The Great Ape Project: Should Apes Get Human Rights?

[ConspiRaider]

The Great Ape Project (GAP), founded in 1993, is an international organization of primatologists, psychologists, ethicists, and other experts who advocate a United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Great Apes that would confer basic legal rights on non-human great apes: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. The rights suggested are the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture. (See Declaration on Great Apes.)

So humans can be tortured but the baboons get off scot-free? What would Jack Bauer say about that?

 

[roger]

I like to spank my monkey, but she says she likes it.

 

[jimlintott]

Maybe we should worry about ensuring that all humans get the same rights before we start giving rights to other critters.

 

[The Atheist]

The Great Ape project is not attempting to extend to great apes all the rights of human beings.

Quite right, the GAP think the great apes are human beings.

The idea is founded upon undeniable scientific proof that non-human great apes share more than genetically similar DNA with their human counterparts. They enjoy a rich emotional and cultural existence in which they experience emotions such as fear, anxiety and happiness. They share the intellectual capacity to create and use tools, learn and teach other languages. They remember their past and plan for their future. It is in recognition of these and other morally significant qualities that the Great Ape Project was founded.

 

[The Atheist]

Maybe we should worry about ensuring that all humans get the same rights before we start giving rights to other critters.

Much easier to deal with 200 mountain gorillas than 1,200,000 starving Bangladeshis.

Plus, gorilla babies are much cuter.

 

[The Atheist]

I see the GAP makes this claim, amongst others:

Human blood and Chimpanzee blood, with compatible blood groups, can be exchanged through transfusion. Neither our nor the chimps blood can be exchanged with any other species.

As far as I'm aware, that's not true, but I'll take expert opinion on that. The only sites I can find which state that as fact are GAP and sites copied from it (e.g. Wiki).

On the other hand, there appear to be plenty which say it isn't possible. Is this a hoax? Anyone smell onions?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Quite right, the GAP think the great apes are human beings.

If you were literate, you would have been able to read what specific rights they think need protecting.

1. The Right to Life
The lives of members of the community of equals are to be protected. Members of the community of equals may not be killed except in very strictly defined circumstances, for example, self-defense.

2. The Protection of Individual Liberty
Members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release. The detention of those who have not been convicted of any crime, or of those who are not criminally liable, should be allowed only where it can be shown to be for their own good, or necessary to protect the public from a member of the community who would clearly be a danger to others if at liberty. In such cases, members of the community of equals must have the right to appeal, either directly or, if they lack the relevant capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial tribunal.

3. The Prohibition of Torture
The deliberate infliction of severe pain on a member of the community of equals, either wantonly or for an alleged benefit to others, is regarded as torture, and is wrong.

Those are pretty mild especially compared to say, the right to property.

 

[Dave1001]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[The Atheist]

If you were literate, you would have been able to read what specific rights they think need protecting.

Goodness me, I'll give you 10/10 for trying - battered and bruised every single time, yet you still try. That's so sweet!

I keep telling you - you need to respond to my posts with what I actually typed. NOT what you wish/think/dream I typed.

Just for old times' sake...

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Goodness me, I'll give you 10/10 for trying - battered and bruised every single time, yet you still try. That's so sweet!

I keep telling you - you need to respond to my posts with what I actually typed. NOT what you wish/think/dream I typed.

Just for old times' sake...

So you actually have no proof that the people who run the Great Ape Project think that Great Apes are Humans? You just lied because it amused you to do so? Good to know.

 

[steverino]

Oops, I thought this was that Rosie O'Donnell Loudmouth thread. Adios.

 

[mumblethrax]

I infer from the language that the Great Ape Project wishes to remove all Great Apes from any and all zoos. I understand the empathy involved, but one might consider the benefit in recruiting the future stewards of the planet's wildlife.

That's the problem with inference: you're often wrong.

From the link UserGoogol posted:

Some of the opposition stems from misunderstandings. Recognising the rights of great apes does not mean that they all must be set free, even those born and bred in zoos, who would be unable to survive in the wild. Nor does it rule out euthanasia if that is in the interest of individual apes whose suffering cannot be relieved. Just as some humans are unable to fend for themselves and need others to act as their guardians, so too will great apes living in the midst of human communities. What extending basic rights to great apes does mean is that they will cease to be mere things that can be owned and used for our amusement or entertainment.

The Great Ape Project is not interested in shutting down zoos, except I suppose where apes are treated inhumanely.

 

[The Atheist]

So you actually have no proof that the people who run the Great Ape Project think that Great Apes are Humans? You just lied because it amused you to do so? Good to know.

Ha. Good timing, I've just been discussing your life's philosophy over in this thread.

"Ignorance is Strength"

I bet you're a very strong boy.

 

[burnvictim77]

I believe the idea is not that apes are morally meaningful because they show signs of intelligence and stuff; the family relationship merely makes for a nice PR spin.

But it does beg the question: what is the purpose of rights and how do we justify them?

 

[burnvictim77]

The Great Ape project is not attempting to extend to great apes all the rights of human beings. You can read what they actually say here: http://www.greatapeproject.org/declaration.php

Then they want to arbitrarily grant 'rights' based on whimsy, rather than recognizing something inherent in their natural interractions with us.

Can I take an ape to court for killing a relative? If you answer no (and I hope you do), then you are saying apes are not part of the human social contract.

 

[Tailgater]

Does anyone else want to say "grape ape" while reading this thread?

 

[mumblethrax]

Then they want to arbitrarily grant 'rights' based on whimsy, rather than recognizing something inherent in their natural interractions with us.

Can I take an ape to court for killing a relative? If you answer no (and I hope you do), then you are saying apes are not part of the human social contract.

Can you take a two-year-old to court for killing a relative? Contractarian ethics are not useful for fairly dealing with those persons incapable of implicitly agreeing to a social contract.

The authors of the declaration would probably answer your questions with something like, "Rights allow us to mediate between desires, and minimize harm done to morally relevant beings. Apes are in that category due to their capacity to conceive of themselves as distinct individuals existing over time, allowing them to have desires about the future."

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Then they want to arbitrarily grant 'rights' based on whimsy, rather than recognizing something inherent in their natural interractions with us.

Can I take an ape to court for killing a relative? If you answer no (and I hope you do), then you are saying apes are not part of the human social contract.

Hey, I agree with you. I'm don't agree on the specific rights they list.

 

[burnvictim77]

Can you take a two-year-old to court for killing a relative? Contractarian ethics are not useful for fairly dealing with those persons incapable of implicitly agreeing to a social contract.

The authors of the declaration would probably answer your questions with something like, "Rights allow us to mediate between desires, and minimize harm done to morally relevant beings. Apes are in that category due to their capacity to conceive of themselves as distinct individuals existing over time, allowing them to have desires about the future."

Right, and apes have rights in relation to other apes. They have their own morality and their own social contract. What they do not have is human morality or human social contract, thus they are not to be arbitrarily written half-way into the social contract for the sake of making some people sleep better at night.

As far as the 2-year-old, I can take her family to court. There is someone who assumes responsibility for her, despite allowances for special protections under the law. But with apes - this isn't the case at all. They will never 'grow up' and they do not have a human custodian. In this way, they are nature. I don't take the weather to court for destroying my house, because I have no contract with the weather. I simply suck up the loses. Now, if the ape is someone's custody, it is treated as property, and the owner assumes responsibility for their actions and also protects the ape's interests, sort of like a 2-year-old child.

 

[fuelair]

That's the problem with inference: you're often wrong.

From the link UserGoogol posted:


The Great Ape Project is not interested in shutting down zoos, except I suppose where apes are treated inhumanely.

No, but number 2 of their list certainly could, if accepted, let them pull the G.A.s out of any zoo where they could bribe or threaten a judge to "believe" them.