NationStates Jolt Archive

The defense team for a chimp in Austria, named Hiasl, are suing for him to be declared a person so he can receive donations for care. This will soon be a milestone in the eventual multi-species legal world we will soon live in. I look forward to the day when we have a real chimp president and not a dummy chimp. But seriously, being against this is racist.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_re_eu/chimp_challenge)

VIENNA, Austria - In some ways, Hiasl is like any other Viennese: He indulges a weakness for pastry, likes to paint and enjoys chilling out watching TV. But he doesn't care for coffee, and he isn't actually a person — at least not yet.

In a case that could set a global legal precedent for granting basic rights to apes, animal rights advocates are seeking to get the 26-year-old male chimpanzee legally declared a "person."

Hiasl's supporters argue he needs that status to become a legal entity that can receive donations and get a guardian to look out for his interests.

"Our main argument is that Hiasl is a person and has basic legal rights," said Eberhart Theuer, a lawyer leading the challenge on behalf of the Association Against Animal Factories, a Vienna animal rights group.

"We mean the right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right to freedom under certain conditions," Theuer said.

"We're not talking about the right to vote here."

The campaign began after the animal sanctuary where Hiasl (pronounced HEE-zul) and another chimp, Rosi, have lived for 25 years went bankrupt.

Activists want to ensure the apes don't wind up homeless if the shelter closes. Both have already suffered: They were captured as babies in Sierra Leone in 1982 and smuggled in a crate to Austria for use in pharmaceutical experiments. Customs officers intercepted the shipment and turned the chimps over to the shelter.

Their food and veterinary bills run about $6,800 a month. Donors have offered to help, but there's a catch: Under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal donations.

Organizers could set up a foundation to collect cash for Hiasl, whose life expectancy in captivity is about 60 years. But without basic rights, they contend, he could be sold to someone outside Austria, where the chimp is protected by strict animal cruelty laws.

"If we can get Hiasl declared a person, he would have the right to own property. Then, if people wanted to donate something to him, he'd have the right to receive it," said Theuer, who has vowed to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

Austria isn't the only country where primate rights are being debated. Spain's parliament is considering a bill that would endorse the Great Ape Project, a Seattle-based international initiative to extend "fundamental moral and legal protections" to apes.

If Hiasl gets a guardian, "it will be the first time the species barrier will have been crossed for legal 'personhood,'" said Jan Creamer, chief executive of Animal Defenders International, which is working to end the use of primates in research.

Paula Stibbe, a Briton who teaches English in Vienna, petitioned a district court to be Hiasl's legal trustee. On April 24, Judge Barbara Bart rejected her request, ruling Hiasl didn't meet two key tests: He is neither mentally impaired nor in an emergency.

Although Bart expressed concern that awarding Hiasl a guardian could create the impression that animals enjoy the same legal status as humans, she didn't rule that he could never be considered a person.

Martin Balluch, who heads the Association Against Animal Factories, has asked a federal court for a ruling on the guardianship issue.

"Chimps share 99.4 percent of their DNA with humans," he said. "OK, they're not homo sapiens. But they're obviously also not things — the only other option the law provides."

Not all Austrian animal rights activists back the legal challenge. Michael Antolini, president of the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said he thinks it's absurd.

"I'm not about to make myself look like a fool" by getting involved, said Antolini, who worries that chimpanzees could gain broader rights, such as copyright protections on their photographs.

But Stibbe, who brings Hiasl sweets and yogurt and watches him draw and clown around by dressing up in knee-high rubber boots, insists he deserves more legal rights "than bricks or apples or potatoes."

"He can be very playful but also thoughtful," she said. "Being with him is like playing with someone who can't talk."

A date for the appeal hasn't been set, but Hiasl's legal team has lined up expert witnesses, including Jane Goodall, the world's foremost observer of chimpanzee behavior.

"When you see Hiasl, he really comes across as a person," Theuer said.

"He has a real personality. It strikes you immediately: This is an individual. You just have to look him in the eye to see that."

Wow, this is just so stupid, that I actually felt some brain cells dying.

Wow. I farked up "they're". :headbang: :eek: :(

At one time, many people didn't consider black persons to be human. Other times, Jews were considered subhuman.

But let's face it, a chimpanzee isn't human.

Chimps are in all probability superior.

At one time, many people didn't consider black persons to be human. Other times, Jews were considered subhuman.

But let's face it, a chimpanzee isn't human.

Chimps are in all probability superior.

Chimps are superior, are you serious? These animals fling their own crap....

When chimps can talk, then sure, I'd be more than happy to give them rights. Until that time, I like being the species in power. Yes, I am speciesist.

Chimps are superior, are you serious? These animals fling their own crap....

Well, as a rough estimate, how many hundreds of millions of chimpanzees have been murdered, executed, gassed, bombed, mined, tortured and/or raped by other chimpanzees?

Good. Let's hope this sort of progress continues.

Good. Let's hope this sort of progress continues.

and this is progress how?

Nobody ever claimed that the world lacked idiocy. Here is another example of that flourishing trait.

and this is progress how?

Because there is no legitimate reason to deny chimpanzees rights.

The simple dichotomy between "humans" and "everything else" is arbitrary and unsustainable.

Because there is no legitimate reason to deny chimpanzees rights.

The simple dichotomy between "humans" and "everything else" is arbitrary and unsustainable.

Well the fact that we can talk verbally, can comprehend abstract thought, hold down jobs, pay taxes, drive a car, fly airplanes, build tall sky scrapers, and basically put our feces where it belong, well that kind of makes us better than them and makes us well human. That and the fact that we can cook our own meal and have a higher level of intelligence and thought.

http://www.avclub.com/content/files/images/planet-of-the-apes.article.jpg

At one time, many people didn't consider black persons to be human. Other times, Jews were considered subhuman.

Blacks and Jews fought for the rights they've earned. They demanded rights, as any rational human being would. Chimps don't protest, can't make decisions for themselves, can't demand rights in any way.

Blacks and Jews fought for the rights they've earned. They demanded rights, as any rational human being would. Chimps don't protest, can't make decisions for themselves, can't demand rights in any way.

Exactly.

Well the fact that we can talk verbally,

What does communication have to do with moral worth?

can comprehend abstract thought,

Define "abstract thought."

We know that chimpanzees are capable of extensive problem-solving skills, and use tools.

hold down jobs, pay taxes, drive a car, fly airplanes, build tall sky scrapers,

None of this has the slightest to do with morality.

and basically put our feces where it belong,

In the rivers from which we drink?

Humans didn't like other humans being better off, so they created the concept of "fairness" and the concept of "rights", chimps can't understand or appreciate stuff like that.

Chimps are superior, are you serious? These animals fling their own crap....

At least they do it with their hands, and not their mouths.

Well the fact that we can talk verbally, can comprehend abstract thought, hold down jobs, pay taxes, drive a car, fly airplanes, build tall sky scrapers, and basically put our feces where it belong, well that kind of makes us better than them and makes us well human. That and the fact that we can cook our own meal and have a higher level of intelligence and thought.

"Rights" doesn't mean "higher level of intelligence and thought." And you should be rather grateful for that fact, or else you and all the other mortals would be keening in your prisons while I would be enjoying a life of luxury and abundance.

Blacks and Jews fought for the rights they've earned. They demanded rights, as any rational human being would. Chimps don't protest, can't make decisions for themselves, can't demand rights in any way.

Of course they can make decisions for themselves. Saying they can't demand rights is only supported by the fact that we haven't heard them do so. Which is silly. Babies can't demand rights either, but that's because they don't know the concept of rights.

And babies get rights without having to "fight for" them in the form of being slaves for generation after generation or turned into a fucking lampshade. Don't glorify disgusting bigotry against groups of people by saying the process was "earning their rights," like some sort of perverse hazing ritual.

Of course the chimps won't be giver personhood.

They can't be taxed. ;)

Chimps don't protest,

Not verbally, no.

But I doubt they show themselves perfectly content with imprisonment.

can't make decisions for themselves,

Like all animals, they can and do.

can't demand rights in any way.

Try attacking a chimpanzee.

See how long it takes before the chimp defends its right not to be attacked.

But I doubt they show themselves perfectly content with imprisonment.

Try attacking a chimpanzee.

See how long it takes before the chimp defends its right not to be attacked.

You're describing instinctive reactions, which don't show a concept of rights. All animals are not happy when imprisoned or attacked. You want to give rights to bees now?

Nobody ever claimed that the world lacked idiocy. Here is another example of that flourishing trait.Couldn't agree more. Sentient beings should be protected from the predation of each other to as great an extent as humanly possible. That they aren't already is just plain psychopathic.

Ok, how about this, the day that a chimp can make an informed decision about who to vote for for President, is the day that they get rights.

When chimps can talk, then sure, I'd be more than happy to give them rights. Until that time, I like being the species in power. Yes, I am speciesist.

Uh yeah, speech is not at all a sign of intelligence as Jar-Jar Binks and Qui-gon Jinn effectively demonstrated in Star Wars Episode I.

Because there is no legitimate reason to deny chimpanzees rights.

The simple dichotomy between "humans" and "everything else" is arbitrary and unsustainable.

I'm glad I'm not alone.

Well the fact that we can talk verbally, can comprehend abstract thought, hold down jobs, pay taxes, drive a car, fly airplanes, build tall sky scrapers, and basically put our feces where it belong, well that kind of makes us better than them and makes us well human. That and the fact that we can cook our own meal and have a higher level of intelligence and thought.

Are you sure feces belong where they put them? All that you stated are aspects of humans that are parallel, but largely unrealted to intelligence. Termites can build skyscrapers, thank you very much.

"Rights" doesn't mean "higher level of intelligence and thought." And you should be rather grateful for that fact, or else you and all the other mortals would be keening in your prisons while I would be enjoying a life of luxury and abundance.



Of course they can make decisions for themselves. Saying they can't demand rights is only supported by the fact that we haven't heard them do so. Which is silly. Babies can't demand rights either, but that's because they don't know the concept of rights.

And babies get rights without having to "fight for" them in the form of being slaves for generation after generation or turned into a fucking lampshade. Don't glorify disgusting bigotry against groups of people by saying the process was "earning their rights," like some sort of perverse hazing ritual.

Good point.

You're describing instinctive reactions, which don't show a concept of rights.

True. So?

"Human rights" are not a non-contingent product of our genius. They are precepts that are founded in "instinctive reactions."

Ok, how about this, the day that a chimp can make an informed decision about who to vote for for President, is the day that they get rights.

Let's just not apply that condition to the US public too. Else we'll really be in trouble, right?

Ok, how about this, the day that a chimp can make an informed decision about who to vote for for President, is the day that they get rights.How about this instead; the day we cut out the idiotic authoritarianism and stop infringing on the buggers, they'll lose the right to vote?

Besides, I seriously doubt chimps are capable of electing worse leaders than we routinely do.

Of course they can make decisions for themselves. Saying they can't demand rights is only supported by the fact that we haven't heard them do so. Which is silly. Babies can't demand rights either, but that's because they don't know the concept of rights.

And babies get rights without having to "fight for" them in the form of being slaves for generation after generation or turned into a fucking lampshade. Don't glorify disgusting bigotry against groups of people by saying the process was "earning their rights," like some sort of perverse hazing ritual.

Heh. Hung up on babies, are we? A chip off the old Peter Singer block. ;)

Humans have rights. A baby is an immature human. It's not a separate species from its mature form. A chimp is always going to be a chimp. When they start demanding rights, let us know.

As for 'earning' rights, by demanding them - that's how it happens. Blacks beat Jim Crow by demanding rights, as did Jews. Jews gained equality only after terrible abuse, as did blacks. I never claimed that abuse to be necessary to their ultimate gains, so you can get off the pedistal, thanks.

Let's just not apply that condition to the US public too. Else we'll really be in trouble, right?

Being an idiot and being an animal are two separate things. Being an idiot means that you're too damn lazy to do anything or educate yourself on anything. Being an animal means that you can't help it. Like I said, the day a chimp make an informed decision about who to vote for President in an election is the day they get rights.

Ok, how about this, the day that a chimp can make an informed decision about who to vote for for President, is the day that they get rights.

If people like you keep running things, we won't know if that day can come.

Let's just not apply that condition to the US public too. Else we'll really be in trouble, right?

At least the public can know the concept of a "Republican" and a "Democrat" and show great ability into differentiating the two, as similar as they are.

If people like you keep running things, we won't know if that day can come.

I am running things? Sweet....

*nukes the Middle East*

There, that takes care of that.

It's not a separate species from its mature form.

So?

Not verbally, no.

But I doubt they show themselves perfectly content with imprisonment.



Like all animals, they can and do.



Try attacking a chimpanzee.

See how long it takes before the chimp defends its right not to be attacked.

Instinct suddenly equals rational thought?

Heh. Hung up on babies, are we? A chip off the old Peter Singer block. ;)

Humans have rights. A baby is an immature human. It's not a separate species from its mature form. A chimp is always going to be a chimp. When they start demanding rights, let us know.

As for 'earning' rights, by demanding them - that's how it happens. Blacks beat Jim Crow by demanding rights, as did Jews. Jews gained equality only after terrible abuse, as did blacks. I never claimed that abuse to be necessary to their ultimate gains, so you can get off the pedistal, thanks.

Just because they can't speak to us doesn't mean they don't want rights. They may think a bit differently.

Being an idiot and being an animal are two separate things. Being an idiot means that you're too damn lazy to do anything or educate yourself on anything. Being an animal means that you can't help it. Like I said, the day a chimp make an informed decision about who to vote for President in an election is the day they get rights.

You, my friend, are an animal, as all humans are.

Instinct suddenly equals rational thought?

Chimpanzees possess both, so we need not worry.

(My point actually was subtler - chimpanzees can demonstrate the behaviors of protest one would expect from a creature incapable of human communication who is not a part of human society. We cannot prove they are inferior from the fact that they cannot speak in our terms.)

So?

So, a baby becomes a rational human being as it grows. A baby chimp becomes an adult chimp.

He should be able to receive care donations and have a guardian, and I'm in favor of certain rights for all animals.. but getting them legally declared as people just doesn't make sense. I mean, what if that chimpanzee later attacked someone (not that chimp attacks are common, but it's hilarious to think about). Would we then have to try him and give him a jail sentence?

At least they do it with their hands, and not their mouths.

Aren't rights more or less flinging crap with our mouths?

"I'm worse off than you, I think I shall invent a concept that will mean that you will have to work to bring me closer to your level"

Just because they can't speak to us doesn't mean they don't want rights. They may think a bit differently.

They certainly would have preferences. And it does no one good to have them abused. But that doesn't provide grounds to give them legal personhood.

When chimps can talk, then sure, I'd be more than happy to give them rights. Until that time, I like being the species in power. Yes, I am speciesist.

So just because chimps can't speak (though they can of course still communicate verbally) means they shouldn't have the right to be protected?

So, a baby becomes a rational human being as it grows. A baby chimp becomes an adult chimp.

Babies don't have to "fight for" or "earn" their rights and yet they have them.

At least the public can know the concept of a "Republican" and a "Democrat" and show great ability into differentiating the two, as similar as they are.

Heh! Democrats have blue, Republicans have red. Yes, it's incredibly difficult to tell these apart.

Being an idiot and being an animal are two separate things. Being an idiot means that you're too damn lazy to do anything or educate yourself on anything. Being an animal means that you can't help it.

The difference is irrelevant. If anything, you've shown that idiots don't deserve their rights - since they are lazy and whatnot - whereas animals do deserve and need them.

Like I said, the day a chimp make an informed decision about who to vote for President in an election is the day they get rights.

Like I said, if that is the prerequisite for having rights than 300 million Americans shouldn't have rights.

Ok, how about this, the day that a chimp can make an informed decision about who to vote for for President, is the day that they get rights.

Cool. So I'll just go grab my butcher knife and kill some chimps by stabbing them hundreds of times in the neck.

Chimpanzees possess both, so we need not worry.

Fine, let the chimp learn how to write and put its thoughts down so communication with humans will be possible. I'm sure since the chimp is equal in all ways such a feat shouldn't be too difficult. I'm sure eventually it will produce the Great Chimp Novel. Or if that is too much to ask for, a Hardy Boys book.

Why would they want to be taxed?

Babies don't have to "fight for" or "earn" their rights and yet they have them.

Again, the species that babies belong to accords them rights, by virtue of their being human, and sharing human rational capacity - a necessary consequence of being human, all things being equal. If chimps were given rights, those rights would similarly extend to baby chimps, I'm sure.

So, a baby becomes a rational human being as it grows.

But it is not rational as a baby.

Why does it matter what it will grow to become?

Cool. So I'll just go grab my butcher knife and kill some chimps by stabbing them hundreds of times in the neck.

The right not to be brutally killed isn't the same thing as a right to legal personhood. I don't think anyone here is opposing basic animal cruelty laws. Could be, but I doubt it.

Babies don't have to "fight for" or "earn" their rights and yet they have them.

What about by growing up?

Again, the species that babies belong to accords them rights, by virtue of their being human, and sharing human rational capacity - a necessary consequence of being human, all things being equal.

Oh? So I guess babies don't have to demand and earn their rights?

I thought you wanted to see a chimp demand and thus earn it's right.

Well, I want to see a baby human do the same. That's not so much to ask.

Babies don't have to "fight for" or "earn" their rights and yet they have them.
That is simply because a society that began arbitrarily killing off its infant population would very quickly cease to be. Similarly, one where babies were regularly abused or malnourished would soon find itself overrun with deranged and physically deformed adults.

But it is not rational as a baby.

Why does it matter what it will grow to become?

We tend to judge things by their ultimate worth - their potential. A baby, allowed to grow, becomes a mature human being. That transformation involves a shift from simple sentience to rational existence.

That is simply because a society that began arbitrarily killing off its infant population would very quickly cease to be.

Most human societies have survived with far higher infant mortality rates than ours.

Most human societies have survived with far higher infant mortality rates than ours.

Yes but that wasn't due to societies intervention.

We tend to judge things by their ultimate worth - their potential.

Why does the fact that in sufficient time a baby will become a rational human being MATTER?

We only judge things by their potential when we are concerned for their utility to us - not in questions of intrinsic worth.

We tend to judge things by their ultimate worth - their potential. A baby, allowed to grow, becomes a mature human being. That transformation involves a shift from simple sentience to rational existence.

Which is something a chimp will never do. But maybe chimps will grow up and do something other than learn how to throw their feces farther than all chimps before them. Give them equal rights!

*nods*

Oh? So I guess babies don't have to demand and earn their rights?

I thought you wanted to see a chimp demand and thus earn it's right.

Well, I want to see a baby human do the same. That's not so much to ask.

The baby human will demand its rights, given time. A baby chimp never will. It doesn't get more simple than that.

Really, a good Singerite should've been onto brainstem detachment or mental impairment by now.. :p

Yes but that wasn't due to societies intervention.

"Babies don't matter morally. Therefore, we should stop wasting health care dollars on them."

Why don't we adopt that logic?

It doesn't get more simple than that.

In the future, sperm cells may become full human beings.

Is masturbation mass murder?

"Babies don't matter morally. Therefore, we should stop wasting health care dollars on them."

Why don't we adopt that logic?

Because then the population drops and people complain.

In the future, sperm cells may become full human beings.

Is masturbation mass murder?

A sperm cell is going to become a person all on its own?

Most human societies have survived with far higher infant mortality rates than ours.
Yes, but those rates were higher because of "natural" causes, not because the society condoned the infant's mother getting bored one night and deciding to see if one could make baby back ribs out of a real baby. (You can, but the process is long, difficult and generally not worth the cover-up).

A sperm cell is going to become a person all on its own?

An infant is going to become an adult all on its own?

In the future, sperm cells may become full human beings.

Is masturbation mass murder?

This is a thread about giving chimps rights, the abortion thread is over there *points*

Because then the population drops

Plenty of human societies have had population increases with high infant mortality rates.

Why does the fact that in sufficient time a baby will become a rational human being MATTER?

We only judge things by their potential when we are concerned for their utility to us - not in questions of intrinsic worth.

I don't think we're as selfish as that, as a species. Individuals are, but decency impells us to consider a thing's ultimate worth, rather than its temporary state. We don't commit suicide when we get the flu, and we don't euthanise our pets for minor ear infections, etc. We think of its ultimate value. Similarly, we protect endangered species whose ultimate usefulness is dubious. We devote more time and energy saving the last breeding pair of California Condor than we do one of a billion fieldmice. Potential does matter, absolutely.

This is a thread about giving chimps rights, the abortion thread is over there *points*

The "potential rationality" argument is exactly the same point.

If we could teach animals to tell the difference between "they're" and "their" they would certainly be entitled to the same rights as the OP :p

An infant is going to become an adult all on its own?

Never said the infant would. But I'd say that with assistance the infant will make it but the individual sperm cell hardly has that same assurance given it is one among millions. But all this is pointless, a human baby will grow up and become aware of itself and be capable of rational thought. A chimp cannot do this or we would be having conversations with them by now. They are animals, pure and simple. Clever animals sure, but still not on the level of humans.

The "potential rationality" argument is exactly the same point.

And a chimp has no potential. It will simply be an animal living its simple existence. How it can compare to a human is beyond me. It certainly won't learn how to write or communicate with us in some other fashion and be able to join in this debate will it?

We don't commit suicide when we get the flu, and we don't euthanise our pets for minor ear infections, etc. We think of its ultimate value.

Here you are considering the future-oriented interests of a being whose moral status HAS ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED. People who have the flu are rational. Pets with ear infections are sentient.

Babies have not yet achieved the characteristics upon which you base the elevated moral status of humans.

Similarly, we protect endangered species whose ultimate usefulness is dubious.

Yes, but that is because we see the preservation of the SPECIES as important, and the preservation of individuals as far less so. It is not a matter of potential.

We devote more time and energy saving the last breeding pair of California Condor than we do one of a billion fieldmice.

Exactly.

If we were concerned for potential, we would save the billion fieldmice, knowing that those billion fieldmice will produce billions more fieldmice.

But all this is pointless, a human baby will grow up and become aware of itself and be capable of rational thought.

Potential doesn't matter.

Neither you nor Pepe Dominguez have made anything close to a reasonable argument as to why it should.

A chimp cannot do this or we would be having conversations with them by now.

Human communication is not synonymous with rational thought and self-awareness, both of which chimpanzees demonstrate.

It will simply be an animal living its simple existence.

How is its existence substantively different from ours?

Exactly.

If we were concerned for potential, we would save the billion fieldmice, knowing that those billion fieldmice will produce billions more fieldmice.

Or we could see the future potential of the condors to reclaim their status in the world. We don't just look at simple numbers or we would ignore all species and focus on rodents. Besides, a fieldmouse has no more potential than a condor. Both are simple animals after all.

Here you are considering the future-oriented interests of a being whose moral status HAS ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED. People who have the flu are rational. Pets with ear infections are sentient.

Babies have not yet achieved the characteristics upon which you base the elevated moral status of humans.



Yes, it was an analogy. No analogy is perfect, which is why they are often discouraged. But it's the internet, and I enjoy analogy. ;) The common thread is "potential" in estimating value. Immaturity is a condition that affects a baby until it becomes rational. An ear infection is a condition that cripples a pet until it is cured. We are best served by judging each by its potential, not by taking a snapshot of its temporary state and basing our decisions on that.

What is the difference between humans demanding rights via language and chimps demanding rights via their own communication techniques?

Yes, but that is because we see the preservation of the SPECIES as important, and the preservation of individuals as far less so. It is not a matter of potential.

QFT

Potential doesn't matter.

Neither you nor Pepe Dominguez have made anything close to a reasonable argument as to why it should.

So you say. A human baby while being not fully developed mentally could one day grow up to something great, being an artist, engineer, etc., etc. What exactly is a chimp going to grow up to be?

Human communication is not synonymous with rational thought and self-awareness, both of which chimpanzees demonstrate.

So a chimp can not show us in anyway whatsoever that he/she is as intelligent as we are but we are just supposed to assume they are just equal in that regard as we are? Having some kind of communication skill sounds like a requirement for intelligence, how else would they be able to communicate any kind of complex idea to others of its species? Unless of course, it has no such complex ideas.

How is its existence substantively different from ours?

I suppose their lives come anywhere near the quality of humans?

What is the difference between humans demanding rights via language and chimps demanding rights via their own communication techniques?

What communication techniques are they using exactly to demand their rights?

An ear infection is a condition that cripples a pet until it is cured.

But the moral worth of the pet is NOT potential. It is actual.

Once that is the case, yes, future-oriented preferences are worthy of respect.

QFT

I disagree. ;)

The potential of the last breeding pair of a species is to save that species. The same can't be said for one of a billion fieldmice. Not the greatest example, but it's one where we assign worth based in part on potential.

What is the difference between humans demanding rights via language and chimps demanding rights via their own communication techniques?
That would be a valid question if chimps were actually demanding rights, but they're not. Even when taught sign language, primates don't express complex ideas (such as a desire to receive equitable treatment under the law), but limit themselves to simple, immediate statements and requests.

So you say. A human baby while being not fully developed mentally could one day grow up to something great, being an artist, engineer, etc., etc.

So?

What exactly is a chimp going to grow up to be?

Chimpanzee societies undoubtedly have members of exceptional talent, too.

So a chimp can not show us in anyway whatsoever that he/she is as intelligent as we are but we are just supposed to assume they are just equal in that regard as we are?

No, there are other ways to tell.

Having some kind of communication skill sounds like a requirement for intelligence, how else would they be able to communicate any kind of complex idea to others of its species?

For particularly complex ideas, sure.

But so what? What moral difference does it make?

I suppose their lives come anywhere near the quality of humans?

Um... yes?

I disagree. ;)

The potential of the last breeding pair of a species is to save that species. The same can't be said for one of a billion fieldmice. Not the greatest example, but it's one where we assign worth based in part on potential.

Yeah you are sort of right, potential does become important when you get down to really low numbers. I don't really see what worth that is in this thread though.

That would be a valid question if chimps were actually demanding rights, but they're not. Even when taught sign language, primates don't express complex ideas (such as a desire to receive equitable treatment under the law), but limit themselves to simple, immediate statements and requests.

And despite this people argue that chimps are the equal to humans. That they simply have intelligence and for whatever reason can't or won't express it to us.

That would be a valid question if chimps were actually demanding rights, but they're not. Even when taught sign language, primates don't express complex ideas (such as a desire to receive equitable treatment under the law), but limit themselves to simple, immediate statements and requests.

So our ability for unlimited foresight is part of what makes us who we are? That's a good point.

Yeah you are sort of right, potential does become important when you get down to really low numbers. I don't really see what worth that is in this thread though.

It's relevant to the topic of babies, which itself isn't particularly relevant to the question of whether chimps deserve legal personhood. But you can't have a debate on any sort of animal rights without babies being mentioned within minutes, so it's good to get it done with quickly, if possible. :p

No, there are other ways to tell.

And what ways are those that show this?

For particularly complex ideas, sure.

But so what? What moral difference does it make?

"So what"? If the chimp is incapable of expressing complex ideas then how can it be on par with humans? It would clearly not have the intellectual capacity to be able to share its thoughts with others. It can't be considered intelligent. So it can't be given the same rights as humans. I find nothing immoral about that.

This of course doesn't mean that we have the right to do whatever we wish to them, it is what animal cruelty laws are there for after all.

And what ways are those that show this?

We can examine their behaviors and societies for indications of rational thought.

If the chimp is incapable of expressing complex ideas then how can it be on par with humans?

Intellectually, it can't be.

Morally, why not?

We can examine their behaviors and societies for indications of rational thought.

And I await some kind of proof of intelligence from these sorts of studies.

Intellectually, it can't be.

Morally, why not?

So if a chimp can not be on the same intelligence level as humans on what basis do we give them rights? It seems to me that morally we only have to not mistreat the animal. Beyond that I don't see what we need to do for them.

Chimps are superior, are you serious? These animals fling their own crap....

Visit a few psych wards and you will find humans do the same thing.

First off, I think it is important in this case to make a distinction between "monkeys" as a whole and the great apes, who are by and large vastly much more intelligent and capable of tool use and symbolic thought.

It may interest people to know that recent research, much of it done by the Great Ape Project mentioned in the OP is starting to indicate that the great apes, especially Bonobos, are actually a great deal more intelligent than we have given them credit for in the past, some of them with IQs of as high as 85 (if I recall correctly).

Indeed, the Chomskian idea that language is a uniquely human capability is being gradually called into question as well. A number of apes have now been observed doing things previously thought impossible, such as producing novel sentences and teaching language to their offspring. They have been observed formulating and subsequently following syntactic rules, and even compounding previously known words in order to refer to objects that they would have otherwise been unable to name.

Much of this has been called into question by various parties, but it is nonetheless intriguing. Something which I do not see a great deal of reason to doubt is the possibility of social uplift for chimpanzees. If people are interested, I have some particular favorite anecdotes about how much like bright young human children Bonobos under their care have been observed to act and the extent to which they are able to adopt and use human technology.

Personally, I support pan-sapient rights but I equivocate on the degree of sapience necessary (I certainly don't believe, for example, that most animals are worthy of much if any protection). From what I've seen thus far, I feel like one must at least consider the possibility that they, and other intelligent animals such as dolphins and some elephants, are worthy of at least some protection.

I'm suprised that no one has asked this question: Can we expect a Chimp to abide by our laws?

Chimpanzees possess both, so we need not worry.

(My point actually was subtler - chimpanzees can demonstrate the behaviors of protest one would expect from a creature incapable of human communication who is not a part of human society. We cannot prove they are inferior from the fact that they cannot speak in our terms.)

Yes. We can. Chimps are not humans. They are not capable of conducting an articulate, prolonged conversation. They have only picked up "skills" by being taught by humans--not other chimps. Oh sure, they pass down to their young how to dip a stick into an ant mound and how to hammer a rock. Big fracking deal. But they don't pass down the ability to point out colored blocks and different shapes. They are taught by humans. I sure as hell am speceist. What about it? They are a lower form of life. But most importantly they shall not be given "rights" because they were not born from the union of two humans. Any attempt to make them "equal" is not progress; it is digression. When they can stand up for themselevs against their "oppression" they will be given "rights." Until then, they are chimps. Not humans. No human rights.

Well the fact that we can talk verbally,
Can one talk not verbally?

can comprehend abstract thought,

Chimps paint, are self aware, problem solve, have shown a capacity to lie, make war, and have a rudimentary politics system.

hold down jobs, pay taxes, drive a car, fly airplanes, build tall sky scrapers,

They don't need them.

and basically put our feces where it belong, well that kind of makes us better than them and makes us well human. That and the fact that we can cook our own meal and have a higher level of intelligence and thought.

It's easy to declare superiority when you define the charts now isn't it?

And I await some kind of proof of intelligence from these sorts of studies.

Off the top of my head: tool use.

And not instinctual tool use, either.

So if a chimp can not be on the same intelligence level as humans on what basis do we give them rights?

On what basis do we give humans rights?

Why do we treat other humans better than rocks?

Blacks and Jews fought for the rights they've earned. They demanded rights, as any rational human being would.
Humans are rational?

Chimps don't protest, can't make decisions for themselves, can't demand rights in any way.

You never been around them have you?

They are taught by humans.

So?

Not all human cultures teach their youth the same things, either.

They are a lower form of life.

How?

But most importantly they shall not be given "rights" because they were not born from the union of two humans.

That seems like an incredibly arbitrary distinction to me.

Should we give extra-terrestrial intelligence rights?

Humans didn't like other humans being better off, so they created the concept of "fairness" and the concept of "rights", chimps can't understand or appreciate stuff like that.

Eh?

How are things fair?

Chimps have a social order just like we do.

So?

Not all human cultures teach their youth the same things, either.

So? That's not addressing the point. And yes, all cultures do. Find me one that does not educate their children.



That seems like an incredibly arbitrary distinction to me.

Should we give extra-terrestrial intelligence rights?

Of course it is. When chimps design their own rights, we'll give it to them.

No, we should not grant extra-intelligence rights. First, because it doesn't exist. Second, it's a non-sequitor. Plus, you're helping my point. Thanks.

Off the top of my head: tool use.

And not instinctual tool use, either.

Tool use doesn't really mean a whole lot by itself. If the chimp can not understand anything but the most simple ideas then it can not be given rights equal to humans. I watched a program that featured a bird that used a twig inside its beak to peck away at holes in trees to get at the grubs inside. I don't think this bit of creativity gives the bird a sentience approaching that of humans.

On what basis do we give humans rights?

Why do we treat other humans better than rocks?

Because we have the very intellect a chimp lacks ? An ability to understand moral concepts that of course includes the basic idea of right from wrong. Is able to clearly understand the world around us and develop scientific pursuits? Religion? Can a chimp do any such thing? Of course not. It is an animal and no amount of pointing out its cleverness is going to change that. Being a clever animal does not equal any higher understanding.

Eh?

How are things fair?

Chimps have a social order just like we do.

They have a social hierarchy, and we also have a social hierarchy. They are not "just like each other." So do wolves. And elk. And hell, birds in flight. Any specialization? Bureaucracy? Elections? Nope. Not like us.

Ok, how about this, the day that a chimp can make an informed decision about who to vote for for President, is the day that they get rights.

Then you have to revoke the rights of over half of humanity.

Informed decisions while voting! :D

I'm suprised that no one has asked this question: Can we expect a Chimp to abide by our laws?

No, which makes me laugh everytime PETA talks about letting all the animals roam free through the suburbs.

Eh?

How are things fair?

They're not. But rights are one way that we've tried to protect ourselves from being treated "unfairly", unfair being a concept we invent to try to stop others from doing "unfair" things to us, because we don't want them to.

Then you have to revoke the rights of over half of humanity.

Informed decisions while voting! :D

Yay! Read the post! When chimps can make informed decisions while voting.

As of right now, they can't. When they do, we'll start considering giving them rights.

Fine, let the chimp learn how to write and put its thoughts down so communication with humans will be possible. I'm sure since the chimp is equal in all ways such a feat shouldn't be too difficult. I'm sure eventually it will produce the Great Chimp Novel. Or if that is too much to ask for, a Hardy Boys book.

Literacy is a measurement of rights? You do know illiteracy still exists in the world?

Chimps can communicate with humans. There are a few that know ASL. Washoo was even seen molding her sons hand for a proper signing.

it must be noted that any rational thought today found in chimps was of those that were around humans their whole life. Any "Rational thought" the chimp has is really just the instinctual tendency to learn things that happen in trend. You can train a mouse, or turkey, to have basic reasoning, the same thing as any other living creature capable of thinking outside of mechanic instinct. Chimps do have a relatively higher intelligence and capability to learn than said mouse or turkey, but they are noticably incapable of the 2 things humans have over all known species of animal I can think of at the moment: Empathy and foresight.

It was noticed in many tests that animals didn't show brain activity by watching one of their own species performing an action. (I.e one chimp in the room whilst the other chimp tried to figure out how to obtain a grape contained within a tube that can be opened a specific way) The chimp paid no attention to the other unless it got too close. The first chimp was removed after figuring out how to open the container, and it was given to the second. The second never figured out how to open the container, even after watching her companion open it.

But when a human watches another human perform an action (I.e let's say.. putting together a simple jigsaw puzzle) The human watching the other one putting together the puzzle is having the exact same brain activity, even though he/she is not even performing the action.

So I believe this entire scenario is the age old "Humans sympathising with a creature that does not feel it back" so in the end, THIS ENTIRE DEBATE IS NOTHING BUT POINTLESS MOOT IF YOU ASK ME! And if anyone believes animals are "innocent", it is foolish. An animal is just as capable of being evil, greedy, barbaric, and discriminating as a human, it's just that they don't have the capacity of making it any more than a "chimp to chimp" conflict, not like humans, who practice it on a MUCH wider scale.

I fail to have the ability to read posts but judging from the threads name I must say.

GEORGE BUSH IS A MONKEY AND HE ALREADY IS PRESIDENT!!!

Literacy is a measurement of rights? You do know illiteracy still exists in the world?

Chimps can communicate with humans. There are a few that know ASL. Washoo was even seen molding her sons hand for a proper signing.

Being capable of being taught writing should be an indication. Illiterate humans can certainly learn if given the chance. Can chimps?

And while they can learn to sign, can they express anything other than their simple emotions and immediate needs and desires? If a chimp has ever signed anything meaningful? Or is the most significant thing said something like "I'm hungry"?

I know this doesn't contribute at all to the debate at hand, but I thought it was interesting and certainly on topic:

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/070417_chimps_evolve.html

Chimps have evolved more than humans. If you think about it though, it makes sense. Unlike other animals, we adapt the environment to meet our needs, rather than Chimps, who adapt to their environment so they may better meet their needs.

I know this doesn't contribute at all to the debate at hand, but I thought it was interesting and certainly on topic:

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/070417_chimps_evolve.html

Chimps have evolved more than humans. If you think about it though, it makes sense. Unlike other animals, we adapt the environment to meet our needs, rather than Chimps, who adapt to their environment so they may better meet their needs.

The way I see it human DNA is going to stay pretty much the same because any changes end up being breed out. The other possibility being it splintering into more variants than most animals because the old or inferior variants won't die out like in most animals, or they're breed out like in the first case.

That would be a valid question if chimps were actually demanding rights, but they're not. Even when taught sign language, primates don't express complex ideas (such as a desire to receive equitable treatment under the law), but limit themselves to simple, immediate statements and requests.

"We mean the right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right to freedom under certain conditions"

I'm pretty sure that when these rights are infringed on the chimps aren't gonna just go with it. They'll protest in their ways- hitting, fighting, screaming etc.

I'm suprised that no one has asked this question: Can we expect a Chimp to abide by our laws?

...can an American? The US has the largest prison population in the world. Per capita, as well as total. And those are just the ones convicted and currently serving. There are those released... those never convicted... those never even charged... and all of those who commit "innocent crimes" like speeding here, jaywalking there.

Offhand I'd guess that one thing we don't really have to worry about - given the disparity in population levels - is chimpanzee crime.

Greater Trostia, the vast majority of humans are not criminals, and a good portion of those are guilty of such crimes as "jay-walking". The point is that we expect humans to abide by the law. When they do not, some of their rights are suspended.

You have not actually answered the question of whether or not chimps can be expected to follow the same laws. I've not seen evidence that they can even understand these laws, let alone abide by them.

Of course chimps should have all the same rights as humans. After all, as a species we're just awful. I mean we actually have WARS !!!!111!~@2!! Chimps should be in charge of things really. Then there wouldn't be any fighting, ever.

Isn't my misanthropy so alternative? Aren't I cool?

They have a social hierarchy, and we also have a social hierarchy. They are not "just like each other." So do wolves. And elk. And hell, birds in flight. Any specialization? Bureaucracy? Elections? Nope. Not like us.

Actually they practice politics which is what was meant. So yes they are like us....

Greater Trostia, the vast majority of humans are not criminals, and a good portion of those are guilty of such crimes as "jay-walking". The point is that we expect humans to abide by the law. When they do not, some of their rights are suspended.

Maybe you expect them. I drive regularly on the road and if I had that expectation I'd be shocked and outraged at all the pure criminality out there. Most people are criminals, it's just that they dismiss the crimes they don't feel like obeying - like jaywalking! Like you just did! Apparently, it's not a crime if it's not a law you FEEL like obeying!

You have not actually answered the question of whether or not chimps can be expected to follow the same laws. I've not seen evidence that they can even understand these laws, let alone abide by them.

I have answered it. I posit that they'll follow the law with about the same stunning levels of understanding and obedience as humans do. Are you actually worried about chimp crime? Do you realize how few chimpanzees there are?

Of course chimps should have all the same rights as humans. After all, as a species we're just awful. I mean we actually have WARS !!!!111!~@2!! Chimps should be in charge of things really. Then there wouldn't be any fighting, ever.

Isn't my misanthropy so alternative? Aren't I cool?

I'm glad you find war so amusing and easy to dismiss. But I'm guessing you don't have any human lampshades in your family.

And not instinctual tool use, either.

Tool use doesn't really mean a whole lot by itself.

Ahm well you have to remember that before Dr. Goodall published her findings, the arguement of tool use was used to explain why we were superior.

Because we have the very intellect a chimp lacks ? An ability to understand moral concepts that of course includes the basic idea of right from wrong.


Selfawarenss is an important part of a moral system. chimps are self aware.

Chimps also understand what is right and wrong.....


Is able to clearly understand the world around us and develop scientific pursuits?

Chimps don't need to understand the world around them nor do they have a need for science.

Religion? Can a chimp do any such thing? Of course not.


And you know this how?

It is an animal and no amount of pointing out its cleverness is going to change that. Being a clever animal does not equal any higher understanding.

Humans are not clever animals?

I have answered it.

No you haven't, you've merely equated a group of humans with a non-human species.

Of course chimps should have all the same rights as humans. After all, as a species we're just awful. I mean we actually have WARS !!!!111!~@2!! Chimps should be in charge of things really. Then there wouldn't be any fighting, ever.

Isn't my misanthropy so alternative? Aren't I cool?

Are you trying to say that chimps don't fight each other? As I understand it they can be quite violent. And this is an example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7087194/

Then again maybe my sarcasm detector is not working. It is after 2am and my brain is shutting down.

Yay! Read the post! When chimps can make informed decisions while voting.

As of right now, they can't. When they do, we'll start considering giving them rights.

When you show all humans make informed decisions on voting, then you prove your point.

View Post
Yay! Read the post! When chimps can make informed decisions while voting.

As of right now, they can't. When they do, we'll start considering giving them rights.
Are you implying that human beings in countries where they cannot vote (due to oppression, dictatorship, etc,) do not deserve human rights?

There is a difference between being allowed to take donation, a financial right and what the animal rights activists want the chimp in the article to have... And then voting, a political right and the chimpanzee does not need. They are completely separate. No one is asking for the chimp to be allowed to vote, so why are you bringing it up at all?

Being capable of being taught writing should be an indication. Illiterate humans can certainly learn if given the chance. Can chimps?


Their hands are not designed that way so cursive writing is not possible. That is why they have been working with a symbol language and keyboards. Kanzi the Bonobo works on that area.


And while they can learn to sign, can they express anything other than their simple emotions and immediate needs and desires? If a chimp has ever signed anything meaningful? Or is the most significant thing said something like "I'm hungry"?

You are overlooking the major point. They can be taught a method of communication. They pass on that knowledge to their young(ie Washo).

I'm glad you find war so amusing and easy to dismiss. But I'm guessing you don't have any human lampshades in your family.

I don't fund war amusing, I find misanthropy amusing. What a pile of waisted emotion.

I fail to have the ability to read posts but judging from the threads name I must say.

GEORGE BUSH IS A MONKEY AND HE ALREADY IS PRESIDENT!!!

That's what I thought this thread was going to be about too.

Are you trying to say that chimps don't fight each other? As I understand it they can be quite violent. And this is an example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7087194/

Then again maybe my sarcasm detector is not working. It is after 2am and my brain is shutting down.

“Chimps can be violent at times just as humans can be.”

What was that about not being similar?

I find misanthropy amusing. What a pile of waisted emotion.

You wrote that with a straight face? ;)

You wrote that with a straight face? ;)
Yes?

Yes?

So you find yourself amusing? ;)

So you find yourself amusing? ;)
Yes I do, but that has nothing to do with misanthropy. Honestly, I hope you're joking.

The defense team for a chimp in Austria, named Hiasl, are suing for him to be declared a person so he can receive donations for care. This will soon be a milestone in the eventual multi-species legal world we will soon live in. I look forward to the day when we have a real chimp president and not a dummy chimp. But seriously, being against this is racist.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_re_eu/chimp_challenge)
Not as of yet. Chimpanzees are close on the path of sentience but they still need many thousands of years to get there fully.

That said, they should definitely be protected so they have that chance. At the moment large numbers are being exterminated because they are considered pests by farmers. Think about what would happen if some other sentient species that existed on this planet started killing off early humans because we were pests...the prevention of all of our culture, our music, our history, our knowledge...I think I need not say more to make my point.

I chose "other"...as I don't believe a chimp should be declared a person, as it goes against the definition of "person"

per·son /ˈpɜrsən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pur-suhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person.
7. the body in its external aspect: an attractive person to look at.
8. a character, part, or role, as in a play or story.
9. an individual of distinction or importance.
10. a person not entitled to social recognition or respect.

This does not mean I believe this poor chimp doesn't deserve rights. I would have to research the laws in Austria to find out why someone can't set up a foundation to accept donations, and have someone "buy" the chimp, which would effectively name that person guardian of the chimp. In the US, there were accounts to send donations to Barbaro ( a horse) with no issue. His medical care became horrendously expensive, and his owners were feeling the strain, so people stepped up. Why someone couldn't do the same thing for this chimp, I don't know. Especially with a story like this, throw it on a website, and people would be throwing money at him.

So, do I think the chimp deserves rights, yes...do I think it deserves to be declared a person...no, he doesn't fit the definition of person. If the definition somehow changes (by more than just someone declaring a chimp a person) I would change my opinion.

When chimps a.) Talk, b.) Recognize and obey the rules of society, c.) Have a job and be able to purchase their own food at any store and d.) Pay their taxes then they can be human. Not until then.

May I quote Charles Stross's Accelerando here?

Manfred sighs and raises a toast toward Annette. "You know your marriage is in a bad way when you send your spouse messages via the CIA, and she communicates using the IRS."


errr, wrong one:

"See, I've been telling Gianni for a whole while, we need a new legal concept of what it is to be a person. One that can cope with sentient corporations, artificial stupidities, secessionists from group minds, and reincarnated uploads.

When chimps a.) Talk, b.) Recognize and obey the rules of society, c.) Have a job and be able to purchase their own food at any store and d.) Pay their taxes then they can be human. Not until then.
a is not true for babies, b neither, against c, laws were passed ergo d is not possible. Congrats. You just declared babies non-persons.

Well the fact that we can talk verbally, can comprehend abstract thought, hold down jobs, pay taxes, drive a car, fly airplanes, build tall sky scrapers, and basically put our feces where it belong, well that kind of makes us better than them and makes us well human. That and the fact that we can cook our own meal and have a higher level of intelligence and thought.

Well, Chimps are about as intelligent a a four-year-old. Also, they seem to have a better conprehension of morals then humans.

When chimps a.) Talk, b.) Recognize and obey the rules of society, c.) Have a job and be able to purchase their own food at any store and d.) Pay their taxes then they can be human. Not until then.Why?

I chose "other"...as I don't believe a chimp should be declared a person, as it goes against the definition of "person"...Pfffft. Definitions can be changed.
And btw once we meet extraterrestrials, are they "persons" ?
Why is "person" necessarily restricted to homo sapiens?

Interestingly, I once heard that chimpanzees have a level of intelligence of a three year old child.

Are you implying that human beings in countries where they cannot vote (due to oppression, dictatorship, etc,) do not deserve human rights?

There is a difference between being allowed to take donation, a financial right and what the animal rights activists want the chimp in the article to have... And then voting, a political right and the chimpanzee does not need. They are completely separate. No one is asking for the chimp to be allowed to vote, so why are you bringing it up at all?

Read the post to which I was responding. Yes, it was about "voting," because that is the example. And the people in your oppressed societies have the physical capacity to vote. Whether or not they are permitted to is different. Chimps have not shown the capacity to make an informed decision--why should they be given human rights?

Well, Chimps are about as intelligent a a four-year-old. Also, they seem to have a better conprehension of morals then humans.
This brings up an interesting point. If they have "better comprehension of morals" should they not also be punishable for crimes? For instance, when Frodo the chimp went on a rampaging genocide, and also attacked Jane Goodall.

When you show all humans make informed decisions on voting, then you prove your point.

Doing something and being capable of doing something are not the same. You are capable of reading the post, but you choose not to. Case in point. Should you not be given rights? You could contest my judgment of your abilities. You can make an argument for a point. You can recognize the rights you have and that others have. Chimps don't. They can't. They aren't human. They do not deserve human rights.

Not as of yet. Chimpanzees are close on the path of sentience but they still need many thousands of years to get there fully.

That said, they should definitely be protected so they have that chance. At the moment large numbers are being exterminated because they are considered pests by farmers. Think about what would happen if some other sentient species that existed on this planet started killing off early humans because we were pests...the prevention of all of our culture, our music, our history, our knowledge...I think I need not say more to make my point.

Do unto others, but do it first. I for one don't want intelligent chimps. Wipe em all out while we still can, if they are indeed emerging into a rival intelligent species.

What does communication have to do with moral worth?


Since when did you ever believe in moral worth?

I for one welcome our new chimp overlords!

Ok but seriously, since when were chimps part of the social contract? We probably give them more rights then humans anyway, we let them kill or injure other chimps. They don't have to work or pay taxes (which they can't), they can pretty much do what they want with each other.

I for one welcome our new chimp overlords!

Ok but seriously, since when were chimps part of the social contract? We probably give them more rights then humans anyway, we let them kill or injure other chimps. They don't have to work or pay taxes (which they can't), they can pretty much do what they want with each other.
That is what I brought up. If they are worthy of certain rights, then what about the concomitant responsibilities?

I can't be bothered to get into a long drawn out philosophical debate on the matter so I'll just say a few things. I think rights should go with responsibilities. That means if the chimp gets rights, he should be arrested and put on trial if he steals a banana. Also, they haven't made any demands for rights. Now I know babies don't have the same responsibilities but I just think that different rules should apply to our own species. Leaving it at humans is a very convenient way to draw a line.

Interestingly, I once heard that chimpanzees have a level of intelligence of a three year old child.
I've heard stuff to that effect, that chimps are as intelligent as four year olds, as are whales, ect. But I haven't seen any firm evidence on it, just the same sort of thing repeated over and over again. I'd be grateful if anybody could point me towards real evidence on it.

You know, I'm surprised. If chimps are as capable as we are to believe, and this one is to get certain rights recognized, why is it not suing for its own rights?

This whole thing reminds of that Roman emperor who named his horse as Consul. Sure, you can give them rights or status or whatever, but until they recognize what they have been given, and exercise their ability to defend their position, it doesn't do jack. Call them a human if you will, it does not change the fact that they are not. If these people want money for their pet, why can't they just raise it themselves? Or better yet, let the chimp have a say in what it wants. And not by parroting memorized phrases on cue, but by displaying a capacity for original and creative critical thinking by spontaneously engaging in conversation actively discussing what it wants, why it wants it, and how it proposes to get it.

When chimps can talk, then sure, I'd be more than happy to give them rights.

Some already can. Some have been taught sign language.

Chimps on the whole have the intelligence of a 7 year-old human child. A child does not have the right to vote, because it would not be mentally capable of exercising or even understanding it, and neither should a chimp, but it does have certain fundamental rights as an individual, and so should chimps.

There was a case of a female chimp who had been taught sign language. Her baby fell ill, and was taken away from her to be treated. She used sign language to repeatedly say "I want my baby back, give me my baby back". Another chimp actually used sign language to ask whether it could have a cat as a pet! If a chimp can do that, it should have certain fundamental rights.

At long last, this is starting to be recognised.

Read the post to which I was responding. Yes, it was about "voting," because that is the example. And the people in your oppressed societies have the physical capacity to vote.
Your language contradicts itself.

Chimpanzees have every single physical capacity to vote, just as much as the people in my oppressed societies. Also, generally, people in oppressed societies cannot make informed decision, because in a dictatorship, they don't know anything about other leaders.

By the way, children are given humans rights, but because they cannot make informed decisions they cannot vote. What the owners of the chimp is asking for are the rights of the child.

All this animal is asking for is the right to have a legal guardian who can accept personal donation to give it food and shelter.

And you're all going on about "voting," this and "speaking," that. You're straying very far from what the animal rights advocates in the article are asking for.

“Chimps can be violent at times just as humans can be.”

What was that about not being similar?

Saying that chimps are violent like humans is like saying they are like us because they breath oxygen. It is a ridiculous comparison. Besides, I was simply trying to debunk a ridiculous idea that chimps are some peaceful species. They aren't of course.

And to respond to a previous post, learning signs to communicate simple ideas is an indication of cleverness but without an understanding of more complex ideas they can not be placed next to humans and cannot have the same rights as us.

Well, Chimps are about as intelligent a a four-year-old. Also, they seem to have a better conprehension of morals then humans.

They can be just as violent as humans. They just aren't smart enough to raise their violence and hate to more impressive levels the way we can. The simplicity of an animal.

I haven't had time to read all of this thread, but I did enjoy early assertions that chimps can't protest, and can't make decisions.

To anyone who would uphold that viewpoint, I say go to the Congo, find a nice big one, kick it, and we'll all place bets on whether or not it decides to rip off your foot and beat you to death with it. Presumably you'll have money on walking away from the scene. I'll put some of this funny Aussie money on you never walking again.

Back in the early days of humanity, we couldn't talk, either, and I really don't remember the Sioux building many skyscrapers, the Romans driving many cars, nor am I aware of any pilots under the age of four.

Oh! And to whoever said that chimps have no sense of fairness, or something along those lines... way to make shit up! They do, and this is one of those moments in which I realise that people just don't know things that I assumed were commonly understood by small children and idiots. Chimps understand unfairness, and react to instances of it based upon their particular social situation, too.

I don't really think that chimps ought to be declared people right now, but I think it quite stupid that this is the argument that's being had, when it would make so much more sense to declare that Austrian chimps, though not people, can receive wealth for the purposes of their humane upkeep as per the standards provided for such animals in common animal rights legislation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work.

This brings up an interesting point. If they have "better comprehension of morals" should they not also be punishable for crimes? For instance, when Frodo the chimp went on a rampaging genocide, and also attacked Jane Goodall.

Morality is subjective.

Ever hear of chimps screwing each over for a percentage?

If Frodo had killed humans, he would have been killed.

If Dr. Goodall filed charges, there would have been action.

Did you ever read her viewpoints on the matter?

Do unto others, but do it first. I for one don't want intelligent chimps. Wipe em all out while we still can, if they are indeed emerging into a rival intelligent species.

:rolleyes:

Morality is subjective.

Ever hear of chimps screwing each over for a percentage?

If Frodo had killed humans, he would have been killed.

If Dr. Goodall filed charges, there would have been action.

Did you ever read her viewpoints on the matter?

No chimp would be able to assist in its own defense anyway. Because it would have no comprehension of the legal process, the consequences, etc. Because its is simply not capable of such thoughts. So this whole guesswork is moot anyway.

Heh, I can't help rolling my eyes at the idea of going through a legal process to punish a chimpanzee.

I for one welcome our new chimp overlords!

Ok but seriously, since when were chimps part of the social contract? We probably give them more rights then humans anyway, we let them kill or injure other chimps.


Eh? We do the same. Rawanda, Dafur, Israel/Palestine, Cambodia, Turkey/Greece,.....

They don't have to work or pay taxes (which they can't), they can pretty much do what they want with each other.

No chimp would be able to assist in its own defense anyway. Because it would have no comprehension of the legal process, the consequences, etc. Because its is simply not capable of such thoughts. So this whole guesswork is moot anyway.


Not valid since the courts appoint defenders for people all the time.

Heh, I can't help rolling my eyes at the idea of going through a legal process to punish a chimpanzee.

Kind of like the 1000's of frivolous lawsuits that go on all the time.

Not valid since the courts appoint defenders for people all the time.

If this were true then all the states would have no problems prosecuting the mentally handicapped or the insane. Because even if the defendant can't help himself, his lawyer can do all the work. But this isn't true, if the mental capacity isn't there than he can't be tried.

Kind of like the 1000's of frivolous lawsuits that go on all the time.

And needing to prosecute a chimpanzee would hardly help things. I certainly do agree though that judges need to use their powers to quash all those irritating suits that have no merit. Clogging the system with such junk is being derelict in their duty.

Did you ever read her viewpoints on the matter?
No, but I'd be interested in doing so.

No chimp would be able to assist in its own defense anyway. Because it would have no comprehension of the legal process, the consequences, etc. Because its is simply not capable of such thoughts. So this whole guesswork is moot anyway.

Heh, I can't help rolling my eyes at the idea of going through a legal process to punish a chimpanzee.
I am not actually advocating anything of the sort. If anything, I am even against killing animals who harm humans. Bringing animals into society is the responsibility of their owners/custodians.

FOR THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGION BELIEVERS (Christians, Muslims, Jewish), let me show you something:

Genesis 1:26 (NIV)
Then God said, "Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So, if you are a believer in the Bible, you should know this.

For those who are not, I will try to give a logical natural answer to the chimp not being a human.
The human species has created society like no other animal. The society of humans far outgoes "societies" of other animals. Politics are things of human minds, not of other animals. To have an animal be called a human by a government would go against the laws of nature (which would mean that a chimp would be able to thrive in a society like ours in its own way). If anything, the chimp should go back to it's real home in the jungle, or wherever chimps may live with its brother and sister chimps. To give an animal a title of human would be to go against what we really are made for and what the animal is made for.

But seriously, being against this is racist.

Being racist involves race. A chimp is a different species, so the word you're searching for is 'specist'. Congratulations on making an already inane post even worse.

I don't fund war amusing, I find misanthropy amusing. What a pile of waisted emotion.

Pointing out the reality of the human condition isn't "misanthropy."

I am not actually advocating anything of the sort. If anything, I am even against killing animals who harm humans. Bringing animals into society is the responsibility of their owners/custodians.

Once an animal has shown itself to be a danger to the people around it I can't see how it can be allowed to live. Other people than the owner could be around it after all. There would be no choice but to put it down.

Eh? We do the same. Rawanda, Dafur, Israel/Palestine, Cambodia, Turkey/Greece,.....

You totally misunderstood what I was saying. It is not legal for a human to kill or injure another human in a country, it is legal for a chimp to kill another chimp. There is no chimp police, chimps can pretty much do anything they want.

You totally misunderstood what I was saying. It is not legal for a human to kill or injure another human in a country, it is legal for a chimp to kill another chimp. There is no chimp police, chimps can pretty much do anything they want.

Chimps don't have nations. They have groups. It's an odd thing for chimps to kill others within the same group. Competing groups is another matter.

We have laws to punish murder within out nation. Yet will justify war, actions, etc against outsiders when it's to our advantage.

To suggest chimps operate on the concept of total anarchy is a tad ignorant.

To suggest chimps operate on the concept of total anarchy is a tad ignorant.

I do believe that the system of anarchy DOES allow for voluntary association.

No, but I'd be interested in doing so.


My knowledge came from talking to her about it.

Here is a discover link that mentioned it.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/the-discover-interview-jane-goodall

I do believe that the system of anarchy DOES allow for voluntary association.

Problem is that chimps have a complex structure and have lifelong bonds. If it was voluntary, then such bonds would be rare if not exist.

http://www.releasechimps.org/chimpanzees/chimpanzee-society/

Never have them declared as a human person.

Perhaps as non-human person, or non-human dependent.

Now if we could make a smarter octopus and we were thinkning about giving that greater rights I would be more inclined to go with the chimp one also.

Chimps don't have nations. They have groups. It's an odd thing for chimps to kill others within the same group.


The chimps are always fighting to beceome the alpha male within the group.


We have laws to punish murder within out nation. Yet will justify war, actions, etc against outsiders when it's to our advantage.


Could not be more irellavent.


To suggest chimps operate on the concept of total anarchy is a tad ignorant.

I didn't say they 'operate on the concept of total anarchy', I just said that we don't enforce any law on them.

other: animals should have more rights than humans. Animals are better than us. They still remember how to act naturally. We need to protect them from ourselves, and look up to them for guidance on how to act in the natural world.

other: animals should have more rights than humans. Animals are better than us. They still remember how to act naturally. We need to protect them from ourselves, and look up to them for guidance on how to act in the natural world.

Define natural.

Heres a hint, you can't. It's a wishy washy arbitrary word that means shit all in the real world.

The chimps are always fighting to beceome the alpha male within the group.

The status of Alpha is not obtained by violence.


Could not be more irellavent.

Actually it isn't.

I didn't say they 'operate on the concept of total anarchy', I just said that we don't enforce any law on them.

Sure we do. If a chimp attacks humans, we enforce dangerous animal laws on them.

other: animals should have more rights than humans. Animals are better than us. They still remember how to act naturally. We need to protect them from ourselves, and look up to them for guidance on how to act in the natural world.

How are they better than us?

How are we not acting naturally? We are using a specialisation that was evolved to increase our population and expand the areas we live in.

I don't deny the need to preserve the ecosystems. However we cannot look to a single member of a particular ecosystem and think that will show how to preserve the other ones. It is only by viewing the ecosystems as a whole including our effects to them that we can expect to have a reasonable chance to preserve them.

I don't fund war amusing, I find misanthropy amusing. What a pile of waisted emotion.
So when you're saying humans are fundamentally irrational to the point that they need a dictatorship over them, that isn't misanthropy? :p

My knowledge came from talking to her about it.

Here is a discover link that mentioned it.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/the-discover-interview-jane-goodall
Thanks. :)

Once an animal has shown itself to be a danger to the people around it I can't see how it can be allowed to live. Other people than the owner could be around it after all. There would be no choice but to put it down.
It's its owner's fault for bringing it into contact with others in the first place. The animal cannot be blamed for something it has no awareness of. If it can't be removed or contained easily I suppose putting it to death is the only way to deal with it.

The status of Alpha is not obtained by violence.


But chimps still fight for it, but even if they don't, fighting still occurs.


Actually it isn't.


How?


Sure we do. If a chimp attacks humans, we enforce dangerous animal laws on them.

We don't enforce any "law", the owner just decides to get rid of it. There is no charge made against the chimp, no court, no arrest. The owner may be charged, but not the chimp. If it's wild chimp then a chimp hunt may be done, but hunting animals is still not 'enforcing laws on them'.

When chimps can talk, then sure, I'd be more than happy to give them rights. Until that time, I like being the species in power. Yes, I am speciesist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzi#Kanzi_vocalized_a_message_to_his_sister:_Yogurt.21

Well, looks like they can.

so if a monkey was really gagging for it....just saying you' know >.> <.<

All this animal is asking for is the right to have a legal guardian who can accept personal donation to give it food and shelter.


Why? Let it die. It's not going to affect my life, and nobody's life is depending on it, and it's mother is a chimp (if she is even still alive). I'm sorry, you'll find no sympathy from me.

Now now, before you decide not to give rights to chimps, think of all those we have given personhood to who aren't quite at chimp level. If even the chimps can't make the cut, then what do we do about those guys? Think of the chaos in the white house that would occur.

Pfffft. Definitions can be changed.
And btw once we meet extraterrestrials, are they "persons" ?
Why is "person" necessarily restricted to homo sapiens?


one needs to finish reading my post

If the definition somehow changes (by more than just someone declaring a chimp a person) I would change my opinion.

I'm not close minded in that I said it couldn't be changed...I just said that the definition needed to be changed by more than one person saying "chimps are people too"

What do I care, at least chimps are alive - which is more than can be said for some legal persons.

Perhaps this issue would not exist if humans were wise enough to leave animals in the wild, wild. The right to life, liberty and freedom is the right of all animals.

Once animals are removed from the wild and tested on and declared the property or resource of humans, it brings them into a world in which humans are resposible for their livelihood and survival. In place of acting as guardians, humans become dictators and excuse this form of slavery and abuse of animals.

Perhaps it is not an issue of intelligence but rather an issue of paranoia. Humans may fear that an animal such as a chimp can play a role in ending their enslavement and abuse by humans.

How quickly we forget...

It is fairly recent in the human timeline on earth that women were regarded as property and had no right to vote. Over a nine year period (1916-1925) Women were given the right to vote in Canada, both the provincial and federal levels, with the exception of the Province of Quebec where the right to vote in provincial elections was not obtained until 1940. Ontario women were given the right to vote on April 12, 1917. Aboriginal women did not gain the right to vote until 1960.

In the United States, on August, 26, 1920, women are given the right to vote in all elections after a 40 year political struggle.

This seems relevant: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6656661.stm

Chimps. Are. Not. People.


I can't believe this thread was revived.... or that I am helping its revival...

Let's not forget that freeing the chimps is what started the spreading of that disease which killed all of the UK. :P

Let's not forget that freeing the chimps is what started the spreading of that disease which killed all of the UK. :P

What, AIDS?

What, AIDS?

http://www.impawards.com/2003/posters/twenty_eight_days_later.jpg

http://www.impawards.com/2003/posters/twenty_eight_days_later.jpg

What's impawards.com? I'd go there and find out, but I'm terrified of viruses and spy-ware. :eek:

What's impawards.com? I'd go there and find out, but I'm terrified of viruses and spy-ware. :eek:

I actually just got the picture from google images but the site itself is movie poster gallery.

I actually just got the picture from google images but the site itself is movie poster gallery.

Ah, okay. All I get from the link is a banner ad. :(

Ah, okay. All I get from the link is a banner ad. :(

http://www.impawards.com/

Works ok for me anyway.

You gotta be homo Sapiens to be a person. Sorry chimp-o, the club is selective, and it's a good-ol'-boys club.

You gotta be homo Sapiens to be a person. Sorry chimp-o, the club is selective, and it's a good-ol'-boys club.

That sums it up nicely. :p

*mouth agape that this is actually a legal issue*
*mouth even more agape that views on said issue are so diversified it goes on for 13 pages*
*mouth even MORE agape that I am continuing this thread*

With that said, given all the talk about 'potential rationality', I would've found it almost laughable (if it weren't such an incredibly sad testament to the condition of modern-day society) that a chimp is being considered for 'personhood' when our legal system doesn't even define a human fetus as a person.

If' we're talking about giving "human rights" to a certain group, how about giving rights to a group that actually WILL grow into humans, instead of flinging them away willy-nilly to a group that isn't even part of the friggin' species, for crying out loud?

"Wow, did he just open up that can o' worms?"

You bet I did.

Well you could argue that the chimps may evolve into a much more intelligent species...

Whilst I am a speciest I do recognise that the treatment of other animals should be better than it is in some cases.

That being said I do not think that a chimp should be recognised as a person. In the future others may come up with a good point to give them that legal status but for now I would not like it (unless there was a non-human person catagory).

Also corporations should not be legal persons.

I am looking forward to a future with intelligent an octopus.