Would you support "limited" human rights for other apes?

[Druidus]

Would you support limited human rights for other apes? For instance, land ownership (legally own the land they inhabit, but not pay taxes, for obvious reasons), killing one of them, or attacking one would be considered murder or assault (perhaps not as heavy a penalty as for humans), etc. This would not give them the right to vote, or any right that would require more intellect then they possess.

Would you support this, for all apes, or only chimpanzees and bonobos, or not at all?

 

[BUDDY]

None. They are still animals and deserve protection under animal rights laws, but there are so many difference between man and apes (whichever one you want to talk about) that to give them human rights, I think, is to dehumanize mankind.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You use "other apes" as if humans were "apes."

No rights for other apes, they don't have human dignity.

 

[Lycan]

No rights for other apes, they don't have human dignity.

I can think of several humans that don't have human dignity...

 

[Sunstone]

Our species is so genetically close to the great apes that some scientists advocate renaming the bonobo and chimpanzee (at the least) to include them in the genus Homo. I think the genetic closeness to us of the great apes is sufficient grounds for according them limited rights.

 

[Druidus]

You use "other apes" as if humans were "apes."

Technically, yes, we are. You see, the "great ape" family encompasses five species. Orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, bonobo, and human.

If you examine the structure of species, you see that we are a type of ape:

Human (Homo sapiens)

Domain Eukarya Kingdom Animalia Phylum Chordata Subphylum Vertebrata Class Mammalia Subclass Eutheria Order Primates Suborder Haplorhini Family Hominidae Genus Homo Species H. sapiens
The family Hominidae encompasses all apes, including us.

None. They are still animals and deserve protection under animal rights laws, but there are so many difference between man and apes (whichever one you want to talk about) that to give them human rights, I think, is to dehumanize mankind.

How does this dehumanize man? By granting real protection to a species 98-99 percent the same as us? The differences are minimal. It is our duty to protect our cousins, who do not have the voice and power that we do. Explain how this dehumanizes us?

Bonobos were discovered in 1928, by American anatomist Harold Coolidge, represented by a skull in the Tervuren museum in Belgium that had been thought to be a juvenile chimpanzee's, though credit for the discovery went to the German Ernst Schwarz, who published the findings in 1929. They are distinguished by an upright gait, a matriarchal and egalitarian culture, and the prominent role of sexual intercourse in their society.

They walk on two feet.

Bonobos and Common Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, sharing approximately 98.4% of their DNA with us

Pretty darn close.

Two Bonobos, Kanzi and Panbanisha have been taught a vocabulary of about 400 words which they can type using a special keyboard of lexigrams (geometric symbols), and can respond to spoken sentences. Some, such as philosopher Peter Singer, argue that these results qualify them for the same rights as humans.

Kanzi (born October 23, 1980), a bonobo, is one of the most most famous and accomplished linguistic apes, in research led by E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh.

Born to Lorel and Bosandjo at Yerkes field station at Georgia State University, Kanzi was stolen and adopted shortly after birth by a more dominant female, Matata. As an infant, Kanzi accompanied his mother to sessions where she was taught language through keyboard lexigrams, but displayed little interest in the lessons. It was a great surprise to researchers then when one day, while Matata was away, Kanzi began competently using the lexigrams, becoming not only the first observed ape to have learned aspects of language naturalistically rather than through direct training but also the first observed bonobo to use language at all. Within little time, Kanzi had mastered the ten that researchers had been struggling to teach his adoptive mother, and has since learned more than two hundred more. Also notable is Kanzi's ability to understand spoken language and associate it with lexigrams, Kanzi's ability to understand simple grammatical sentences, and possibly his invention of novel vocalized words.

Kanzi is also a far more accomplished tool user and inventor than practically all other apes. (See September 1994 issue of Discover article, "Ape at the Brink")

Kanzi knows over 400 lexigrams, and can make sharp cutting tools from rocks. Because bonobos and chimps have culture it is thought that by releasing a bonobo such as Kanzi into the wild, things such as his language and tool ability would be passed into the mainstream of bonobo society.

No rights for other apes, they don't have human dignity.

Hmm? What do you mean? Define "human dignity".

 

[Jaymes]

I'd be in favor of this to help preserve them, but I can just see someone twisting this to their own purposes... "You can't tax this land, a bonobo lives on it!"

 

[michel]

Ah; normally, when I vote, I look at the thread 'starter'; this time I did not, and voted 'other', having misunderstood the question. I did not read it as in 'land ownership' and other material - based concepts; I thought the question was meant as in 'respect for God's creation', in which case I would include any living being.

And yet, we build game reserves, where animals are safe from persecution by humans, and are -technically- given 'ownership' of land - ie the freedom to roam and act as nature designed them, without fear of human intervention.

I adore wildlife programmes, and when they show the animals' acceptance of human presence without any sign of fear, because no harm has been done by the humans for generations.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I can think of several humans that don't have human dignity...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The ethical implications of saying that a human doesn't have human dignity are rather alarming.

1) Human dignity is the reason why we try criminals

2) It is the foundation of ethics: human dignity is why we fight for justice, respect for autonomy, and we do good to others, and we try not to do harm

3) Lack of human dignity means that we can indiscriminately kill - fetuses don't have human dignity, which is why abortion is allowed; chickens don't have it so we can raise them for food; the Nazis weren't fans of human dignity...

 

[Druidus]

But wait... Chickens don't indescriminately "kill" anything! And the Nazi's were discriminate!

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The ethical implications of saying that a human doesn't have human dignity are rather alarming.

Are they? I hold all animal and plant species as equal, with a common spiritual dignity.

1) Human dignity is the reason why we try criminals

We didn't before, however. Did we have human dignity before fair trials, or before trials at all?

2) It is the foundation of ethics: human dignity is why we fight for justice, respect for autonomy, and we do good to others, and we try not to do harm

When a dog saves a person, has he not done good for others? Most dogs are very gentle, never attempting to harm, either. Apes, too, fight for their justice.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Nazis were discriminate according to who they thought had human dignity. According to them, only the superior race had human dignity and nothing else.

If animals and plants have the same dignity as humans, how is it that we are able to kill and eat all animals except for fellow humans?

 

[Sunstone]

If animals and plants have the same dignity as humans, how is it that we are able to kill and eat all animals except for fellow humans?

Are you saying that we cannot kill and eat members of our own species, Angellous? I doubt that's what you're saying, since the fact of cannablism is well known. But if that's not what you're saying, then what do you mean by "we are able to kill and eat all animals except for fellow humans"? Who or what gives us this "ability"?

 

[CaptainXeroid]

None. They are still animals and deserve protection under animal rights laws, but there are so many difference between man and apes (whichever one you want to talk about) that to give them human rights, I think, is to dehumanize mankind.

I concur 100%!!

We hear so often how Christians are trying to 'force their beliefs' on other people, but this a classic example of how it works in reverse.

 

[Druidus]

I don't kill and eat animals. The only things I "kill" are plants, and I wouldn't, if I didn't have to. The reason I only eat plants is because, up till now, there are no indications that they can feel "pain". It is biologically a waste for them to have pain, because they cannot run or move away from the pain. I kill less beings this way, than I would otherwise.

except for fellow humans?

Cannibals? Some of which still exist.

The Nazis were discriminate according to who they thought had human dignity. According to them, only the superior race had human dignity and nothing else.

You are doing the same as the Nazis. You are discriminate according to who you think has "human" dignity. According to you, only the "superior" species has human dignity, and nothing else.

It is terribly anthropocentric and egocentric to be that way.

Captian:

Force beliefs on you? How? I force nothing on you. In fact, it wouldn't harm you in the least if the other apes were granted limited personhood. You would still be you, you'd still have your opinions, and be allowed to voice them. But the other apes would be a little more protected, a little more likely to survive, despite attempts otherwise by the human species.

 

[Druidus]

Who or what gives us this "ability"?

Indeed.

 

[Doc]

The Nazis were discriminate according to who they thought had human dignity. According to them, only the superior race had human dignity and nothing else.

If animals and plants have the same dignity as humans, how is it that we are able to kill and eat all animals except for fellow humans?

Yes, the Nazis were discriminate, but are not humans too of animals not of their 'kind' or their 'race'. And according to society, only humans have dignity and nothing else.

We are able to kill them because nothing holds us back from killing plants and animals and only laws and rules keep us from eating fellow humans.

As a side note, for those thinking only us (homo sapiens) have human dignity and can eat and kill whatever we want, would you think the same if we found that 'hobbits" (homo erectus?) were still alive? Would it change anything if we found other hidden humanish species still here? Closely related but developing different attributes than us. Would they still not be deserving of human dignity?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are doing the same as the Nazis.

Uh, no. Fortunately, most of us can tell the difference between animals and humanity. Killing chickens for food is not the same thing as roasting Jews alive. BTW, I had family members give their lives to fight the Nazi's, some participating in D-Day, and others serving in Germany and Italy.

We have to respect other humans because they are more like us than animals, immeasurably and quantitatively.

Your point of view is indefencible to most people because we have to eat other living things to survive. We are omnivores, eating both plants and animals. It is no more evil for me to kill and eat a deer than a wolf. Furthermore, plants are alive too. If, as you say, plants have human dignity, then killing a plant is an interruption of its life an is murder, even for food. The plant has just as much right to live as you.

 

[Sunstone]

Druidus, let's cut to the chase. Could you list specifically those rights that you believe the great apes should have?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are you saying that we cannot kill and eat members of our own species, Angellous? I doubt that's what you're saying, since the fact of cannablism is well known. But if that's not what you're saying, then what do you mean by "we are able to kill and eat all animals except for fellow humans"? Who or what gives us this "ability"?

What I mean is that because humanity is special, we should not kill and eat our own species. When a human dies, something special is forever lost. A person with great potential is snuffed out. A person who could have been a great leader, an artist, a thinker, a poet, etc has no chance to live with freedom.

The reason why some people give human dignity to animals is because they project their feelings onto animals. Some people just get all warm and fuzzy thinking about a whale swimming around free in the ocean - it is a projection of how free the person feels and not that there is anything special about the whale.

 

[Druidus]

Uh, no. Fortunately, most of us can tell the difference between animals and humanity. Killing chickens for food is not the same thing as roasting Jews alive. BTW, I had family members give their lives to fight the Nazi's, some participating in D-Day, and others serving in Germany and Italy.

I had family members there too. I do equate a likfe lost to a life lost.

We have to respect other humans because they are more like us than animals, immeasurably and quantitatively.

We have to respect all life, because we come from the same place. Immeasurably? Wrong. Chimpanzees are, on average, 1.6% different than us.

Your point of view is indefencible to most people because we have to eat other living things to survive.

Hmm? Of course we do. But not things that suffer.

We are omnivores, eating both plants and animals.

But, in this day and age, we are able to survive, and, indeed, prosper, without eating of that which possesses the capability to suffer.

It is no more evil for me to kill and eat a deer than a wolf.

I agree.

Furthermore, plants are alive too. If, as you say, plants have human dignity, then killing a plant is an interruption of its life an is murder, even for food. The plant has just as much right to live as you.

I stated as much. However, plants do not suffer. That is the key. In eating plants, I cause less suffering than I would otherwise.

This is not about vegetarianism. This is about the fact that it would harm no living being if the other apes were given limited personhood. Nobody. I'm still not clear how this would reduce your human dignity either. All the qualities that make it up, in your definition, are found in other animals, even collectively.