NationStates Jolt Archive

A chimp is not legally a person:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323285,00.html

In other news:
1) Fire is not wet
2) The sun is not a planet
3) The Sahara is not a jungle
4) Two and two are not five
5) D-O-G does not spell “cat”

It's not a human. It doesn't have the same genetic make-up as us. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it's a duck. Too bad a chimp doesn't fit the criterion that we use to determine what is a human.

And just because Bush acts like a chimp, doesn't give this chimp the right to be a human. :p

Sometimes that's what it takes. It didn't get to the Supreme Court, but it did take a Federal judge to rule that Intelligent Design is not science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District).

In other news:
1) Fire is not wet

I have never heard such lies!

Corporations can be persons, legally speaking. Why not chimps?

yes but Corporations don't go around throwing poo and masturbating in public....:D

Sometimes that's what it takes. It didn't get to the Supreme Court, but it did take a Federal judge to rule that Intelligent Design is not science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District).

Sometimes even US federal judges get it right ;)

A chimp is not legally a person:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323285,00.html

In other news:
1) Fire is not wet
2) The sun is not a planet
3) The Sahara is not a jungle
4) Two and two are not five
5) D-O-G does not spell “cat”

Corporations can be persons, legally speaking. Why not chimps?

Perhaps you think it's not worth thinking about due to your extreme close-mindedness and inability to reason.

yes but Corporations don't go around throwing poo and masturbating in public....:D

...yes they do!
It's just that people wind up paying to receive the poo. And to watch the masturbation.

...yes they do!
It's just that people wind up paying to receive the poo. And to watch the masturbation.

clearly like dating it all comes down to money and what was for breakfast :)

clearly like dating it all comes down to money and what was for breakfast :)

... and a great chance that in the end, you're still playing with yourself. :D

It's not a human. It doesn't have the same genetic make-up as us. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it's a duck. Too bad a chimp doesn't fit the criterion that we use to determine what is a human.

And just because Bush acts like a chimp, doesn't give this chimp the right to be a human. :p

there is, as a matter of law, a distinct difference between a "human" and a "person". We allow distinctive non humans the rights of "people". For example, the fourth amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

It clearly referes to "people". Microsoft, for example, is a corporation. Its buildings are owned by the corporation. They are not owned by any human. They are clearly the property of the corporation, not any human person. Yet the government can't walk into Microsoft property and search it without a warrant, because the corporation is held to have those same rights.

Microsoft is by no measure a human but it has many of the same rights we grant a person

Corporations can be persons, legally speaking. Why not chimps?

Perhaps you think it's not worth thinking about due to your extreme close-mindedness and inability to reason.

Because a corporation is treated as a consolidation of a group of people, who have "combined" themselves, and wish for this combination to be treated as a single person.

A chimp has jack-all to do with being a person.

Because a corporation is treated as a consolidation of a group of people, who have "combined" themselves, and wish for this combination to be treated as a single person.

A chimp has jack-all to do with being a person.

But that's not exactly true either. If that were true, while the corporation would assume the rights of the people, those people would assume the responsibilities of the corporation.

If a corporation was merely an amalgamation of peoples, who wish that amalgamation, for convenience, to be treated as one entity, then whatever fell on the corporation falls on the people.

But corporations can be sued, but the individuals free from liability. Corporations can sue, and win, but the individuals can not directly profit from that. Corporations can hold debt but it can not be collected from the individuals.

Conversly, those individuals may all vote (if citizens) but the corporation can not cast a vote on its own. A corporation may own property, but no one person of the corporation can exercise certain rights of that property. As a matter of law, a corporation exists as a seperate and distinct legal entity, not merely an amalgamation of several people treated as one.

A chimp has jack-all to do with being a person.

Define a person then. What in your eyes determines if something is a person ?
Being human ? Intelligence ? The ability to feel ? Self awareness ?

Unless going with the "it must be human" you will find it is pretty hard to come up with something that excludes chimps while including every type of human.

If you go with "it must be human" - why ?

Why not set up a charitable trust that owns the chimps and is bound by its own charter to look after the chimps and not sell them on... That's why these people seem to want this chimp granted legal personhood. They fear if they create a corporation to own and look after the chimps it might sell them on at a later date.

Why not set up a charitable trust that owns the chimps and is bound by its own charter to look after the chimps and not sell them on... That's why these people seem to want this chimp granted legal personhood. They fear if they create a corporation to own and look after the chimps it might sell them on at a later date.

That's what I was wondering. Why do the gifts have to be given to the chimp? Can't they be given to some trust as you suggest. Presumably the same people that took this court case in the first place.

Why not set up a charitable trust that owns the chimps and is bound by its own charter to look after the chimps and not sell them on... That's why these people seem to want this chimp granted legal personhood. They fear if they create a corporation to own and look after the chimps it might sell them on at a later date.

Or perhaps they actually believe that limiting personhood to humans is just as wrong as limiting personhood to white people was.

Define a person then. What in your eyes determines if something is a person ?
Being human ? Intelligence ? The ability to feel ? Self awareness ?

Unless going with the "it must be human" you will find it is pretty hard to come up with something that excludes chimps while including every type of human.

If you go with "it must be human" - why ?

A "person" can understand the consequences of his actions and take responsibility for them. An animal can't.

Humans are "persons." Animals aren't.

When chimps are sufficiently Uplifted ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brin ) that they can understand the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them, then they may be entitled to legal personhood. Until then, they are and will remain animals.

And don't try arguing that the retarded, senile, insane etc. don't meet the definition. Such individuals have to potential to do so given appropriate medical treatment, and would already have the ability to do so in the absence of disease, defect or other condition or circumstance that is not inherent to being a human. Chimps and other animals (literally) can't make the same statement.

A "person" can understand the consequences of his actions and take responsibility for them. An animal can't.

Chimps can up to a limit.

And don't try arguing that the retarded, senile, insane etc. don't meet the definition. Such individuals have to potential to do so given appropriate medical treatment, and would already have the ability to do so in the absence of disease, defect or other condition or circumstance that is not inherent to being a human.

How convenient. You cannot be consistent, so you impose a silly restriction.

Chimps and other animals (literally) can't make the same statement.

So.. if I could make a chimp brighter, it would be a person ?
That is actually easier than curing many retards.

A chimp is not legally a person:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323285,00.html

In other news:
1) Fire is not wet
2) The sun is not a planet
3) The Sahara is not a jungle
4) Two and two are not five
5) D-O-G does not spell “cat”

Wow! That totally should have been the legal judgment! No analysis, no discussion, just a comparison to a list of silly things!

You could so make a mint in the legal profession NM.

A "person" can understand the consequences of his actions and take responsibility for them. An animal can't.


You might want to read up on chimpanze hierarchy before making such a claim. The fact they are always pushing to improve their position says they understand their actions. The fact they form alliances, etc.....

How many humans take responsibility for their actions?

Humans are "persons." Animals aren't.
What defines a human? Self awareness? Harlow showed chimps are self aware.

When chimps are sufficiently Uplifted ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brin ) that they can understand the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them, then they may be entitled to legal personhood. Until then, they are and will remain animals.

So a person no longer in control of his mental faculties is not human?

We assign people a guardian ad litem in many cases.

They sought to become guardian of the chimp. Unfortunately, their laws don't allow for donations, etc....

And don't try arguing that the retarded, senile, insane etc. don't meet the definition. Such individuals have to potential to do so given appropriate medical treatment, and would already have the ability to do so in the absence of disease, defect or other condition or circumstance that is not inherent to being a human. Chimps and other animals (literally) can't make the same statement.

:D You might re-read your statement. "Have the potential" :D :D For all we know chimps may have the potential. Especially, when we remove the humans. ;)

Wow, it's been ages since New Mitanni had Cornied himself with another supposed "Ha Ha" thread. I'm surprised he hasn't said that Global Warming is a Chimpanzee Conspiracy!

If a bunch of chimps got together and started a corporation, would they be considered people?

:D

A "person" can understand the consequences of his actions and take responsibility for them. An animal can't.
.

I think that the last seven years have shown that rather clearly.

If a bunch of chimps got together and started a corporation, would they be considered people?
As non-persons, they lack the right to form corporations.
Whatever way chimpanzees act in regards to one another, they are incapable of taking up the responsibilities of a human social contract, therefore they can't be humans.

Or perhaps they actually believe that limiting personhood to humans is just as wrong as limiting personhood to white people was.

I'm all for granting rights to any person or group who is able to demand them, generally speaking. Let the chimp demand his rights and he can have them, as women did, as blacks did, etc. ;)

Wow! That totally should have been the legal judgment! No analysis, no discussion, just a comparison to a list of silly things!

You could so make a mint in the legal profession NM.

As a matter of fact, I do, sweetie ;)

Actually, chimps (and other great apes - which in fact are biologically hominids, just like humans, hence their Swedish name "människoapor" meaning literally "human apes") are extremely bright animals and more and more research is pointing towards them having many of the attributes we associate with being a person/humanity: emotions, memories, intelligence, planning, tool-use, problem-solving, communication, empathy, ability to discern self and other - insight!

The Great Ape Project has very convincing arguments for extending personhood to the great apes, and only someone deeply ignorant in the matter or a fool would claim the matter to be "obvious" or "simple".

You might want to read up on chimpanze hierarchy before making such a claim. The fact they are always pushing to improve their position says they understand their actions. The fact they form alliances, etc.....

Mere establishment of pecking order.


How many humans take responsibility for their actions?

Whether voluntarily or involuntarily, almost all of them. Some manage to evade responsibility for a lesser or greater length of time (e.g., OJ Simpson).


What defines a human? Self awareness? Harlow showed chimps are self aware.

If it has the genome of the species Homo sapiens, it's human.

So a person no longer in control of his mental faculties is not human?

Nice try. Re-read my last paragraph.

We assign people a guardian ad litem in many cases.

That's because they are presently under some legal, medical or other disability that prevents them from representing themselves or otherwise exercizing their rights, not because they aren't persons.


:D You might re-read your statement. "Have the potential" :D :D For all we know chimps may have the potential.

Maybe you should re-read the complete paragraph. The disabled have the potential to do so in the absence of their disabilities. Chimps aren't "disabled". And as of today, Uplift "potential" is purely fictional. I just referenced it for the sake of argument.

I think that the last seven years have shown that rather clearly.

Yes, clearly President Bush is a human and a person, while OBL and al-Qaeda are animals.

Nice disguised slam :p

If a bunch of chimps got together and started a corporation, would they be considered people?
Enron.

Mere establishment of pecking order.
If it was that simple then size and brute force would be at play.

However, smaller chimps have assumed the alpha position by the use of alliances.

Since you missed it; what other species forms alliances?

Whether voluntarily or involuntarily, almost all of them. Some manage to evade responsibility for a lesser or greater length of time (e.g., OJ Simpson).

You used "Personal responsibility" as a measure against them and yet we don't all practice it ourselves. Never mind the fact that personal responsibility is a matter of personal opinion.

If it has the genome of the species Homo sapiens, it's human.

The system of classification was established long before we even had a concept of DNA.

Chimps share 98.9% of our DNA.

Never mind the fact, we don't even understand the genome yet.

Nice try. Re-read my last paragraph.

That's because they are presently under some legal, medical or other disability that prevents them from representing themselves or otherwise exercising their rights, not because they aren't persons.

The chimp does not have our vocal cords and yet through ASL they can express desires.

Maybe you should re-read the complete paragraph. The disabled have the potential to do so in the absence of their disabilities. Chimps aren't "disabled". And as of today, Uplift "potential" is purely fictional. I just referenced it for the sake of argument.

So you can use hypothetical situations and we can't. :D

The disabled have the potential to do so in the absence of their disabilities.
This amounts to "If they weren't what they are, they would be something different." If a Down's Syndrome child didn't have THAT DNA, but instead had MY DNA, then he'd be like be. Yeah, and if a chimp didn't have THAT DNA, but instead had MY DNA...

Or perhaps they actually believe that limiting personhood to humans is just as wrong as limiting personhood to white people was.That's not what I seem to remember of this story (it's been going a long time as things in the courts generally do). The group want the chimp to be granted personhood status so that it will own the money donated to look after it. However, they still wish to appoint a legal guardian to spend the money for the chimp. As such the legal guardian would have to follow a remit on how he could and could not spend the money.

I don't see how this end would differ from setting up a charitable trust to take care of the chimp.

Also, I don't think there is a good enough reason to grant chimps personhood. I do not believe the chimp would be able to cope with the vast majority of rights and responsibilities granted to it. It would be perpetually under the care of a legal guardian.

If it has the genome of the species Homo sapiens, it's human.
But is it a person?

A person is someone we deem to have the protection of society. Are you suggesting we should limit that to just our own species, regardless of what relevant characteristics some other species might exhibit?

Isn't that a lot like racism?

This amounts to "If they weren't what they are, they would be something different." If a Down's Syndrome child didn't have THAT DNA, but instead had MY DNA, then he'd be like be. Yeah, and if a chimp didn't have THAT DNA, but instead had MY DNA...

I don't think it's a matter of "if it had MY DNA then it'd be ok". If that was it then yes, we could apply that to a chimp. As we could to an ant, a fish, and a piece of celery.

Rather, I think the question is, if the DNA of the Down's Syndrome child did not have a specific, identifiable genetic defect. But for the defect, or injury, or abnormal development, this individual would be a normal person.

A chimp, on the other hand, is always a chimp. And, highly intelligent though it may be, it lacks the qualities that define personhood.

But is it a person?

A person is someone we deem to have the protection of society. Are you suggesting we should limit that to just our own species, regardless of what relevant characteristics some other species might exhibit?

Isn't that a lot like racism?

Not at all. I fully support extending the rights of personhood to ANY species that demonstrates the characteristics of personhood. When you find such a species, please let me know.

Moreover your definition is flawed, we do not consider a person to be one who has protections of society. There are many laws that protect animals as well.

But for the defect, or injury, or abnormal development, this individual would be a normal person.

So?

The question is not "could this entity have been a person?", with "could" defined as you please to exclude chimpanzees and not disabled humans. The question is, "is this entity actually a person?"

And, highly intelligent though it may be, it lacks the qualities that define personhood.

So what are those qualities?

Corporations don't go around throwing poo and masturbating in public....:D

Says you!

So?

The question is not "could this entity have been a person?", with "could" defined as you please to exclude chimpanzees and not disabled humans. The question is, "is this entity actually a person?"

I would say yes. However, in this case personhood is a negative right rather than a positive right; a chimpanzee isn't really capable of interacting with humans in a way that entitles them to positive rights (for example, being able to vote), but they would have the right to be free from being mistreated, killed, or otherwise harmed.

This is not something I have thought through well enough to construct a cohesive argument, but this is my opinion as it stands. Given that self-awareness is my baseline criterion for personhood, I have no qualms about extending the negative, protective rights of personhood to all who possess self-awareness even if they are not capable of acting in a way that would entitle them to the more proactive, positive rights. If they demonstrate the ability to act in a way that requires them to assume positive rights (for example, capability to understand the law and the moral implications of their actions), they will be awarded them accordingly.

If it has the genome of the species Homo sapiens, it's human.

True. Of course, no one was discussing whether chimps should be considered human, but rather whether they should be considered persons. My fingernails are human. They are not persons.

I'd have to disagree with that ruling. Chimps are close enough, hell smarter than a lot of humans.

This is a grave error that I hope is soon reversed. I hope the European Court has sense and not racism. Just because we cannot communicate with chimps effectively does not mean they are not on par with our intelligence. I look forward to the day on which are chimp comrades are freed and join us as the people of Earth. There was a time when Africans, Jews, Gypsies, or other groups were not people, let alone human. It is time to open our minds to the truth.

That's not what I seem to remember of this story (it's been going a long time as things in the courts generally do). The group want the chimp to be granted personhood status so that it will own the money donated to look after it. However, they still wish to appoint a legal guardian to spend the money for the chimp. As such the legal guardian would have to follow a remit on how he could and could not spend the money.

I don't see how this end would differ from setting up a charitable trust to take care of the chimp.

Also, I don't think there is a good enough reason to grant chimps personhood. I do not believe the chimp would be able to cope with the vast majority of rights and responsibilities granted to it. It would be perpetually under the care of a legal guardian.

I've heard of this story too and while I like the idea of the activists (protecting the chimpanzee's habitat), I think they're going a little too far with it. Asking a court to grant "personhood" to an animal recognized by biologists as "not a human" opens the door to granting personhood to other animals and then plants and even microbes (say goodbye to antibiotics). Plus I don't think "personhood" is necessary here- why can't they set-up a trust fund for the chimpanzee, or even have one of their activists raise funds to purchase the chimp so the donations can be sent to them? Their actions are just shooting their efforts in the foot.

If it was that simple then size and brute force would be at play.

However, smaller chimps have assumed the alpha position by the use of alliances.

Since you missed it; what other species forms alliances?



You used "Personal responsibility" as a measure against them and yet we don't all practice it ourselves. Never mind the fact that personal responsibility is a matter of personal opinion.



The system of classification was established long before we even had a concept of DNA.

Chimps share 98.9% of our DNA.

Never mind the fact, we don't even understand the genome yet.


The chimp does not have our vocal cords and yet through ASL they can express desires.



So you can use hypothetical situations and we can't. :D

I have a question then- if a human and a chimp mate, can they produce fertile offspring?

Since the Supreme Court has declared chimps aren't human, does this mean it's okay to nuke them again?

I have a question then- if a human and a chimp mate, can they produce fertile offspring?

That! is the ultimate answer. However, society would go berserk if somebody attempted it even from a test tube.

There are some that believe it possible. There are many that don't.

I have wondered myself. Especially after seeing a chimp heart. It very similar to a human. In fact, my old professor showed a picture of a baboon heart next to a chimps and asked what would have happened if they used a chimps heart instead of a baboons heart with baby Fae back in the 80s.

That! is the ultimate answer. However, society would go berserk if somebody attempted it even from a test tube.

There are some that believe it possible. There are many that don't.

I have wondered myself. Especially after seeing a chimp heart. It very similar to a human. In fact, my old professor showed a picture of a baboon heart next to a chimps and asked what would have happened if they used a chimps heart instead of a baboons heart with baby Fae back in the 80s.

I'm surprised no one's tried it...that's the textbook definition of a species (being able to produce fertile offspring). If the chimp rights advocates actually showed a chimpanzee and a human can reproduce they'd be able to win the chimpanzee personhood rights. Otherwise, they're left with speculations.

A “person” can understand the consequences of his actions and take responsibility for them. An animal can’t.
Many animals, including humans, can do exactly that. Even fairly animals of farly low intelligence, such as rats and birds, can understand that a certain action leads to a reward.

Humans are “persons.” Animals aren’t.
Humans are animals. And to single out just humanity, you’ll need to work on your definition of ‘person’.

Until then, they are and will remain animals.
They will always remain animals. As will we.

I think animals would need to spontaneously produce art, language, and some math to be considered people.
The fact that some chimps can do these things after being taught is really interesting, but there's not much of it going on in the wild to my knowledge. I don't really know if that makes them count as people, but it might, I'm no critic. :D

I'm surprised no one's tried it...
I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you'd be able to find it on the interweb.
34th rule of the internet.

I think animals would need to spontaneously produce art, language, and some math to be considered people.
The fact that some chimps can do these things after being taught is really interesting, but there's not much of it going on in the wild to my knowledge. I don't really know if that makes them count as people, but it might, I'm no critic. :D

Many animals already got the language thing down. You'd be surprised just how deep and complex wolf language (from barks and whines to ear and tail positions(body language)) is, especially compared to human language. Chimps have language too. Sure, they can't recite each and every Shakespeare play in Mandarin Chinese backwards with a Swedish accent, but they can communicate with a language all their own.

Wait, I can't recite each and every Shakespeare play in Mandarin Chinese backwards. Hell, I can't even do it in English forwards and English is basically all I can speak. Am I a person? Note to self-don't point that out anymore.


Chimps have their own language. The main reason nobody has ever heard of a chimp Picasso is because nobody took the time to really find out if they can develop a concept of art.

I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you'd be able to find it on the interweb.
34th rule of the internet.

I'm sure I'll find someone who's claimed to have done it, but is it real...that's the million-dollar question.

Rather, I think the question is, if the DNA of the Down's Syndrome child did not have a specific, identifiable genetic defect. But for the defect, or injury, or abnormal development, this individual would be a normal person.
"If the DNA wasn't what it is, then it would be something else." If he didn't have that DNA, maybe he would have a chimp's DNA instead, or an ant's; he would be something other than what he is. I'm sorry, this whole line of argument sounds to me like "And if my aunt had four wheels, she'd be a wagon". You are basing the rights of the Down's Syndrome on what he *isn't* but maybe could-have-been in an alternative universe?
But in that alternative universe, there wouldn't be HIM, at all! Can't you base his rights on what he IS?

Not at all. I fully support extending the rights of personhood to ANY species that demonstrates the characteristics of personhood. When you find such a species, please let me know.
We'd have to agree on what those characteristics are, first.
Moreover your definition is flawed, we do not consider a person to be one who has protections of society. There are many laws that protect animals as well.
I was going to say "is granted full rights and priveledges in society", but then it occured to me that we deny children many of those rights, and I wasn't sure if children were persons.

A chimp is not legally a person:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323285,00.html



So do you have a link to an actual source or just Fox news?

This is a grave error that I hope is soon reversed. I hope the European Court has sense and not racism. Just because we cannot communicate with chimps effectively does not mean they are not on par with our intelligence. I look forward to the day on which are chimp comrades are freed and join us as the people of Earth. There was a time when Africans, Jews, Gypsies, or other groups were not people, let alone human. It is time to open our minds to the truth.

Chimps are not a race.

I'm surprised no one's tried it...that's the textbook definition of a species (being able to produce fertile offspring). If the chimp rights advocates actually showed a chimpanzee and a human can reproduce they'd be able to win the chimpanzee personhood rights. Otherwise, they're left with speculations.

two problems. 1) that isn't a defining feature of species. they really should stop telling people that. and 2) species membership doesn't seem plausibly related to recognition of personhood. after all, we already grant some level of personhood to various non-humans in the form of institutions. and do you want to claim that we should deny personhood to an intelligent alien species should we ever encounter one?

Corporations can be persons, legally speaking. Why not chimps?

Perhaps you think it's not worth thinking about due to your extreme close-mindedness and inability to reason.

Or perhaps the fact that we...are...sane? And Corporations are legally persons because they consist of a large body of people, and are usually owned or at least managed by one particular person. A Chimpanzee is an animal. Case closed (literally...according to the Austrian Supreme Court :D)

A Chimpanzee is an animal.

And negroes are not-white, and women are not men.
This train of thought has shown to be... undesirable... in the past. Lets try to find a new one.

And negroes are not-white, and women are not men.
This train of thought has shown to be... undesirable... in the past. Lets try to find a new one.

Uh, no. I think that the "racism/sexism" card ends at the species level.

Uh, no. I think that the "racism/sexism" card ends at the species level.
according to whom? that's completely arbitrary.

This is not something I have thought through well enough to construct a cohesive argument, but this is my opinion as it stands.

read animal liberation by peter singer, he has some cohesive arguments that are not very different from yours and he writes very accessible.

Chimps are not a race.

You are right, he should have used the word specieism: "a prejudice based on morally irrelevant physical differences"

Uh, no. I think that the "racism/sexism" card ends at the species level.

no, giving rights based on morally irrelevant traits like race, sex, species have shown to be undesirable.

according to whom? that's completely arbitrary.
Agreed.
You are right, he should have used the word specieism: "a prejudice based on morally irrelevant physical differences"
Exactly. Either the differences aren't morally relevant (because some humans exhibit relevantly similar characteristics), or they ARE morally relevant, in which case we need to re-examine our inclusiveness within humanity.

Or perhaps the fact that we...are...sane?

I'm sane, you're sane, everyone is sane unless a court declares them insane. Nice ad hom though.

And Corporations are legally persons because they consist of a large body of people, and are usually owned or at least managed by one particular person.

A large body of people is not a person. Yet it is legally a person because the legal definition of "personhood" is not limited to the colloquial. Therefore, non-persons (like corporations, and chimpanzees) can be equally defined as persons for legal purposes, if the courts decide it so.

A Chimpanzee is an animal.

A human is an animal. What, do you literally think your shit doesn't stink? You're hairy, you're a mammal, you are an animal with a predictably high opinion of yourself, but an animal just the same.

A Chimpanzee is an animal.

Psst! So are you.

Chimps are not a race.

race2
1. a group of persons(open to definition) related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.
7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
And just to completly shake this up:
10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.
I guess chimps are a race.

Hey, at least it wasn't the US this time.

Corporations can be persons, legally speaking. Why not chimps?

Perhaps you think it's not worth thinking about due to your extreme close-mindedness and inability to reason.


Yes corporations can be people, because corporations are operated by people. They are not operated by chimps. You aren't helping your case by being insulting. The fact that the original poster recognizes that chimps are not humans is not close-mindedness. It is logical and rational.

That! is the ultimate answer. However, society would go berserk if somebody attempted it even from a test tube.

There are some that believe it possible. There are many that don't.

I have wondered myself. Especially after seeing a chimp heart. It very similar to a human. In fact, my old professor showed a picture of a baboon heart next to a chimps and asked what would have happened if they used a chimps heart instead of a baboons heart with baby Fae back in the 80s.

It's theoretically possible. Would be called a Humanzee I think.

And I can't believe there are people in here who actually believe that chimps should be recognized as people. They are ANIMALS, and despite being very smart and social animals, they are ANIMALS, not people.

ANIMALS =/= PEOPLE

And I can't believe there are people in here who actually believe that chimps should be recognized as people.

persons. look it up.

Yes corporations can be people, because corporations are operated by people.

that is not the reason

It's theoretically possible. Would be called a Humanzee I think.

And I can't believe there are people in here who actually believe that chimps should be recognized as people. They are ANIMALS, and despite being very smart and social animals, they are ANIMALS, not people.

ANIMALS =/= PEOPLE

First of all, people are animals, what else would they be?

Secondly, animals can be persons, unless you chose to discriminate based on morally irrelevant features (like species)

It's theoretically possible. Would be called a Humanzee I think.

If it would be even be allowed to live. Names can go in any direction.

One thing for sure would be an genus change for both Chimps and Bonobos

Pan troglodytes to Homo troglodytes
Pan paniscus to Homo paniscus


And I can't believe there are people in here who actually believe that chimps should be recognized as people. They are ANIMALS, and despite being very smart and social animals, they are ANIMALS, not people.

ANIMALS =/= PEOPLE

Hmmmmmm?

I can't seem to find a Kingdom People

But what do I see in Kingdom Animalia and of the order Primates?

Homo Sapiens!

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/classification/path/Homo_sapiens.html#Homo%20sapiens

In other news:
1) Fire is not wet
4) Two and two are not five
5) D-O-G does not spell “cat”

Whoa-Woa-Whoa!! The other 7 are way tooo sienmentifcik butt D'z(lets see 1,2,purple..*mumbless to ones self about counting*)potato(knew I'd get that number eventually), are news to me.

Hey, at least it wasn't the US this time.

Way to look at the dark stormcloud as half-full.
Or I mean, way to look at the glass with a silver lining.
Or... shit.
Still, that's interesting.
So what are chimps losing out on as a result of this ruling? Like, aside from not getting to vote or having to pay taxes or being able to own property...?

It's not a human. It doesn't have the same genetic make-up as us. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it's a duck. Too bad a chimp doesn't fit the criterion that we use to determine what is a human.

And just because Bush acts like a chimp, doesn't give this chimp the right to be a human. :p

"Person" is not a species. It's a social status, not a genetic one. I'm not saying that I think the status should apply to a chimp, but their genetics is not the determining factor.

Way to look at the dark stormcloud as half-full.
Or I mean, way to look at the glass with a silver lining.
Or... shit.
Still, that's interesting.
So what are chimps losing out on as a result of this ruling? Like, aside from not getting to vote or having to pay taxes or being able to own property...?

They're loosing out on the right not to be tortured to death in medical experiments and product testing labs.

I guess chimps are a race.

No. Chimps, by your own quoted definition, are a species. Bonobo Chimps are a race.

So what are chimps losing out on as a result of this ruling? Like, aside from not getting to vote or having to pay taxes or being able to own property...?
A child with comparable intelligence wouldn't be its own guardian either. Nonetheless it would be protected from certain things being done to it.

I just think that on a philosophical level, I can't really come up with a meaningful definition of "human" that would include a 3-year old, but not a smart chimp. But then, the same would apply to eventual artificial intelligence. It's the same debate really, and people dismissing it with "they are animals" are missing the point entirely.

I just think that on a philosophical level, I can't really come up with a meaningful definition of "human" that would include a 3-year old, but not a smart chimp. But then, the same would apply to eventual artificial intelligence. It's the same debate really, and people dismissing it with "they are animals" are missing the point entirely.

So the question is, do we include the chimp... or exclude the child?

So the question is, do we include the chimp... or exclude the child?

The obvious position on determining sentience and rights is to cast as wide a net as is reasonable. Include 'em both.

The obvious position on determining sentience and rights is to cast as wide a net as is reasonable. Include 'em both.

Assuming that's reasonable.

They're loosing out on the right not to be tortured to death in medical experiments and product testing labs.

Well that sounds bad.

Assuming that's reasonable.

It could be argued if you look at the experiment done by the Premacks where they raised a chimp named Sarah with their baby.

They were the same in many ways until they reached the age of 2-4(I forget which year). After that age there were noticeable differences in development.

No. Chimps, by your own quoted definition, are a species. Bonobo Chimps are a race.

You're just looking at half of definition 7. There's about 5.5 others there to read.

In other news:
1) Fire is not wet


Neither is water

Yes corporations can be people, because corporations are operated by people.

No, corporations are not "people," they are legal entities treated as persons. The reason for this has nothing to do with the level of sentience of their founders or operators, but rather for economic and social reasons.

They are not operated by chimps.

...so?

You aren't helping your case by being insulting.

No, I just tend to add that flavor whenever I post. It's how I was born.

The fact that the original poster recognizes that chimps are not humans is not close-mindedness. It is logical and rational.

Person. Legal personhood. Not legal "humanhood."

Neither is water
What do you mean? How would you define "wet" other than "what water is like"?

You are wrong about number 4. Two plus two does equal five for large values of five.

getting back to the OP, I think this was more a publicity stunt aimed at raising awareness of this poor chimp's plight (and other animals in the same position) than it was at actually arguing the chimp was a person.
That's what I got from reading the OP anyhoo.


Speaking of primate-humans, I've often toyed with the idea that why doesn't someone train a gorilla into bodybuilding and posing. Shave, he'd look much like all the others on stage. And we'd finally get to see just how strong those buggers are. And they could be trained to play other sports.
Think about it - a gridiron team stocking it's offensive line with trained, pumped gorillas. I'd certainly watch it.
Gorilla gridiron - this millennium's world sport? I'd like to think so.

I think that the last seven years have shown that rather clearly.

Ouchouchowieouchouch

It could be argued if you look at the experiment done by the Premacks where they raised a chimp named Sarah with their baby.

I've always wondered how the Premacks knew the chimp's name was Sarah.

two problems. 1) that isn't a defining feature of species. they really should stop telling people that.

Okay, so what is? I understand there's a problem with that definition when it comes to organisms that reprdocue asexually (like bacteria) but for sexual organisms (which includes chimpanzees) that's the definition. It's also the easiest way to define a human- "their offspring can reproduce, so it must also be human" if only because it rectifies the other problems with defining what a human is, since someone with Down's Syndrome can still procreate with another human and produce fertile offspring.

2) species membership doesn't seem plausibly related to recognition of personhood. after all, we already grant some level of personhood to various non-humans in the form of institutions.

Those institutions are run by humans. Therefore they can be "persons".

and do you want to claim that we should deny personhood to an intelligent alien species should we ever encounter one?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11869793

^ We had that debate once in the NationStates United Nations cause some of the nations in the UN RP'ed as alien nations and thus we had to find some way to ensure that the previous UN Resolutions extended to them. We resolved it by concluding that a "human" is a species in which it can be conclusively shown where its members have developed the same kind of sentience that humans have- namely, the species' characteristics, understandings and intelligence are so on par with humans that, while not physically human they are, at the very least, recognizably mentally human. I don't think that definition goes far enough, since it opens the door for humans to grant rights to organisms that, while behaving with many of the same characteristics as humans, choose to attack us since they are unable to communicate their displeasure with us in any other way. For me, that's the key- it's not enough for a species to be able to act and think the way humans do, they (and we) have got to be able to find a way to interact and reason in an equitable way and that means to be able to communicate at roughly the same level.

This is where the chimp=human idea collapses (at least as far as we understand it). We've established countries and laws and unilaterally imposed them on the territories in which chimpanzees live. We trap them and send them to labs, zoos and other experimental environments, imposing a different home on them. These are conditions in which a human would noticeably and vociferously reject, with other humans organizing protests, orchestrating petitions and/or organizing a "rescue team" to get their fellow human out of trouble. I have yet to see a chimpanzee even recognize that some of their brethren are being stared at in zoos or experimented on, and I have to see the multitude of chimpanzees placed in "captivity" (a word with so many negative connotations) voice their pleasure or displeasure at their situation. I have yet to see the chimpanzees recognize that they're being ruled by the Sierra Leoneans or the Cameroonians and that they have to abide by those country's laws, and if they don't like what the government is doing with them they can take the issue up with the government (thus, "being able to demand rights"). Nor have they ever been able to interact and reason on a deeper level on par with an adult human. I don't care that chimpanzees can communicate as well as a six-year-old kid- chimpanzees as a species don't ever seem to be capable of understanding the greater implications of their scenario in that they don't seem to recognize the extent of their human overlordship nor do they even try to negotiate with their overlords and hope to reach "an understanding" about it. The intelligence issue alone shows they're not equal- as a whole- with humans, hence why there's no legal basis to conclude that they be treated the same way.

Secondly, animals can be persons, unless you chose to discriminate based on morally irrelevant features (like species)

So I guess that means antibiotics are out, since that means killing some species as bacteria *are* types of species (and, depending on who you talk to, viruses would also be protected as it's argued that they, too, are "alive" and thus could also be "a species"). Insecticides are also gone, since insects are also a species and deserve to be protected under this rationale. Finally, it also means that food is out of the question, since that means killing other species (since plants *are* a species) or forcibly taking something from them that they didn't expressly permit to be taken (fruits, which could also conveniently be disallowed depending on how one views the abortion issue). So, unless we wish to lead the life of worms, we're stuck.

Seriously, do you realize the quagmire you're creating if you're going to extend legal rights to all species?

getting back to the OP, I think this was more a publicity stunt aimed at raising awareness of this poor chimp's plight (and other animals in the same position) than it was at actually arguing the chimp was a person.
That's what I got from reading the OP anyhoo.

If it was merely a publicity stunt, they wouldn't have taken it all the way to the Supreme Court of Austria- they'd probably just have a protest and leave it at that. It seems their goal actually *is* getting Hiasl (the name of the chimpanzee in question) named a "person", conveniently forgetting the extent such a decision would have especially if not worded correctly (as it could open the door for *all* non-humans to be considered "persons", plus it might even prevent pet ownership since "persons" need to be protected against forcible confinement).

I personally think their hearts are in the right place- they're just going about it the wrong way. Why can't someone just adopt Hiasl or buy him and be his legal guardian so that Hiasl can receive donations? The whole "person" thing is just superfluous.

Speaking of primate-humans, I've often toyed with the idea that why doesn't someone train a gorilla into bodybuilding and posing. Shave, he'd look much like all the others on stage. And we'd finally get to see just how strong those buggers are. And they could be trained to play other sports.
Think about it - a gridiron team stocking it's offensive line with trained, pumped gorillas. I'd certainly watch it.
Gorilla gridiron - this millennium's world sport? I'd like to think so.

That'd be interesting...but I don't think the animal rights activists would like that, since you're using the gorillas as entertainment (and probably against their will...although scientists also use gorillas in experiments against their will so I don't know).

"If the DNA wasn't what it is, then it would be something else." If he didn't have that DNA, maybe he would have a chimp's DNA instead, or an ant's; he would be something other than what he is. I'm sorry, this whole line of argument sounds to me like "And if my aunt had four wheels, she'd be a wagon". You are basing the rights of the Down's Syndrome on what he *isn't* but maybe could-have-been in an alternative universe?
But in that alternative universe, there wouldn't be HIM, at all! Can't you base his rights on what he IS?

Most "defects" occur because of a small genetic variance that does not exist in the majority of humans. It's a matter of the question of species- we make allowances that not all members of the same species will have completely the same genes, but we also conclude that every member of the same species has, essentially, the same genetic makeup- i.e., one mallard duck's genes will look almost identical to another mallard duck's genes but it won't have *everything* the same. When it comes to a person with Down's Syndrome, even though on an intellect level they're not "human", genetically they are still mostly the same- in other words, one looking at the genes would still conclude it's human as it's not so radically different to conclude otherwise.

Besides, the "Down Syndrome person" passes the other part of the species test- it can procreate with another human being and produce a fertile human. That's good enough here.

Okay, so what is? I understand there's a problem with that definition when it comes to organisms that reprdocue asexually (like bacteria) but for sexual organisms (which includes chimpanzees) that's the definition.

no, it really isn't. firstly, it doesn't even work as a general rule for plants. secondly, it only even makes for a frequently wrong guideline for even animals. genetic reproductive isolation takes way longer than speciation, and introgression is downright common. for example, more or less all of the bison herds in north america have had significant genetic input from domesticated cattle.

It's also the easiest way to define a human- "their offspring can reproduce, so it must also be human" if only because it rectifies the other problems with defining what a human is, since someone with Down's Syndrome can still procreate with another human and produce fertile offspring.

and what about sterile people?

Those institutions are run by humans. Therefore they can be "persons".

that isn't the relevant feature of them, since there are many institutions run by people that we don't grant personhood to

I don't think that definition goes far enough, since it opens the door for humans to grant rights to organisms that, while behaving with many of the same characteristics as humans, choose to attack us since they are unable to communicate their displeasure with us in any other way. For me, that's the key- it's not enough for a species to be able to act and think the way humans do, they (and we) have got to be able to find a way to interact and reason in an equitable way and that means to be able to communicate at roughly the same level.

firstly, the fact that you think this is ok completely and utterly demolishes any claims about species-relevance to moral inclusion. your criteria are apparently actually related to cognition and communication. of course, this would appear to rule out broad swaths of homo sapiens while you are at it, so i don't think you'll ultimately be going with that either.

The intelligence issue alone shows they're not equal- as a whole- with humans, hence why there's no legal basis to conclude that they be treated the same way.

good thing nobody has ever claimed that they should be, eh?

Seriously, do you realize the quagmire you're creating if you're going to extend legal rights to all species?

nobody said that either.

I've always wondered how the Premacks knew the chimp's name was Sarah.

Why she told them of course!

Those institutions are run by humans. Therefore they can be "persons".

People here are asking why "human" and "person" have to be the same thing.

no, it really isn't. firstly, it doesn't even work as a general rule for plants.

Which isn't relevant to what I'm arguing.

secondly, it only even makes for a frequently wrong guideline for even animals. genetic reproductive isolation takes way longer than speciation, and introgression is downright common. for example, more or less all of the bison herds in north america have had significant genetic input from domesticated cattle.

Well, maybe bison and cattle *do* belong to the same species; and I'm not closed to the idea that a chimpanzee and a human cannot be either. However, it's not been *shown* except for scientists displaying similar characteristics and that's not enough to call the two the same species. If they are the same species, they should be able to mate naturally and continue to do so on a regular basis. The biologists seem to agree on that one:

http://tispaquin.blogspot.com/2007/06/wheels-off-wagon.html
http://www.bio-medicine.org/Biology-Definition/Species/
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/biodiversity/biodv-10.cfm
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-49879/evolution
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-2745%28198523%2988%3A3%3C172%3AACOTBS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage#abstract
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/a_list_of_26_species_concepts.php

I understand there's some confusion and "exceptions to the rule", but more or less that's where the definition stands; and unless the definition changes and/or chimpanzees and humans can breed naturally there's no reason to conclude they're the same species.

and what about sterile people?

I did think about that after I made the post, but then I realized it's not much of an issue. First of all, "sterile people" are so similar to "normal people" that it's just not reasonable to assume that they're "different". Second of all, they had parents who had parents who had parents etc. that it can be concluded that infertitlity is extremely abnormal in humanity and that two beings that in every other way are humans are incredibly likely to naturally produce fertile offspring. We still haven't even shown that out of 100 pairs of chimpanzees and humans that they can produce 99 or so fertile offspring, even in controlled settings. Once that's done (if it's ever done) then we can start- maybe- considering chimpanzees and humans as equals, but not until then.

that isn't the relevant feature of them, since there are many institutions run by people that we don't grant personhood to

Which isn't relevant to the discussion anyway. The precedent still shows that we grant personhood to humans or entities run by humans- until that changes there's no precedent to extend it to chimpanzees. The comparsion here really doesn't hold any water.

firstly, the fact that you think this is ok completely and utterly demolishes any claims about species-relevance to moral inclusion. your criteria are apparently actually related to cognition and communication. of course, this would appear to rule out broad swaths of homo sapiens while you are at it, so i don't think you'll ultimately be going with that either.

First of all, I don't think the law ought to run any other way than "amorally", since it's impossible to mold a country under a certain set of "moral values" when everyone in that country holds different values. The extent of the law should only go so far as to ensure that the operation of one's life isn't interfered in any way by someone else (hence ensuring basic rights and freedoms) and that the functionality of the State can be maintained (which includes having a strong economy and that only occurs if poverty is checked in some way). Now, I don't wish to debate the finer parts of this further since it's a debate for another thread, but in other words, the law should only concern itself with reason and not with morals, since if it insists on a moral standard it's only fighting a battle it'll eternally lose.

Second of all, I don't think you understood what I said properly. What I had said is that for an "alternative intelligent species" to gain the same kind of rights as humans it's got to show that they are roughly equal to humans in regards to intelligence and that they recognize that they share a common "world" with humans. I also believe you can't extend rights to a species bent on attacking us since it's clear they have no interest in being a part of our world but that's somewhat of a seperate issue since that recognizes a "unified" worldview. The average adult chimpanzee is nowhere near the intelligence of the average adult human, and chimpanzees as a whole don't seem to understand they're a part of Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Uganda, Cameroon, Congo, etc. and thus "don't seem to be in our world", so I don't see a legal justification for equating them on the same level as humans.

good thing nobody has ever claimed that they should be, eh?

First factor, really. You want an entirely different species to be considered a "person" when only humans have ever been considered "persons"? Well, show they're at least somewhat equal and then we can have that discussion.

nobody said that either.

Secondly, animals can be persons, unless you chose to discriminate based on morally irrelevant features (like species)

^ There we go.

Perhaps we should try another angle.

The OP implies that the conclusion "chimps are not persons" is a no-brainer, because chimps are not humans.
As has been pointed out multiple times already in this topic that is exactly the same line of reasoning that led to people not perceiving blackskinned people or women as full persons. That line of reasoning has been shown flawed (unless you are a fundamentalist racist who believes women are inherently inferior of course) and as such we would like to see a different line.

Now, it is quite possible that that different line will lead to exactly the same conclusion - namely that chimps are not persons. Some people might claim that that would mean the whole thing was a waste of time, but that would just mean that those people are idiots. The reasoning leading to a correct conclusion is at least as important as the conclusion itself.

As anyone who had to "show their work" in a math test will know ;)

The reasoning leading to a correct conclusion is at least as important as the conclusion itself.

As anyone who had to "show their work" in a math test will know ;)*ahem*

Some of you who have small children may have perhaps been put in the
embarrassing position of being unable to do your child's arithmetic homework
because of the current revolution in mathematics teaching known as the New
Math. So as a public service here tonight I thought I would offer a brief
lesson in the New Math. Tonight we're going to cover subtraction. This is the
first room I've worked for a while that didn't have a blackboard so we will
have to make due with more primitive visual aids, as they say in the "ed biz."
Consider the following subtraction problem, which I will put up here: 342 -
173.

Now remember how we used to do that. three from two is nine; carry the one, and
if you're under 35 or went to a private school you say seven from three is six,
but if you're over 35 and went to a public school you say eight from four is
six; carry the one so we have 169, but in the new approach, as you know, the
important thing is to understand what you're doing rather than to get the right
answer. Here's how they do it now.

You can't take three from two,
Two is less than three,
So you look at the four in the tens place.
Now that's really four tens,
So you make it three tens,
Regroup, and you change a ten to ten ones,
And you add them to the two and get twelve,
And you take away three, that's nine.
Is that clear?

Now instead of four in the tens place
You've got three,
'Cause you added one,
That is to say, ten, to the two,
But you can't take seven from three,
So you look in the hundreds place.

From the three you then use one
To make ten ones...
(And you know why four plus minus one
Plus ten is fourteen minus one?
'Cause addition is commutative, right.)
And so you have thirteen tens,
And you take away seven,
And that leaves five...

Well, six actually.
But the idea is the important thing.

Now go back to the hundreds place,
And you're left with two.
And you take away one from two,
And that leaves...?

Everybody get one?
Not bad for the first day!

Hooray for new math,
New-hoo-hoo-math,
It won't do you a bit of good to review math.
It's so simple,
So very simple,
That only a child can do it!
Now that actually is not the answer that I had in mind, because the book that I
got this problem out of wants you to do it in base eight. But don't panic. Base
eight is just like base ten really - if you're missing two fingers. Shall we
have a go at it? Hang on.

You can't take three from two,
Two is less than three,
So you look at the four in the eights place.
Now that's really four eights,
So you make it three eights,
Regroup, and you change an eight to eight ones,
And you add them to the two,
and you get one-two base eight,
Which is ten base ten,
And you take away three, that's seven. Ok?

Now instead of four in the eights place
You've got three,
'Cause you added one,
That is to say, eight, to the two,
But you can't take seven from three,
So you look at the sixty-fours.

"Sixty-four? How did sixty-four get into it?" I hear you cry.
Well, sixty-four is eight squared, don't you see?
(Well, you ask a silly question, and you get a silly answer.)

From the three you then use one
To make eight ones,
And you add those ones to the three,
And you get one-three base eight,
Or, in other words,
In base ten you have eleven,
And you take away seven,
And seven from eleven is four.
Now go back to the sixty-fours,
And you're left with two,
And you take away one from two,
And that leaves...?

Now, let's not always see the same hands.
One, that's right!
Whoever got one can stay after the show and clean the erasers.

Hooray for new math,
New-hoo-hoo-math,
It won't do you a bit of good to review math.
It's so simple,
So very simple,
That only a child can do it!

Come back tomorrow night. We're gonna do fractions. :)

*ahem*

:)

I actually did the math in base 8 when I first heard that song ;)
I fear that I cannot sing along to the elements anymore though :(

I actually did the math in base 8 when I first heard that song ;) Isn't that awesome? So did I! I was sorta doing it while driving with the wife ... she doesn't see the intrigue, sadly ... :(

I fear that I cannot sing along to the elements anymore though :(Why not?
:(

Perhaps we should try another angle.

The OP implies that the conclusion "chimps are not persons" is a no-brainer, because chimps are not humans.
As has been pointed out multiple times already in this topic that is exactly the same line of reasoning that led to people not perceiving blackskinned people or women as full persons. That line of reasoning has been shown flawed (unless you are a fundamentalist racist who believes women are inherently inferior of course) and as such we would like to see a different line.

Now, it is quite possible that that different line will lead to exactly the same conclusion - namely that chimps are not persons. Some people might claim that that would mean the whole thing was a waste of time, but that would just mean that those people are idiots. The reasoning leading to a correct conclusion is at least as important as the conclusion itself.

As anyone who had to "show their work" in a math test will know ;)

The thing is, biology has already reached that conclusion and seems to be a pretty strong one- maybe not as strong as evolution but not so strong that it can't hold up to some kind of scrutiny- although, as I admit myself, the possibility the definition could change is very open (as is the rest of scientific theory). Chimpanzees do seem to be at least somewhat close to humans and it's biologically-accepted that the two species are related- but I don't know if that classification is close enough to say that they can be close enough under the law.

Regardless, the ordeal is counter-productive anyway- the activists don't need to go as far as declaring Hiasl (the chimpanzee in question here) a "person" to protect him. Why doesn't someone just buy him and thus have all of Hiasl's donations directed to them? Why don't they set up a corporation in which Hiasl can be overseen and the donations be given to? That ensures Hiasl's safety and won't waste time that could be better used anticipating the bankruptcy of Hiasl's current home (since this case could drag over the time in which that bankruptcy actually happens). Seriously, the whole "Hiasl is a person" is an ultimately meaningless political stunt.

The thing is, biology has already reached that conclusion

What conclusion ? That chimps are not human ? We know that, yes. Just like women are not men.

But we are talking about persons here. What statements does biology make about persons ?

What conclusion ? That chimps are not human ? We know that, yes. Just like women are not men.

But we are talking about persons here. What statements does biology make about persons ?

I don't think that statement is wholly relevant- it's more pertinent that precedent sets the fact that only humans or human-run entities are granted "personhood". Since we're dealing with a court of law, any changes to "personhood" will have to adhere to those rules, meaning Hiasl has to be shown to be human for him to be accepted as a human (the only ones the law now recognized as "persons"). The court can only deal with previous interpretations of the law and has to apply them to the cases presented before them- and the fact of the matter is there's no prior precedent granting personhood to entities that are non-human in nature, so if Hiasl wants to be a "person" he'd have to be shown to be human first. Or get the Austrians to change their own laws.

read animal liberation by peter singer, he has some cohesive arguments that are not very different from yours and he writes very accessible.

Isn't he the cheerleader for euthanasia? With the exception of his mother with Alzheimer's, that's so much different of course!

A child with comparable intelligence wouldn't be its own guardian either. Nonetheless it would be protected from certain things being done to it.

I just think that on a philosophical level, I can't really come up with a meaningful definition of "human" that would include a 3-year old, but not a smart chimp. But then, the same would apply to eventual artificial intelligence. It's the same debate really, and people dismissing it with "they are animals" are missing the point entirely.
It's easer though. I can't really be bothered with all this intellectual masturbation, going for some dreary philosophical debate on what should constitute personhood. I find it much better to go for the common sense approach and draw a nice conventient line which has worked just fine so far - keep personhood rights to our own species.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13385800']Isn’t he the cheerleader for euthanasia? With the exception of his mother with Alzheimer’s, that’s so much different of course!
Oh, don’t post such unfounded rubbish.

Very basically, Singer is an interest utilitarian; he believes that everyone’s interests should be taken into account, that we should maximise individual’s interests. As animals have interests, Singer argues that their interests should also be taken into account.

This leads on to some very fruitful ethical discussions. Singer is an extremely influential and respected moral philosopher, and his books (especially Animal Liberation and Practical Ethics) should be read by anyone with a passing interest in modern, practical, moral philosophy.

Yet his name gets dragged through the mud, he is threatened, his books are banned and he is prevented from lecturing, all because his position is completely mischaracterised.

Just like you are doing.


It’s easer though. I can’t really be bothered with all this intellectual masturbation, going for some dreary philosophical debate on what should constitute personhood.
It’s a shame you find such discussion dreary; with the beginnings of AI, cloning and ever more insightful work into minds other than us humans, the debate over personhood is one of the most important to face philosophers, policy-makers, and scientists today.


I find it much better to go for the common sense approach and draw a nice conventient line which has worked just fine so far–keep personhood rights to our own species.
We haven’t kept to that line at all (see the discussion above about corporations being legal persons), and it’s far from convenient.

Shame you don’t want to get involved in the discussion... :p

So I guess that means antibiotics are out, since that means killing some species as bacteria *are* types of species (and, depending on who you talk to, viruses would also be protected as it's argued that they, too, are "alive" and thus could also be "a species"). Insecticides are also gone, since insects are also a species and deserve to be protected under this rationale. Finally, it also means that food is out of the question, since that means killing other species (since plants *are* a species) or forcibly taking something from them that they didn't expressly permit to be taken (fruits, which could also conveniently be disallowed depending on how one views the abortion issue). So, unless we wish to lead the life of worms, we're stuck.

Seriously, do you realize the quagmire you're creating if you're going to extend legal rights to all species?


I don't advocate to extend legal rights to all species, I'm saying we shouldn't treat living creatures as morally irrelevant because they happen to belong to another species, but instead take the ability to feel pain, think, be self-aware etc into account and base our actions on those criteria. That way we could weigh certain needs from certain creatures against each other.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13385800']Isn't he the cheerleader for euthanasia? With the exception of his mother with Alzheimer's, that's so much different of course!

I haven't heard about his mother and I honestly don't care. He has written about euthanasia, and more important to the discussion, about animal rights.

I don't advocate to extend legal rights to all species, I'm saying we shouldn't treat living creatures as morally irrelevant because they happen to belong to another species, but instead take the ability to feel pain, think, be self-aware etc into account and base our actions on those criteria. That way we could weigh certain needs from certain creatures against each other.

I believe what you were replying to was a comment about the legal definition of "personhood" upon which you said that "one shouldn't discriminate based on species", which poses *a lot* of problems if ever enacted legally (that I pointed out). Other than that, I don't have objections with what you said there.

We haven’t kept to that line at all (see the discussion above about corporations being legal persons), and it’s far from convenient.

Shame you don’t want to get involved in the discussion... :p

The thing is, though, legal precedent hasn't granted personhood to any entity that *isn't* human in nature or operation. I don't really care that there are human-run entities which aren't granted personhood- the fact of the matter is the law has only assigned personhood to (essentially) humans. Unless we change the definition of "human" I don't see how the law could operate in any other way.

The thing is, though, legal precedent hasn't granted personhood to any entity that *isn't* human in nature or operation. I don't really care that there are human-run entities which aren't granted personhood- the fact of the matter is the law has only assigned personhood to (essentially) humans. Unless we change the definition of "human" I don't see how the law could operate in any other way.

No, you'd just have to change the definition of personhood. Human by itself is merely a descriptive term for our species, which in and of itself carries little meaning or any kind of protections. You only have to look at our own history of stripping other human beings of their personhood and using that to justify all kinds of horrible crimes and repression against those other humans, whose sole crime was possessing different beliefs, skin color, mental disorder, whatever was used as a focal point for hatred. Cruelty and repression just don't care about the fact that their target is a human.

A higher standard of personhood that is inviolable and applies to all potential examples is what we need. Limiting the concept of personhood makes it easier for people to potentially abuse that definition for their own purposes; we've seen this happen before, and it will happen again if we're not careful.

There's a big difference between positive personhood and negative personhood. The former grants people positive rights and moral responsibility in our society (and so would presumably require the ability to comprehend and apply those attributes on a human level), while the latter only extends the negative protections without the associated moral responsibility and rights. Granting the former to chimpanzees would not make sense, since they are apparently incapable of understanding and applying human-level abilities, whereas granting the latter would allow them protection from threats (losing one of our closest living relatives would be catastrophic) and mistreatment above and beyond that granted to other, less self-aware animals.

Why do humans waste their time over such stupid matters. It's a chimpanzee. It just seems so dumb. I know I know, we should all think about it as if we were the chimp and how we would feel. There is however the question of whether or not animals can even think that that great on an extent. All those animal rights people, I doubt any one of them would take a bullet for an animal, they're just trying to look good. It's survival of the fittest, if they could I bet the chimpanzee would rather kill a human than die. Do we really have to worry about ever single living creature in the world? We just need the ones that are useful to us.

We just need the ones that are useful to us.

.

.

Fun fact: survival of the fittest has nothing to do with evolution. It was a racist doctrine developed by the Social Darwinists in an attempt to apply evolutionary theory to society. It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the good enough.

(Not to mention the fact that there really isn't such a thing as an unimportant organism...everything on Earth has a role in its ecosystem, and each ecosystem has a role in supporting others)

No, you'd just have to change the definition of personhood. Human by itself is merely a descriptive term for our species, which in and of itself carries little meaning or any kind of protections. You only have to look at our own history of stripping other human beings of their personhood and using that to justify all kinds of horrible crimes and repression against those other humans, whose sole crime was possessing different beliefs, skin color, mental disorder, whatever was used as a focal point for hatred. Cruelty and repression just don't care about the fact that their target is a human.

A higher standard of personhood that is inviolable and applies to all potential examples is what we need. Limiting the concept of personhood makes it easier for people to potentially abuse that definition for their own purposes; we've seen this happen before, and it will happen again if we're not careful.

There's a big difference between positive personhood and negative personhood. The former grants people positive rights and moral responsibility in our society (and so would presumably require the ability to comprehend and apply those attributes on a human level), while the latter only extends the negative protections without the associated moral responsibility and rights. Granting the former to chimpanzees would not make sense, since they are apparently incapable of understanding and applying human-level abilities, whereas granting the latter would allow them protection from threats (losing one of our closest living relatives would be catastrophic) and mistreatment above and beyond that granted to other, less self-aware animals.

The thing is, whenever the idea of "personhood" was extended by the courts it was extended because it was shown the figure in question *was* human- the mentally retarded were shown to be human, the Jew was shown to be human, the Black person was shown to be human, etc. I don't see how a court could go from that and suddenly declare a chimpanzee a person without that chimpanzee also shown to be human.

Now, the country itself could just change the definition to include non-humans, since it ultimately controls such things. I don't see why though- chimpanzees, elephants, tigers, etc. can be granted such "negative rights" without needing to be "persons" and, for the most part they already are- anti-poaching laws exist, animal cruelty is outlawed, restrictions exist on the culling and capture of animals, etc. Thus, any move to personhood appears nothing but ideologically motived, and could present a huge problem if it's not worded properly, since it could make it illegal to manufacture antibiotics (as bacteria are animals).

:(

It is- for better or for worse- reality. Unless we move off the planet in the next decade or so (not impossible, as I am led to believe), we're going to have to realize that we're running out of space, and all the protections that get in the way of our survival (such as outlawing oil drilling in an "environmentally sensitive" area) are going to be removed. If environmental protection is ever achieved in the long run, then we've got to make sure our practices and needs won't run afoul of it first.

Thus, any move to personhood appears nothing but ideologically motived, and could present a huge problem if it’s not worded properly, since it could make it illegal to manufacture antibiotics (as bacteria are animals).
That’s some slippery slope you got there.

Unless we move off the planet in the next decade or so (not impossible, as I am led to believe)
Really?

Thus, any move to personhood appears nothing but ideologically motived, and could present a huge problem if it's not worded properly, since it could make it illegal to manufacture antibiotics (as bacteria are animals).

That actually would not be a problem - bacteria are not self aware, do not experience pain and so on. Miswording such rules to include them would be quite a feat.

Including the severely mentally deficient, babies and so on in a definition of person without playing the "it is human" card however will be trickier. Not that hard, but there some care is needed.

yes but Corporations don't go around throwing poo and masturbating in public....:Dif I had to chose between them doing that and what they really do, I'd pick that every time.

That actually would not be a problem - bacteria are not self aware, do not experience pain and so on. Miswording such rules to include them would be quite a feat.

How do you know chimpanzees are self-aware? For that matter how do you know other human animals are self-aware? :p

Self-awareness isn't any sort of qualification for rights: It's a soft and useless term thrown about when human beings want to protect other species from harm - It's not a good term for this purpose because:

A) We can't quantify self-awareness: There is no objective self-awareness meter.

B) We can't draw a clear line between self-aware beings and those that aren't sentient enough

C) It doesn't actually protect life, it merely bullies "lower" lifeforms, takes away rights from humans and lulls people into fluffy complacency towards the nature of, well, nature.

D) Using a single quantum - self-awareness - to determine whether species is to be offered extended protection is just plain silly.


I personally believe that only humans should be allowed human rights because we're the only ones who can enforce those rights and discuss about their morals and consequences. I also think that animals should have distinctive rights of their own with humans looking after them taking into consideration the bigger picture.

How do you know chimpanzees are self-aware?

They understand the concept of a mirror ;)

Self-awareness isn't any sort of qualification for rights

Quite possibly. However, it seems many people in this topic are unwilling to actually sit down and think up some decent ones - so let us simply start by stating some imperfect ones and wait for improvements ;)

I believe what you were replying to was a comment about the legal definition of "personhood" upon which you said that "one shouldn't discriminate based on species", which poses *a lot* of problems if ever enacted legally (that I pointed out). Other than that, I don't have objections with what you said there.

No, I don't see it that way, I think we could come up with a definition of person which isn't based on to which kind of species a creature belongs but still allows for antibiotics and insecticides and eating vegetables.

an example could be:

In recent years a kind of consensus among secular scholars has emerged, which might be referred to as "personhood theory".[citation needed] This is strongly influenced by Locke's approach. The criteria a person must have in being a person are one or more of the following:

1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.

This would include most humans and probably some animals too, but nothing like bacteria or plants. I don't know if this would be useful as a legal definition though, because I don't advocate to give chimps the right to vote, but on the other hand we don't give corporations (which are apparently also considered persons :confused:) the right to vote.

I don't see why though- chimpanzees, elephants, tigers, etc. can be granted such "negative rights" without needing to be "persons" and, for the most part they already are- anti-poaching laws exist, animal cruelty is outlawed, restrictions exist on the culling and capture of animals, etc. Thus, any move to personhood appears nothing but ideologically motived, and could present a huge problem if it's not worded properly, since it could make it illegal to manufacture antibiotics (as bacteria are animals).

I agree that we should word it carefully in order not to make it illegal to manufacture antibiotics.
But on the other hand, if we worded it correctly it could also help us with other problems. It could help us for instance with abortion, because obviously fetuses aren't persons. We could also stop to pretend that a human who still breaths and has a heartbeat but isn't a person because their neocortex is inactive is death, which they obviously aren't, but help us conclude that they aren't persons and don't have a right to life.
(of course this is a bit simplified but I hope I made clear that changing the definition for person from "member of the species homo sapiens" could have some other benefits than protecting higher animals, at least that's how I see it)
I also don't think that the negative rights don't really work that well, and if we don't do anything else it wouldn't be a bad idea imo to extend those negative rights and inspect them better.


It is- for better or for worse- reality. Unless we move off the planet in the next decade or so (not impossible, as I am led to believe), we're going to have to realize that we're running out of space, and all the protections that get in the way of our survival (such as outlawing oil drilling in an "environmentally sensitive" area) are going to be removed. If environmental protection is ever achieved in the long run, then we've got to make sure our practices and needs won't run afoul of it first.

I on the other hand believe that we should start to care more about the environment if we want to survive, cattle-breeding for instance is a big waste of space and if our population continues to grow like predicted, it might be better to stop eating as much meat as a lot of people do nowadays. And start eating more of the economically more viable vegetables (were possible, I realize it's not possible to grow crops everywhere).

This is only one example of many, and tbh I rarely see a case where it would be better for both us and the environment to start using more resources instead of being more economical.

This would include most humans and probably some animals too, but nothing like bacteria or plants. I don't know if this would be useful as a legal definition though, because I don't advocate to give chimps the right to vote, but on the other hand we don't give corporations (which are apparently also considered persons :confused:) the right to vote.

Nor children for that matter. Being a person does not automatically grant you every conceivable right, so this is not a problem.

They understand the concept of a mirror ;)Does a blind chimp understand the concept of mirror? :p

Quite possibly. However, it seems many people in this topic are unwilling to actually sit down and think up some decent ones - so let us simply start by stating some imperfect ones and wait for improvements ;)

Only humans should be afforded human rights - That's a rather simple and accurate rule.

Other animals should be afforded special rights that are maintained by humans and protected against other humans: We have no right to deny natural order. Also, affording human rights to non-humans would mean that the animal, plant species in question should be equally responsible for breaching those rights: Do we want to sue a lion for killing a zebra? I think not. :D

I have never heard such lies!



yes but Corporations don't go around throwing poo and masturbating in public....:D

*cough* Coco Cola *cough*

The thing is, whenever the idea of "personhood" was extended by the courts it was extended because it was shown the figure in question *was* human- the mentally retarded were shown to be human, the Jew was shown to be human, the Black person was shown to be human, etc. I don't see how a court could go from that and suddenly declare a chimpanzee a person without that chimpanzee also shown to be human.

It would seem in that case that the most logical demarcation for personhood is the capability of expressing human-level emotions and cognition. Given that chimpanzees don't possess this, it would make sense not to give them personhood.

(Of course, I should disclose that my interest in the personhood debate is more applicable to human-level artificial intelligence, since future studies is a big personal interest and those kinds of questions are important. Naturally my position is one of granting full, positive personhood to anyone who possesses at least human-level abilities, and negative rights at our discretion to those that do not possess our capabilities.)

Now, the country itself could just change the definition to include non-humans, since it ultimately controls such things. I don't see why though- chimpanzees, elephants, tigers, etc. can be granted such "negative rights" without needing to be "persons" and, for the most part they already are- anti-poaching laws exist, animal cruelty is outlawed, restrictions exist on the culling and capture of animals, etc. Thus, any move to personhood appears nothing but ideologically motived, and could present a huge problem if it's not worded properly, since it could make it illegal to manufacture antibiotics (as bacteria are animals).

Of course; that's one big reason why we'd need a clear demarcation for where personhood would begin and how it would be determined. Otherwise, you get in to all kinds of unpleasant slippery slopes that could end up backfiring massively.

By and large, my goal of granting personhood in this case would be a conservation measure; losing a species like the chimpanzee would be colossally devastating to our ability to make meaningful progress in fields related to medical research, biodiversity, human evolution, and virtually anything else that hinges on the availability of non-human primates for observation and research.

I think negative personhood is best reserved as a viable option for intelligent animals that have a high risk of going extinct without additional protections.