Chimp Denied Legal Guardian
Thank goodness. An Austrian judge refused to appoint a guardian for a chimpanzee in a court case. From the story in Nature Network:An Austrian judge turned down a request this week to appoint a woman as legal guardian of a chimpanzee. The decision is a blow to a growing movement in Europe attempting to give apes some of the legal rights of humans, such as protection from being owned...In a trustee court hearing on 24 April, the judge denied the request. She said that if she appointed a legal guardian for a chimp, then this might create the public perception that humans with court-appointed legal guardians are at the same level as animals.
But of course, that is precisely what animal liberationists believe. Moreover, just because one judge had good sense, doesn't mean that the nation of Spain does. As the story notes, that country may be on the verge of granting human-type rights to great apes. If so, legal attempts such as this failed one, would only multiply. And remember, a Brazilian judge recently awarded a (dead) chimpanzee a writ of habeas corpus.
Animal liberationists and others are ideologically driven to destroy human exceptionalism as the reigning value of organized society. Expect continued efforts to elevate animals to the level of humans in courts, legislatures, and among the folk, and actions large and small, legal and illegal, to impede the proper and humane use of animals by humans. This struggle--which is really about human self definition since the animals don't even comprehend what is going on--has barely just begun.
Yes, of course, there will be an appeal.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:48 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
Wesley,
I'm totally naiive on this subject, but would it follow that if apes were granted some sort of rights and personal status that we might see an effort to integrate them into human society? I know it's a bizarre question, but I wonder what the consequences of personhood rights would be.
Just what the judge said. Plus, humans--ostensibly acting on behalf of the apes--suing to shut down medical research, or for damages for other reasons. It would undermine human self perception as an exceptional species with duties as well as rights.
Just a follow-up, I finished NEXT by Michael Crichton. The book follows several genetic engineering projects gone amuck.
Several of which involved animals with human intelligence.
My feelings in animal personhood aren't changed, especially with the creatures of higher intelligence. I don't see a problem with it, they feel pain in a very similar way to humans. If we consider ourselves "civilized", then let us be civil to our fellow creatures.
Royale: You just exercised human exceptionalism by engaging in moral analysis, in which you appear to want to treat chimps as if they were children or developmentally disabled humans. No other species on earth has ever been able to do what you just did in the billions of years that earth has been here. As far as we know, your analysis might be unique in the universe from the beginning of time, except among your fellow humans.
Of course we should treat animals as civilized people would. This is an essential duty imposed by our exceptionalism.
If we come to see ourselves as not exceptional, indeed as merely one among the other animals, our entire self concept will be altered radically, to the detriment of ourselves, to be sure, and perhaps, other fauna (since we will now be deemed just another animal in the forest). That could have profound consequences.
The more I think about this, and when someone as smart and modern as you goes down that path, the more urgent I think it is to defend human exceptionalism. I hope to ratchet it up, and may make that the most important agenda item for the balance of my working life.
I am not disagreeing with human exceptionalim, in fact, I quite agree with it.
But when combined with the rights we give "the dignity of life," then I say it is a floor, not a ceiling.
My goal isn't to undermine human worth, far from it. But rather, because humans are special we should treat the rest of nature better than nature treats humanity.
I don't have a problem with giving chimps guardianship and exploring other means of medical research if it can avoid chimps pain.
Pondering it over...I think you it undercuts human exceptionalism to extend rights typically viewed as human to other species?
If so, that's a fair criticism and I don't have a direct response to it.
On a few side notes - Crighton's book was awful and you did convince me that ASCs are far better use of our research time than ESCs.
I like pondering. Yes, that is one of my points.
I thought NEXT was awful, too. I didn't finish it, even though I agree with the thrust of Crichton's views. It was way too preachy (that's my job) and it didn't have a strong protagonist.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home