Spain to recognise great ape rights

Not really, no. The fact that you seem to support an even more insane viewpoint than the one I ascribed to you does not make your stance better.

You're right, of course. My fault - I didn't assume that you actually meant animals rights: the political movement, but were instead talking about animal rights/protection as I normally view it. I frankly didn't think you would support such a viewpoint...

Why? Those rights most definitely arose in human culture. Nature isn't very nice, you know. Protecting those rights is very much a by humans, for humans thing. I don't think that they're actually grounded in anything other than what culture has made them, but they undeniably applied to humans only. Hence "human" rights. You seem to think that I mean "rights you should have because you're human". I don't. A priori there are none such rights. However, I do hold that there's nothing gained (and great potential loss) in extending the "rights society grants every member to make society function better" to great apes, and that it's therefore a stupid move. Studying the great apes to learn more about nature becomes exceedingly difficult if you have to worry about little Kiki dying of starvation...

Good. Because I didn't and I won't. (Whassat you say? Strawman? Never heard of him.)

Oh, fuck off with your self-rigtheous moralism. Saying that an orangutan should not have the vote (yeah, that's spin - deal with it) isn't fucking tantamount to supporting slavery. (I can see why MacM would think you're a snide bastard...)

Well, actually I sent it down the slippery slope, but no matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm all for apes having full rights. I want them to have the vote as well. They would most assuredly make better ballot selections.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not sure, but I think they already do vote in some of the "banana republics."

(That is supposd to be a joke and comment on how some are run, not a slur on any body.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[personal insult deleted]

 

Actually, I did...

As I said, I didn't think you'd support such a viewpoint (which usually manifests itself in vandalism from the likes of ALF.)

Not so. I'm not arguing that humans ought to treat animals badly. In fact, I emphatically disagree. What I am arguing is that human rights are a construct to make the human societies function better (as one of my friends is fond of saying, to make us choose Pareto optimality instead of Nash equilibrium). I have no more moral or ethical background for my stance than that. In fact, I'm not really interested in such arguments, as they essentially reduce to "My viewpoint is right because it is." which I consider to be a particularly bad kind of argument. By the same coin I could say that I, also on ethical grounds, don't support animal rights.

A clarification, seeing your response to Billy T: I'm not by this arguing that we shouldn't act morally. I'm just saying that we shouldn't delude ourselves that the morality we have is somehow intrisically true, nor about how it has arisen. Hell, even if we someday were to meet an alien (yes, as in standard science fiction alien) species, and it turned out to have the same standards of morality as us, this still wouldn't validate those standards - it could just be a thing that arises naturally (maybe inevitably, like a Ramsey theory thing) in socially complex networks between intellligent individuals...

Touché. What I mean is that human rights aren't there because you're human per se, but because there's a human society. (Other) animals aren't part of this society, nor are they likely to be. Not because of any intrinsic "that's how things should be" kind of thing, but because this society arose among humans and is finely tuned to the kind of behaviour that humans are good at. Animals literally can't participate in any meaningful way (IMHO).

Certainly. However, I think that it might hinder science, too, and in that case I'd rather have animal welfare than animal rights. I do not worry about the fate of every human out there - we have society for that, nor can I worry about the fate of every ape. Incidentally, without reference because I can't be bothered, studies of apes (hehe) seems to show that there's a limit to how many individuals we can care about, and that it's correlated with brain size. (Someone called it the "Monkeysphere".)

And the "slippery slope" argument actually does apply. To whom shall we (because it very much is us humans) extend these rights? Great apes are naturally appealling to us since we're primates, but in that case what about other apes? Mammals? Vertebrates? Why exactly have "animal" rights, isn't that unfair to plants? Or eucaryotes in general?

I'm perfectly serious, by the way. I think this idea is based on nothing more than the fact that great apes are like humans, in many respects. If intelligence is the criterion, then why should you suffer because you're a (relatívely) stupid spider monkey while chimpanzees thrive under our protection?

Hopefully not, but I'll stop the antagonism now (I'm in a much better mood today.) There are plenty of bad guys to go after (here and otherwise) and you aren't one of them. So what if we disagree on a couple of issues...

Since you mentioned biodiversity, can't the case be made that this might lessen biodiversity? At some point, extending these rights to apes will probably mean having to extricate them from their current environments, which will loose a player and probably suffer as a consequence.

(Note: I'm not particularly worried about this, I just think that the biodiversity argument doesn't necessarily hold. After all 99.99% of all species that ever lived are extinct, and of those that are left (including), probably all will die eventually. Oh, and remember that 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot (read "almost all" for 99.99%.))

 

It is about time apes gain a little bit of protection under the law. In too many places they have no more than rabbits and cows and can be eaten. This disgusts me in that, while great apes may not match men in capabilities, they seem to have the spark of sapience. They most are at least as much people as young children, the senile, and the mentally retarded.

 

But animal welfare entails that, too.

Again, no, I don't. I consider cruelty to animals to be disturbing and vile. On the other hand do I consider, say, toxicity tests on animals to be cruelty? No.

Well, human rights ultimately makes my life (and the life of my progeny) better.

Again, I'm not interested in morality. The only reason there even is something like human rights is because humans are social animals. When we work together we have better chances individually to survive and continue our genetic line. Applying a moral codex designed to ensure those things to other animals is a non sequitur.

Hey, it's nature. I'm not saying it good or bad, but that's how it is. And what makes you think we're separate, by the way? We are as much part of nature as the great apes...

A rule codified to make humans societies stronger. Not because it has instrinsic value.

Well, yes. I'll stand by that, though I wouldn't have worded it like that (and don't necessarily agree with the sport thing).

I'm not arguing on an individual basis. Like (other) laws, human rights establish certain ground rules that makes cooperation possible (that Pareto/Nash thing). While that includes having to take what seems like locally suboptimal choices, it leads to a generally better society (for want of a better term) than we would have had if it wasn't there. That's why we, say, care for the elderly. Also, empathy will have been selected for wrt. evolution, so we feel good about doing it, too, and think it's the right, moral choice.

Why not?

No, I don't consider human misery acceptable. In fact, I hope to be able to alleviate some of that misery by doing science. And yes, I consider slavery unacceptable. I am also aware that it has little direct influence on me, and thus it takes up little to none of my time. I don't consider the two stances to be incompatible.

You seem somehow... disappointed... by this?

See, I think this is where we don't see eye to eye. I don't think there's a lack of moral fibre, because I don't consider it a moral question.

So, what penalty should a violation of those rights incur? Are you going to imprison lions for killing gazelles (violating their right to life)? Again, I'm deadly serious.

See, it isn't obvious at all. I, for one, don't agree.

Here's where I think that you haven't thought these things through: Are you certain that the goal you're striving for makes sense at all? Are you sure that it isn't perhaps motivated by a romantic notion of nature?

Again, reducing unwarrented suffering is what animal welfare is about.

That's why I said "if".

I agree. I hate it when people speak of the "evolutionary ladder", because it betrays a poor understanding of how evolution works. The tree analogy is somewhat less annoying because the phylogenetic tree is remarkable, and everyone should know it. Of course, the concept of "top" implies an overall direction to evolution, which is obviously false (except in the vacuous sense of "to species better suited to the current environment than these".)

Let's say we grant the apes basic rights. As the only sentient beings aware of those rights, it falls to us to uphold them. So, we would be morally obligated to provide medical care, access to clean food and water, protection from the elements, etc. ultimatelly altering their environment (and their interaction with their current environment) totally. Yes, it's a leap, but not unreasonable, I think.

Hold on. I didn't say that biodiversity wasn't a good thing, just that we shouldn't worry about it. Whereever an ecological niche opens up, evolution will take care of the rest. But every species dying out is an inevitability (even though some, like, say, sharks are remarkably resilient.) When evolution is a force it simply can't be helped. Don't think for a moment that saving a few pandas will change anything.

Not particularly, no. I realize that there are certain romantic notions coupled to a live tiger, but that's only because of popular culture. I don't really care that my child will never get to see a pterodactyl, either. The only difference between the tiger and the pterodactyl is that the tiger isn't extinct yet. Don't worry though: Nature will take care of that.

 

A hard cruel fact all are born to die, be it the individual life, or the species, it will all run its natural course and there isn't a thing that humans can do about it, untill we become Gods, and can create by word a life.

 

Well if the United States can grant the same status to Corporations, why not apes?

 

Right back at you...

Well, I'm only human. The evolutionary and cultural pressures that have made humans moral have certainly worked on me as well. It "feels" wrong.

I'm talking medical toxicity tests.

If it doesn't affect me, it isn't necessarily ok, either. If it benefits me (say, for its nutritional value) and it's done in an 'ethical' way, then yes, it's desirable. I like my meat.

Again, I'm not excempt from morality. But I just can't use "It's wrong." as a rational argument for much of anything. But I recognize that there are certain benefits to acting morally, not least of which the benefits to myself (whether directly or indirectly.) Which is why murder and rape are wrong. Not because it's somehow "universally true" that they are wrong, but because it ultimately benefits humans to act accordingly.

See above.

Well, it certainly seems that way given what you write below...

I mean that they are either "universally true" or at least applicable in most other contexts then the default one. For instance, "The strong protecting the weak" is a good guiding principle in many cases, but certainly not all. For instance, at the end of WW2, Germany was the weak party, but did not warrant protection from the Allies.

Deer hunting and duck shooting are hunting, so I don't see much wrong with that. Bull fighting I regard as antiquated, and since we know the bull suffers greatly during the ordeal, I consider it a nasty practice. As I've made clear, I'm not excempt from morality, even if I presume to have some idea of it's origins.

Because there's absolutely no way that those ground rules will be followed. With rights come responsibility, and animals simply won't be aware of that.

Who said they were to be treated as objects? Just because we don't treat them as humans doesn't mean that we treat them as objects.

Again, slavery is harmful to the overall state of human society (IMO.)

It's dependent on the animal. But generally, the more the animal is like us, in some respect, the less difference there is. But you seem to think that I don't want to limit animal misery. Well, to the extent of human influence and within reason (mine obviously, not yours) I do. That's why I support animal welfare.

Ah, but there's the rub. With rights come responsibilities: This is the whole upshot of my argument about human societies. Not because it's everything that matters (as you accuse me of thinking) but because we are given those rights with the condition that we not violate the rights of others. Without that basic ground rule and a way to uphold it, rights are worthless, and will be broken.

But then you're being horribly inconsistent. On the one hand, you want to penalize humans for killing, say, chimpanzees, on the grounds that there are no good reason for morally distuinguishing between us and therefore humans ethics can be applied to chimpanzees. But on the other, you don't want to penalize chimpanzees for killing chimpanzees, because human ethics apply only to humans. Isn't that exactly the speciesism you accuse me of? And, btw, it seems to me to be a pretty good reason to morally distinguish between us: One will respect the rights, the other will not.

The sanctity of human life is a right given to us on the condition that others respect it. With that right in place, human societies benefit from being able to work together (ideally) without having to worry that members of their society will kill them at whim or for personal gain. Therefore we punish those that violate this rule, maybe even depriving them of their rights (by, say, the police shooting you.) As social (intelligent) animals this rule has been selected for, and can even culturally be extended far beyond our Monkeysphere (the specific individuals we care) even as far as every other human (as in the human rights we're discussing.)

In the case of the deer, the deer isn't part of the society in which those rights are given. Because this morality is ingrained in us, we still choose to extend certain rights in a degenerate form to the deer. Recognizing the differences, however, we condition these rules to human interaction with the deer, and with humans as arbiters. Deer don't have the right to life under these circumstances (mainly because venison tastes good).

Well, I wouldn't be doing that, would I? I like steak for the reason that it's an extremely good nutrition source. The fact that I get personal enjoyment from it is a trait that will have been selected for, because it would have increased the chances of survival, but it is secondary to the fact that eating meat is good for me.

I simply disagree. Of course my interests take precedence. But that's true even in human interactions as well: If a human attacks me with a knife, I have the right to possibly kill him in self defense. If a lion attacks me, do I not have the right to defend myself?

Rights are extended between equals with equal responsibility for upholding them. Animals cannot be given rights, because they will not, and cannot take up the responsibility that follows.

What about the chimpanzee whose right not to be arbitrarily killed is violated by other chimpanzees? Why is it ok for a chimpanzee to kill another chimpanzee, but wrong for a human?

Well, they have the rights, but they aren't being upheld, for shame...

Again, this is based on a strange concept of what is, and isn't, "the natural world". A city is every bit a part of the natural world. The fact that we humans shape our environments does not make them unnatural, unless your idea of nature is "untouched by human hand" (a foolish romanticism). You wouldn't say that a termite tower isn't part of the natural world, so why is a high-rise? You might say that a city doesn't look much like the country, but a mountain-side doesn't look much like a lake, either. The notion that we are separate from nature is as arrogant as the one that says we are above it. We are neither. It is an idea of the same school as the "noble savage living in harmony with nature", which, of course, turned out to be simply wrong.

The point I was making with the tiger going extinct is that nature is continually changing, and that this is neither sad nor preventable. The idea that the status quo is especially worth preserving is either a romantic notion that there's something "special" about it, or a pragmatic (but ultimately futile) notion that humans are especially fit to the current environment, and that we should therefore keep it that way. Both betray a poor grasp of how nature works.

And I'm sorry you have such a limited understanding of it.

 

I literally laughed out loud there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's too bad Peter Singer founded the project. I am now antithetical to the whole idea because of previous readings of that buffoon's work. But a mere cursory reading allowed me to be distanced from the goodly vincent in terms of ignorance.

EDIT: I can't believe he is a Princeton professor of bioethics. Maybe I should dig up some excerpts to show just what his stances are. Unbelievable!

 

Hey, amazingly, I agree. Almost.
Apes should be given similar, but not the exact same right as humans. Protect them from cruelty and from going extinct, yes, but there are of course certain rights humans have that an ape cannot, mainly due to their own physiology.
But the simply fact is, apes such as chimps and gorillas are evolutionally closer to us than other animal alive today. They deserve at least some modicum of special protection compared to, say, swines.

 

I already explained the origins of human rights in terms of benefits to human society and, ultimately, the individual human.

Of course it is unsurprising. We need food to live.

Untrue. For instance, in the case of bull-fighting, the interest of the bull to avoid suffering outweighs the interests of the audience to be so entertained, in my opinion.

Hunting is what we did before raising livestock. I don't see that there's a great enough difference between them to support one and not the other: They ultimately end with killing the animal and eating it.

You're not listening, are you? It is detrimental to human society, and ultimately myself, if we don't have ground rules which makes it safe for us to work together.

A human child will grow up and assume those responsibilities once it is an adult. Cows and apes will not.

Treating it as an object suggests treating it as we see fit in every circumstance.

That suggests that your morality is a good measure of what is, and isn't good for human society. I disagree. Good measures are things like lifetime expectancy, infant deaths, disease frequency, population etc. "Setting a bad example" is a hopelessly subjective measure.

But then you're saying that humans are special and that we therefore are justified in differentiating between humans and great apes. You can't have it both ways.

No. You don't seem to understand: Everybody gets those rights, even the infirm and elderly, even babies, because it is a more optimal choice than having to protect ourselves against everybody else. Those who are able to take responsibility must do so.

No, you apparently can't see. There's the very good reason to draw the line at humans that the rights originated within human society for explicitly human benifit. They're there for cultural and evolutionary purposes: It makes us more fit to the environment. If you want to extend it beyond humans, you have to explain where you want the line to be drawn and why. It's not good enough to say "Let's do this first and worry about the rest later." Where do you want the line to be drawn?

No. I already admitted that my interests take precedence. That's how things are in nature - any species that chooses otherwise goes extinct.

Well, yes. The conditions under which we would take away the deer's rights are different than those wrt. humans.

If I don't eat food I die. I don't want to die. Defensible enough for you?

I was disagreeing that animal welfare was a sham.

Yes, of course. However, that doesn't invalidate the argument. I still need food to live. If that makes is defensible for a lion to kill a gazelle, why isn't it true for humans?

No, because you're still thinking in individuals. The rights apply to individuals for the benefit of the species (originally groups/tribes/societies). Even those individuals which are not up to the task of the responsibility because they either will be (as in the case of infants), or they already have (as with many disabled people.)

Why not? If you support the notion that it is evil enough for a human to kill a chimpanzee to warrant punishment, on the grounds of the interest of the chimpanzee, why won't you protect the interest of the chimpanzee to not be arbitrarily killed by another chimpanzee? It seems to be a particularly hollow kind of right you want to extend to the chimpanzees. In fact, you're not really interested in their rights, are you?

Did I say that? Did I say that it was ok to arbitrarily kill a chimpanzee? No, I didn't.

You think that "You need to get out more." somehow invalidates my argument? If you want to stick with your romantic notion of nature, that's fine by me. But don't patronize me if you can't defend your ideal: It's unbecoming.

You speak of this as if this is somehow a bad thing in and of itself. How much do you really know about evolution? (Note: I'm not advocating the extinction of species by this.)

I hope so, yes.

You're very persistent in ascribing me motives I have not expressed support for. I didn't say that I wanted to live in a world without those animals, nor did I say that we should wipe them out: I have as deep a cultural affection for them as you. I would find it saddening to recite "Tiger, Tiger" without any actual tigers alive. I just said that their extinction is inevitable, and that I will not weep for that in itself. Unlike you, I realize that the status quo is not special, not especially worthy of preservation, and indeed that such a stasis is not even theoretically possible. If you want to fight evolution, if you want to fight nature, that is your choice. But be aware that you will lose. And if you're doing it in a way that is harmful to the survival of the species (and therefore my genetic lineage, by extension: me), then I will fight you.

 

This is our peaceful monkeys?

The Predatory Behavior and Ecology of Wild Chimpanzees
My own preconception was that hunting must be nutritionally based. After all, meat from monkeys and other prey would be a package of protein, ...
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

Boston.com / News / Nation / Ferocity of chimpanzee attack stuns ...
Ferocity of chimpanzee attack stuns medics, leaves questions ... ''I had no idea a chimpanzee was capable of doing that to a human," said Kern County Fire ...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/06/ferocity_of_chimpanzee_attack_stuns_medics

'Drunk-and-Disorderly' Chimpanzees
Ugandan wildlife officials say cases of chimpanzee attacks on humans, particularly children, have been minimised in recent years after extensive buffer ...
http://www.primates.com/chimps/drunk-n-disorderly.html

BBC - Science & Nature - Articles - Chimps and humans in conflict
Human Body & Mind ... But the attacks continued. The most recent 'killer' chimp in the area, Kiki, has killed one child and maimed two others. ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/325feature1.shtml

9(1)-06
A Chimpanzee Attacks and Kills a Security Guard in Kigoma ... some visiting tourists about these apparently nasty encounters between chimps and humans. ...
http://mahale.web.infoseek.co.jp/PAN/9_1/9(1)-06.html