there is to it is this check list of traits. I believe humans are more complicated than any attempt to describe them. Rats solve problems and feel too, and so do dogs, and cats, and these animals are subjected to more abuse overall than are the great apes, but I don't see anyone coming to their aid.

But a while ago, if my sieve-like memory serves me, you posted a thread looking for the differences between humans and animals, didn't you, Pure? And I wonder whether that was father to this subject on whether apes should be admitted to the human family? Screening for possible objections? Of course there are differences, great and profound differences, although maybe none that come in the sound-bite variety.

Apes get special treatment because they have the good fortune to look and act like us, and humans are softies for their own reflections. Which is probably why no one's asking the cetaceans to join this moral community.

I don't know how many great apes are being tortured at the moment. Not very many, I would think, seeing as how expensive they are. There's plenty in zoos, where they're safer than they are in the wild, and I think it would be a grave mistake to send them back to the mountains.

I don't think your petition will accomplish much. I don't think apes are humans lite. I think they have the right to be left alone but I think all animals have that right. I don't like this "equivalent to a 4 year-old" business at all. It's condescending and species-centric and degrading and treats a gorilla like a defective human. A gorilla's functioning is equivalent to fully functional adult gorilla's, not a human 4 year-old's.

I think Rox has the right idea. If you want to save their habitat, find some way to make money out of it. It's unfortunate but true.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Philosphical question (to all, not just Rox): Could you envision a bi- or multi-spieces society? Provided that there were species we could interact with on a reasonably equal level, of course.

Practical question: How about cattle and pets? Don't they have (limited) rights? Afaik, it's illegal in most civilized societies to torture your schnauzer. (Although it might be legal to kill it.)

I commend to you the excellent David Brin Sci-Fi novels Startide Rising, Uplift Wars, etc.. the whole premise of which is that all sentitent beings were "uplifted" by techological superior client species, to whom the uplifted species are indentured.

In the case of the humans, it is not readily apparent who thier progenitor client was. But for their part, had uplifted several earth species, notably dolphins and chimps, who were treated as equals; albeit with specialized skill sets owing to their unigue attributes.

Great stuff.....

-KC

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

And how do you give rights to creatures who don't want them?

At the core of this argument—for me, at least—is really not so much the business of rights (which I still think is a bad way of handling this problem) , but the paradigm shift of thinking of apes as "humans lite", of expanding the idea of what we think of as human to include the great apes and chimps and bonobos, because that's what this comes down to. They go from being our distant cousins to being our retarded brothers. And it is a paradigm shift and a big one and it's going to doom this whole approach.

The history of civilization is a history of an expanding definition of what "human" means though, from family to clan to tribe to race to nation to world, so I guess species is the logical next step, but it really creeps me out to hear you say that apes are junior humans because they solve problems and feel and show the beginnings of morality, like that's all there is to it is this check list of traits. I believe humans are more complicated than any attempt to describe them. Rats solve problems and feel too, and so do dogs, and cats, and these animals are subjected to more abuse overall than are the great apes, but I don't see anyone coming to their aid.

But a while ago, if my sieve-like memory serves me, you posted a thread looking for the differences between humans and animals, didn't you, Pure? And I wonder whether that was father to this subject on whether apes should be admitted to the human family? Screening for possible objections? Of course there are differences, great and profound differences, although maybe none that come in the sound-bite variety.

Apes get special treatment because they have the good fortune to look and act like us, and humans are softies for their own reflections. Which is probably why no one's asking the cetaceans to join this moral community.

I don't know how many great apes are being tortured at the moment. Not very many, I would think, seeing as how expensive they are. There's plenty in zoos, where they're safer than they are in the wild, and I think it would be a grave mistake to send them back to the mountains.

I don't think your petition will accomplish much. I don't think apes are humans lite. I think they have the right to be left alone but I think all animals have that right. I don't like this "equivalent to a 4 year-old" business at all. It's condescending and species-centric and degrading and treats a gorilla like a defective human. A gorilla's functioning is equivalent to fully functional adult gorilla's, not a human 4 year-old's.

I think Rox has the right idea. If you want to save their habitat, find some way to make money out of it. It's unfortunate but true.

Yet another excellent post, my good Doctor, my very favorite parts are highlighted...

As for Rox's suggestion about turning this into a money making concern, well... there is a pragmatic element, of course, to that which we can build upon. Much of Africa's wilderness is currently being protected under the general incentive of promoting tourism. But clearly more is needed.

But Rox, being Rox, I was highly amused by her "let's turn this over to free enterprise" solution to yet another problem, setting aside that the "free market" on all kinds of levels is what is causing the problem of declining wild great apes populations (and a host of other "lesser" species) to begin with.

That she actually suggested "sustainable hunting" as a solution to protecting them caused to me to LOL, god love her.

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What an absurd thread.

People eat monkeys. Large cats eat monkeys. Snakes eat monkeys.

 

[Pure]

to doc and keeb who agrees

At the core of this argument—for me, at least—is really not so much the business of rights (which I still think is a bad way of handling this problem) , but the paradigm shift of thinking of apes as "humans lite", of expanding the idea of what we think of as human to include the great apes and chimps and bonobos, because that's what this comes down to. They go from being our distant cousins to being our retarded brothers. And it is a paradigm shift and a big one and it's going to doom this whole approach.

pure : this is a fundamental mis reading of the Declaration, which clearly recognizes human as well as non human. after all, who is addressed by the Declaration??? the "community of equals" is NOT an entirely human community; it has "tiers" so so say. the great apes have far fewer rights, *but some basic ones* like not to be tortured.

i think liar's approach is closer: how do you have a community with tiers of members. some with lesser rights? fortunately the *young human* analogy provides a model of an answer. no one said a gorilla was *equivalent* to a 4 year old. in fact the gorilla in the wild can do lots of things, with her fellow gorillas, beyond the 4 year old human [and his pals], e.g. survive.

it's just that the 'rights' of a 4 year old, *and their rationale, which does not reference human adults' cognizing* provide a rough model for great ape rights. there is, for example, liberty, BUT with restrictions, at least when apes are in our society. the rationale for life and liberty and freedom from torture is that they are *wanted.*

we come, lastly, to your statement

how do you give rights to creatures who don't want them?

it is plain silly. why do you think a chimp is *strapped* to a chair for certain torturous experiments?. could it be she does NOT like or accept torture?

why do you think zoos have *cages*? could it just be that else, the chimps would head out, for the nearest trees? this i'd call, 'love of liberty.'

of course, if you mean that a chimp doesn't say "i have a right not to be tortured" but just runs like hell out of the lab, i invoke the tired analogy with 4 year old humans, again. they show a *desire* for freedom from torture--they scream and try to escape-- if they don't quite think at a higher level, of a right to it.

animals do all they can to escape death and preserve life. attacking animals' right to life on the basis that they don't picket with signs saying 'we demand our right to life', and so 'don't want the right' is plain silly.

 

[Pure]

to jbj

large cats eat people. this proves people don't have a right to life?


jbj People eat monkeys. Large cats eat monkeys. Snakes eat monkeys

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

No, it assumes most people are capable of coping with predators. But I can imagine the usual suspects trying to intervene, and reason with the predators to be nice to monkeys. Maybe change the predators to a granola diet.

 

[Guest]

What an absurd thread.

People eat monkeys. Large cats eat monkeys. Snakes eat monkeys.

Great apes aren't monkeys. They're um... apes!

I've never heard of a gorilla being killed by a predator (except man, ofc) and chimps neither, for that matter.

In fact, chimps hunt, kill and eat monkeys. They make quite a big deal of it as well, shouting and chanting and winding each other up into a frenzy. And their methods are very barbaric. They also have sex for leisure and to relieve stress. Hmmm, they are indeed very human-like.

As for them having such rights, as stated by Pure at the beginning of the thread, I think it's a grey and dangerous area to get into. I know for a fact that a lot of dogs have the intelligence quotient of a human toddler... should they be afforded the same rights? Then again, dogs are domesticated and most are very happy indeed to live within a human pack, so maybe that's the difference.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Great apes aren't monkeys. They're um... apes!

I've never heard of a gorilla being killed by a predator (except man, ofc) and chimps neither, for that matter.

In fact, chimps hunt, kill and eat monkeys. They make quite a big deal of it as well, shouting and chanting and winding each other up into a frenzy. And their methods are very barbaric. They also have sex for leisure and to relieve stress. Hmmm, they are indeed very human-like.

As for them having such rights, as stated by Pure at the beginning of the thread, I think it's a grey and dangerous area to get into. I know for a fact that a lot of dogs have the intelligence quotient of a human toddler... should they be afforded the same rights? Then again, dogs are domesticated and most are very happy indeed to live within a human pack, so maybe that's the difference.

Of course you are right. Most everybody here or anywhere, I would hope, would agree that we need to protect the great apes....and every other wild species as much as we can, as far as that goes.

Let's recap:

What started all this was a Declaration of Rights to Life and Liberty for the other "great" apes.... and Pure's apparent attempt at a poll of sorts. The rational for this declaration was that Great Apes are such close relatives of ours that they are uniquely, among other beasts of the forrest, deserving of "rights" hithertoo only granted to us species-centric humans.

But as the good Doctor has ably noted above, it is NOT necessary to make them out to be "human lyte" or family members to justify protecting them.

What followed was long running argument whether the concept of "rights" was even valid for non-humans.... Everyone except Pure seems to think not.

My further objection to even the declaration is that it cannot possibly help any great ape because it is hopelessly vague and inherently ambiguous. Pure went on to reject this argument by making up dozens of examples not documented in the declaration for when and how and where these "rights" would be applied. Apparently, Pure himself to be the final arbiter for their rights, all the more reason for the other great apes to be afraid, very afraid.

Your observation on who eats who here (non-sexually speaking of course) is an interesting one and I googled to discover that for gorillas and chimps, man AND Leopards are it's only known predators... with crocodiles being an obvious threat in certain terrain... But since Leopards aren't in the family, they are permitted to have at it. I have never developed a taste for gorilla meat so the Leopards can have my share of lunch too.

I also found an article documenting chimps attacking and eating baboons so I guess the "family of equals" has other family conflicts as well. Very human like, those chimps.... well "bad human like" anyway. Actually, and more acurately, we humans have tendencies to be "chimp like" which is why we came up with laws and jails and "rights".

This is in addition to the eating of monkeys which you have noted. Second cousins are fair game under the declaration, it appears.

Your dog example is also apropos.... we do protect dogs and they are indeed clever little beasts.. well, maybe not our Scotty Angus but then not all humans are clever either.

And if our prevention of cruelty to any and all animals falls short at times, it is hard to see how some "declaration of rights" will solve anything. Particularly since we have been spectacularly unsuccessful at extending rights to humans on this planet.

I keep trying to kill this thread off by referring to it's stated purpose of a poll... which is running heavily against, incidently, but perhaps if I just quit posting to it, that would help too... you think?



-KC

 

[dr_mabeuse]

At the core of this argument—for me, at least—is really not so much the business of rights (which I still think is a bad way of handling this problem) , but the paradigm shift of thinking of apes as "humans lite", of expanding the idea of what we think of as human to include the great apes and chimps and bonobos, because that's what this comes down to. They go from being our distant cousins to being our retarded brothers. And it is a paradigm shift and a big one and it's going to doom this whole approach.

pure : this is a fundamental mis reading of the Declaration, which clearly recognizes human as well as non human. after all, who is addressed by the Declaration??? the "community of equals" is NOT an entirely human community; it has "tiers" so so say. the great apes have far fewer rights, *but some basic ones* like not to be tortured.

i think liar's approach is closer: how do you have a community with tiers of members. some with lesser rights? fortunately the *young human* analogy provides a model of an answer. no one said a gorilla was *equivalent* to a 4 year old. in fact the gorilla in the wild can do lots of things, with her fellow gorillas, beyond the 4 year old human [and his pals], e.g. survive.

I don't think it's a misreading of the declaration. What you describe is a "community of equals" where the members aren't equals; a moral community where only some of the members understand morality.

I think the Declaration's second paragraph is rather sobering and very telling. It describes holding a trial before an ape can be confined, and having an appeal and judicial review with counsel; of having to charge the ape with something or show good cause why he must be confined. I think that's very sobering.

I suppose under the Declaration, this would happen in normal, human court? There wouldn't be any 'separate but equal' facilities for apes only? I only hope he wouldn't have the right to face his accuser. (You know what they say about monkey in the court room...) You don't think these kinds of issues would be better handled by a special guardian or advocate appointed by law on the ape's behalf? As keebler points out, so much of the declaration's noble sentiments become farcical when you consider the actual implementation.

Aide from the paradigm shift of having to think of apes as a sub-tier version of humans, the sticking point here is the whole idea of a Declaration of Rights of their behalf, and the objection here is twofold. (1) Is a declaration of Rights the most legally efficacious way of protecting them, and (2) Is a Declaration of Rights actually offensive to humans? Let's talk about (2)

Despite your definition of "Rights", I think for most people the word has certain connotations.

People have Declarations of Rights. Animals have laws passed on their behalf.

Rights are something you fight for and earn yourself. Laws are something others can pass for you.

Rights are maintained by the people who have them. Laws are enforced by an outside party.

Rights are centrifugal. They radiate from the inside out. Laws are centripedal.
They're applied from the outside in.

People are free. Animals are managed.

People are empowered. Animals are protected.

There's a fundamental qualitative difference here, not a quantitative one. There is a qualitative, quantum disconnect between the great apes and homo sapiens, and it might be indefinable at present, but it exists and it has to do with the ability to maintain and understand abstract conceptual thought and to express such in language. Apes are not humans lite. The goals of the Declaration are laudable and they should be promoted but they should be promoted through law and not by declaration of rights, a grandiloquent but ultimately ineffectual means of inducing change.

If they're not a junior image of humans, then there's a conceptual time bomb hidden in the idea of rights for the great apes, a time bomb that could lead to the idea of rights for coral reefs to be undisturbed, for rivers to be unmolested, for lichens to have their own native habitat, for stones to remain unturned. Because why shouldn't all creatures have rights (which I firmly believe) and who's to say what the rights of the voiceless are?

There's nothing wrong with the idea of animal rights, and I'm all for them. But here the problem is the extending of human rights to the great apes, of expanding the human family to include them. Here you butt up against the ancient joke of dressing a monkey up in a human's clothes, and, forgive me, but for all the seriousness of the issue, it still makes people laugh.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

TATELOU

Youre correct, of course. But I'm thinking leopards are fond of chimp meat.

I just read a kewl book about the IK tribe of Uganda. What they do is use excess children as big cat bait. That is, the big cat eats a few kiddies who are sacrificed to fatten the cat, then they kill the fat cat and eat it. I'm surprised liberal towns like San Francisco dont feed kids to the cats at the zoo.

 

[Pure]

note to doc

in support of your point that animal rights "offend" humans, you make these claims among others:

Rights are something you fight for and earn yourself. Laws are something others can pass for you.

[c]Rights are maintained by the people who have them. Laws are enforced by an outside party.

oddly, this is the view of roxanne, as well; if you can apply force, you may have a right. if you can't, you don't.

there's little reason to think this position is true, a simple case being moderately "retarded" adult humans.

i think a useful doc is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed by many countries, but NOT the US. you're in bed with GWB, doc.

summary of UN convention on the rights of the child

http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf

children attained these rights without fighting for them. so your points B and C are false. insofar as they are central to your arguement about "offensiveness", that argument fails. you've proven no "offense."

there is an interesting discussion of the philosophical probs in "children's rights, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philos.

children's rights
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-children/

moral status of animals
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/

---

doc, i'm glad you agree on the goals of protecting animals and primates with laws which give humans legally enforcealbe duties. this is the same approach that was initially taken with children.

i've argued the theoretical equivalence of "defend by laws" and "declare and enforce rights"; with enough laws as to what someone can and can't do with respect to a vulnerable population-- e.g. take away great ape's liberty; torture any animal--the "rights", so called, of those in that population take shape and are protected.

for example, instead of "women's rights", one might have taken the approach of a set of laws "protecting" them, e.g. from being fired when they get pregnant. with enough laws, the situation would be equivalent to women having rights, even though the term is denied them. perhaps some male supremacists would say on Aristotelian grounds, that women can't bear "rights" because of deficits in rationality. in fact, your American colleagues (by a large enough majority) did NOT find women's rights worthy of constitutional enshrinement; and they rejected a constitutional amendment stating them.

*their arguements precisesly parallel yours:*women would have TOO MANY legal claims. you say animal claims, i.e. on animal's behalf, would proliferate.

in any case, absent recognition of women's rights, liberals like yourself have to rely on the "laws" approach, which keeps you very busy. and laws can be repealed, so you have to stand guard.

i've argued in the other thread about the clarity and conciseness of 'rights' talk; it works nicely for women. and the UN convention, now being implemented--except in the US-- suggests it works for children. there are, however, lots of other legal and official statements in US and elsewhere are to "children's rights."

but i'll admit that "rights" do not exhaust the topic of how to treat either children or animals. some basic things they are owed, however, can concisely be encapsulated in the form of 'rights.'

gotta go! thanks for participating!